Section 70

Some documents (like wills or certain deeds) require attestation by law, meaning witnesses must see them signed. Memories fade, witnesses become hostile, or die, or simply forget details over the years between signing and a court case. If the law demanded that only the attesting witness's word could prove execution, a document could become impossible to prove through no fault of the person relying on it. This rule, carried forward from the old Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Section 71) into the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, ensures that genuine documents aren't defeated merely because a witness's memory or cooperation fails.

Courts have long read this provision as a safety valve to the requirement (found in a related provision) that documents needing legal attestation must first be proved through an attesting witness where possible. When such a witness turns hostile, denies the signing, or genuinely cannot recall it, courts have allowed proof through other means — such as testimony of another person present at signing, expert comparison of handwriting or signatures, or surrounding circumstantial evidence. Courts have emphasized that this section does not lower the standard of proof; it only widens the type of evidence that can be used once the primary witness route fails.

• Myth: If the attesting witness denies signing, the document is automatically invalid or fake.
  Fact: The law allows the document's execution to still be proved through other evidence, such as another witness, an expert, or circumstantial proof — the witness's denial or forgetfulness doesn't end the matter.
• Myth: This provision lowers the standard of proof needed for such documents.
  Fact: Courts have clarified it only widens the acceptable sources of evidence; the document must still be proved to the court's satisfaction through credible evidence.