​​Indian Evidence Law – Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023-Proof of Contents of Documents [Section 56]
Section 56: Rule Regarding Proof of ContentsSection 56 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 provides that the contents of documents may be proved either by primary evidence or by secondary evidence. There is no other legally recognised mode for proving the contents of a document.

(a) Scope and Object of Section 56
The purpose of producing a document before the Court is to rely upon the truth of the statements contained in it. Whenever a document is produced in evidence, the Court is required to consider three distinct questions:

1. Whether the document is genuine?
2. What are the contents of the document?
3. Whether the statements contained in the document are true?

Each of these questions is proved by different modes of evidence.

Threefold Analysis Explained
Suppose a letter written by A is produced before the Court stating that B murdered C. The issues arising would be:

1. Whether the letter was written by A
   • This concerns the genuineness of the document.
   • It can be proved by oral evidence, such as examining A.
2. What does the letter contain
   • This concerns the contents of the document.
   • It can be proved only by producing the document itself or its legally admissible copy.
   • If the original letter is produced, primary evidence is given.
   • If a permitted copy is produced, secondary evidence is given.
3. Whether the statement that B murdered C is true
   • This concerns the truth of the contents, not the contents themselves.
   • It must be proved by independent oral or other substantive evidence, not merely by producing the document.

Distinction Between Proof of Contents and Proof of Truth

• Contents of a document are proved only by primary or secondary evidence.
• Truth of the statements contained in the document is proved by oral or other substantive evidence.
• Producing a document does not prove the truth of its contents; it only proves what the document states.

Illustration: Newspaper Report
The production of newspapers reporting that a cricket match was played does not prove that the match was actually played. It merely proves what the newspaper contains. To prove that the match was played, a person who witnessed the match must give evidence.
This principle flows from a combined reading of Section 54 and Sections 56 to 66 of the Adhiniyam.

Mode of Proving Contents of Documents
The contents of documents can be proved only in the following two ways:

1. By Primary Evidence – by producing the original document
2. By Secondary Evidence – by producing a legally admissible copy
3. There is no third method recognised under law for proving the contents of documents.

Case LawIn Chander Kanta Ben v. Vadilal Baplal, the Court held that where entries in account books were sought to be proved but:

• No person appeared to support the entries, and
• No basic vouchers or supporting documents were produced,

the evidence was not admissible. Mere production of account entries without proper proof of their contents and reliability was held to be insufficient.

Exam-Ready Conclusion
Section 56 clearly draws a distinction between proof of the contents of a document and proof of the truth of its contents, permitting the former to be proved only through primary or secondary evidence, and the latter through independent substantive evidence.

Indian Evidence Law – Primary Evidence under Section 57 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023
The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (“BSA”) is India’s current general evidence statute for courts, enacted as Act 47 of 2023 and brought into force on 1 July 2024. 1 Its stated legislative purpose is “to consolidate and to provide for general rules and principles of evidence for fair trial.” 
Within the BSA’s scheme, Section 57 (Primary evidence) sits at the core of documentary proof: it defines what counts as “primary evidence,” and then expands that definition through Explanations 1–7—including several new explanations addressing electronic/digital records and video recordings. 
Legal framework and statutory setting
The BSA’s foundational definitions matter because they determine what the Act treats as “documents” and “evidence.” The statute defines “document” broadly to include records on physical media and expressly includes “electronic and digital records”; it also defines “evidence” to include both (i) witness statements (including those “given electronically”) and (ii) documents “including electronic or digital records” produced for the court’s inspection. 
This drafting choice links directly to Section 57. By first recognizing electronic/digital records as “documents,” the Act can then treat certain electronic outputs and stored digital records as primary (rather than merely secondary) evidence under the Section 57 explanations. 
Institutionally, the authoritative published text used below is the official Gazette publication hosted by the , which reproduces the enacted BSA provisions.
What Section 57 establishes
Core definition
Section 57 gives a direct, classical definition: primary evidence is “the document itself” produced for the court’s inspection.  This is immediately preceded by Section 56, which states that the “contents of documents” may be proved by “primary” or “secondary” evidence—signalling a two-track structure: prefer primary evidence, fall back on secondary evidence only when permitted. 

Explanations 1–3: traditional “originals” in multiple-document situations
Section 57 then addresses common documentary realities:

• Executed in several parts (Explanation 1): if a document is executed in several parts, each part is primary evidence of the document. 
• Executed in counterpart (Explanation 2): where a document is executed in counterparts (each executed by one or some parties only), each counterpart is primary evidence as against the party executing it. 
• Uniform process (Explanation 3): where multiple documents are made by one uniform process (printing/lithography/photography), each is primary evidence of the contents of the rest; but if they are all copies of a common original, they are not primary evidence of the contents of that original. 

The Act also includes an illustration about placards printed at one time from one original to show what Explanation 3 means in practice. 

Explanations 4–7: the digital expansion
A key modernization is the addition of four explanations focused on electronic/digital records and video recordings:

• Explanation 4: where an electronic/digital record is created or stored simultaneously or sequentially in multiple files, each file is primary evidence. 
• Explanation 5: where an electronic/digital record is produced from “proper custody,” it is primary evidence unless disputed. 
• Explanation 6: where a video recording is simultaneously stored electronically and transmitted/broadcast/transferred, each stored recording is primary evidence. 
• Explanation 7: where an electronic/digital record is stored in multiple storage spaces in a computer resource (including temporary files), each such automated storage is primary evidence. 

Relationship with Sections 58–60: why “primary” stays the baseline
Section 57 does not operate in isolation. Immediately afterward:

• Section 58 lists what “secondary evidence includes” (certified copies, mechanical copies, copies compared with originals, counterparts against non-executing parties, oral accounts of contents, oral admissions, written admissions, etc.). 
• Section 59 lays down the general rule: documents “shall be proved by primary evidence” except where the Act provides otherwise. 
• Section 60 enumerates the situations in which secondary evidence may be given (loss/destruction, possession by adverse party, public documents where certified copies are permitted, voluminous records, and so on), and clarifies what kind of secondary evidence is admissible under each clause. 

So, Section 57 supplies the definition of the preferred proof; Sections 59–60 supply the rule-and-exceptions logic that drives admissibility choices in real disputes. 

Rationale and doctrinal foundations of the “document itself” rule
Indian documentary-evidence doctrine is usually explained through the “best evidence” principle: when the original document exists and can be produced, it is treated as the best available proof of its contents, and legal systems typically insist on it to reduce the risk of error, alteration, or misdescription. This preference is concretely expressed in the BSA through (i) Section 59’s rule requiring primary evidence and (ii) the statutory architecture that allows secondary evidence only in specifically justified situations. 

The approach is also reinforced structurally by the BSA’s provisions empowering judges to order production of documents, while simultaneously indicating that the judge should not “dispense with primary evidence of any document” except in the cases already excepted by the Act.

Historically, this framework closely tracks the earlier 1872 statute. Under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 62 defined primary evidence in the same “document itself produced for inspection” terms, with the same core explanations and the same placard illustration.  The BSA largely retains that architecture for paper-era documents and then extends it for the digital era through Explanations 4–7. 

Commentary from the has long emphasized that once “document” expands to include electronic forms, authenticity and reliability concerns become central; the Commission noted that computer-generated information may need additional assurance about system security and reliability. This concern is one reason modern evidence rules often distinguish between (a) status as a “document,” (b) admissibility conditions, and (c) weight/probative value—a distinction courts repeatedly stress in electronic evidence disputes. 

Traditional “document originals” under Explanations 1–3
Documents executed in several parts and the status of carbon/duplicate originals
Explanation 1 recognizes that some documents are executed in multiple signed parts, each intended to function as an original (for instance, two identical signed counterparts each kept by a different party). 

A leading illustration of this logic in case law comes from the 2 in Mohinder Singh v. Jaswant Kaur (D) through LRs (Civil Appeal No. 6706/2013, order dated 11 September 2019), where the Court held that a signed carbon copy prepared in the same process as the original can assume the character of an original under the classical primary-evidence rule, and the High Court’s contrary view was “absolutely incorrect.” 

This decision is doctrinally important for Section 57 analysis because Section 57’s Explanation 1 is the BSA successor to the earlier Section 62 structure: the central question becomes whether the copy was executed as part of the same execution process and intended to operate as an original. 

Counterparts and the “as against the executing party” caveat
Explanation 2 draws a careful line: a counterpart is primary evidence against the party who executed it, but it is not automatically primary evidence against a non-executing party.  This is why Section 58 expressly lists “counterparts of documents as against the parties who did not execute them” as a form of secondary evidence, reflecting that counterpart status can change depending on who it is being proved against. 

Uniform-process documents versus mechanical copies: clarifying a common confusion
Student confusion often arises between:

• Section 57 Explanation 3 (uniform process): multiple documents all made by a uniform process may be primary evidence of each other (e.g., multiple identical placards printed at the same time), but not of the “common original” they were made from. 
• Section 58(ii) (mechanical processes): “copies made from the original by mechanical processes” ensuring accuracy—classic examples include photocopies or similar reproductions—are treated as secondary evidence. 

The statute’s own illustration is the cleanest way to see the distinction. If the dispute is about what a particular placard said, any one placard can prove the contents of the others (primary evidence of each other), but none proves the contents of the “original” from which the print run was generated.  If instead the dispute is about the original source document (say, the original deed), then a mechanically produced copy generally sits in the “secondary evidence” bucket unless the Act’s secondary-evidence gateways are satisfied. 

This continuity is visible when compared to the earlier Indian Evidence Act: its Section 62/63 used the same conceptual separation between “uniform process” originals (primary among themselves) and “mechanical copies” (secondary evidence). 

Electronic and video primary evidence under Explanations 4–7
What changed and why it matters
A major policy objective of the BSA is to modernize evidentiary treatment of digital material.  The BSA formally treats electronic/digital records as “documents” and then expands the category of what counts as “primary evidence” in the electronic context—especially where the same record exists across multiple files, devices, or storage spaces due to routine digital replication. 
The policy framing presented by  highlights the same shift: the older Evidence Act’s electronic-record regime largely operated through the special admissibility path for electronic records, while the BSA clarifies that certain electronic records (including those produced from “proper custody,” and those stored across multiple files) will be treated as primary evidence unless disputed. 

Interaction with Sections 61–63: “primary” does not eliminate admissibility conditions
Two statutory moves occur simultaneously:

1. Section 61 prohibits denying admissibility merely because a record is electronic/digital and states that such record shall have the same legal effect as other documents, subject to Section 63. 
2. Section 63 then provides a detailed rule for when “computer output” (printed/stored/recorded/copied electronic information) will be deemed a document and admissible, contingent on listed conditions, and—critically—requires a certificate to be submitted along with the electronic record “at each instance” it is submitted for admission. 

On its face, then, BSA Section 57’s “primary evidence” expansions cannot be read as a blanket waiver of authentication/admissibility safeguards for electronic evidence; the statute expressly routes electronic-record proof through Section 63’s conditions when the evidence being produced is “computer output.” 

The certificate regime and its evolution from Section 65B case law
The Supreme Court’s pre‑BSA jurisprudence under the old Evidence Act converged on a strict approach: in Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer, the Court treated Section 65B certification as central to admissibility of electronic records when the original device is not itself produced. 10 The position was re‑affirmed and clarified by a larger bench in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal, which emphasized the Section 65B(4) certificate requirement as a condition precedent for admitting electronic evidence in many practical situations. 

The BSA’s Section 63 is structurally similar to the old Section 65B framework: it defines “computer output,” lists operational conditions for regular use, proper functioning, ordinary-course feeding of information, and then requires a certificate describing production particulars. 

A prominent practitioner analysis notes that BSA Sections 62–63 (the electronic evidence provisions) “retain” the core admissibility criteria but add features that may make compliance more onerous—such as producing the certificate at every instance of submission and requiring certification by relevant persons and an expert—while also raising questions about how the expanded “primary evidence” status for multiple stored copies interacts with the certificate requirement. 

“Proper custody” in Explanation 5: a powerful phrase with interpretive pressure
Explanation 5 states: if an electronic/digital record is produced from “proper custody,” it is primary evidence unless disputed. 
The Act does define “proper custody” in the presumptions chapter for certain contexts. For instance, it explains that documents/electronic records are in proper custody when they are kept in the required place and looked after by the required person, while also allowing custody to be treated as proper if legitimate origin is shown. 
However, the presence of this definition in the presumptions provisions creates an interpretive question: does that definition automatically govern Explanation 5, or will courts develop a more chain‑of‑custody and integrity‑focused meaning for “proper custody” in the electronic primary‑evidence context? A practitioner note from flags chain‑of‑custody and tampering concerns in relation to Explanation 5, referencing institutional scrutiny during legislative review and highlighting that “proper custody” may become a contested hinge in litigation. 

This is not a technicality: making electronic records “primary” when produced from proper custody shifts disputes from “is it admissible at all?” to “is it authentic / untampered / attributable?”, and courts may respond by demanding stronger foundational proof when the opposing side disputes integrity. 

Practical implications for proving and challenging primary evidence
Producing primary evidence is not the end of proof
Section 57 answers what counts as primary evidence; it does not automatically prove authorship, execution, or genuineness in contested cases. The Law Commission’s caution—expanded definitions increase the difficulty of demonstrating authenticity—captures this well, especially for computer‑generated or electronically stored information. 

Accordingly, even where Section 57 classifies something as “primary,” courts typically still require foundational proof tailored to the document type (e.g., proof of signature/handwriting/attestation where required, or system and integrity proof for electronic records). The BSA’s insistence that electronic-record proof is “subject to” Section 63 underscores that classification as “document/primary” and the satisfaction of admissibility conditions are distinct analytical steps. 

Carbon-copy and duplicate-original disputes: the Mohinder Singh takeaway
Where parties executed documents using carbon processes or duplicate “originals,” the key litigation question becomes whether the proffered document is a true executed original (primary) or merely a copy (secondary). The Supreme Court’s order in Mohinder Singh stresses that a carbon copy prepared in the same process and signed by both parties can be treated as an original—an approach aligned with Section 57’s focus on execution-in-several-parts situations. 
Procedure: why objections to “mode of proof” must be timely
Even in a Section 57‑centric dispute, procedure matters. Indian courts draw a difference between (a) objections to inherent inadmissibility and (b) objections to mode of proof / irregular proof. The latter generally must be raised when the document is tendered, so that defects can be cured (for example, by producing the correct original or by laying proper foundation for secondary evidence). 
This principle is especially important in primary‑vs‑secondary controversies because the failure to object at the right time can constrain later challenges and can prevent the opposing party from curing proof defects at trial. 

Electronic primary evidence after the BSA: likely litigation patterns
Based on the enacted text, early BSA litigation on Section 57 is likely to consolidate around three recurring disputes:

1. “Primary” classification disputes: whether a particular electronic artefact is truly within Explanations 4–7 (e.g., whether a cached file or temporary copy should count as a primary evidence “storage space”). 
2. Custody/integrity disputes: what “proper custody” must look like, and what evidentiary showing is needed once the record is “disputed.” 
3. Certificate boundary disputes: when Section 63 certification is mandatory versus when direct production of an original device/record is enough—an issue already central to Arjun Panditrao under the old Evidence Act and flagged as an uncertainty under the BSA in practitioner commentary.

Malaysian Criminal Law- Islamic Law -Sodomy (Liwat) under Islamic Law and Malaysian Law


Question 1




What is meant by sodomy in Islamic law?


Answer:
Sodomy refers to anal sexual intercourse between two males. In Islamic teachings, it is regarded as an unnatural sexual act committed for sexual gratification and is considered destructive to morality, social order, and human nature.

Question 2




What is the Qur’anic basis for the prohibition of sodomy?


Answer:
The prohibition is derived from Qur’anic narratives concerning the people of Prophet Lut (AS). Allah condemns their conduct for engaging in sexual relations with men instead of women, describing it as a form of lewdness unprecedented among earlier communities and as conduct that exceeds moral limits (Surah al-A‘raf 7:80–81; Surah Ash-Shu‘ara 26:165–166).

Question 3




What do the Hadiths say about sodomy?


Answer:
Several Hadiths strongly condemn sodomy. The Prophet (SAW) described same-sex acts as a grave wrongdoing and expressed fear for his community regarding the acts of the people of Lut. Other narrations state that those who engage in such acts incur Allah’s curse. These Hadiths form the moral and legal basis for the prohibition of sodomy in Islam.

Question 4




How does Islam view sodomy in relation to human nature?


Answer:
Islam views sodomy as contrary to human nature (fitrah). Human beings are created in complementary pairs—male and female—and moral, emotional, and physical fulfilment is achieved through heterosexual marriage. Homosexual conduct is therefore seen as contradicting the natural order established by Allah.

Question 5




Is sodomy treated as a hadd offence or a ta‘zīr offence in Islamic law?


Answer:
There is juristic disagreement:

• Imam Malik, Imam Shafi‘i, Imam Ahmad, and the Zaydi school regard sodomy as a hadd offence equivalent to zina, relying on Hadiths that prescribe severe punishment.
• Imam Abu Hanifah considers sodomy a ta‘zīr offence, not a hadd offence, meaning punishment is discretionary and determined by the authority.

Question 6




What is the position on sodomy under Malaysian Syariah law?


Answer:
Under section 25 of the Syariah Criminal Offences (Federal Territories) Act 1997, sodomy is criminalised as liwat.

Question 7




How is “liwat” defined under Malaysian Syariah law?


Answer:
Section 2 of the Syariah Criminal Offences (Federal Territories) Act 1997 defines liwat as sexual relations between male persons.

Question 8




What is the punishment for liwat under section 25 of the 1997 Act?


Answer:
Upon conviction, an offender is liable to:

• A fine not exceeding RM5,000, or
• Imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years, or
• Whipping not exceeding six strokes, or
• Any combination of the above.

Question 9




How does sodomy under Syariah law relate to offences under the Penal Code?


Answer:
The offence of liwat under Syariah law overlaps with offences under the Penal Code, particularly:

• Section 377A (sexual intercourse against the order of nature), and
• Section 377D (outrages on decency).

However, the Penal Code provisions are broader in scope than the Syariah offence of liwat.

Question 10




What was decided in Sukma Darmawan Sasmitaat Madja v Ketua Pengarah Penjara Malaysia?


Answer:
The court held that when an act constitutes an offence under the Penal Code, the civil courts retain jurisdiction, even if the conduct may also be described using Syariah terminology. The Sessions Court was competent to try the offence under section 377D of the Penal Code, as it was not trying an offence of liwat under Syariah law.

Question 11




What is the effect of the Federal Court decision in Iki Putra bin Mubarrak v Kerajaan Negeri Selangor on sodomy offences?


Answer:
The Federal Court ruled that state Syariah provisions criminalising unnatural sex were unconstitutional because criminal law falls under Parliament’s legislative power. As a result, state Syariah enactments creating offences that overlap with federal criminal law may be invalid.

Question 12




What is the overall legal position on sodomy in Malaysia?


Answer:
While sodomy is condemned under Islamic law and addressed in Syariah enactments, its enforcement in Malaysia is subject to constitutional limits. Where conduct falls within the Penal Code, civil courts have jurisdiction, and Syariah provisions must not encroach upon Parliament’s exclusive power over criminal law.


Exam Tip (One-liner)

Sodomy (liwat) is morally condemned in Islam, juristically disputed as hadd or ta‘zīr, and constitutionally constrained in Malaysia due to Parliament’s exclusive power over criminal law.

Kembaraxtra-Islamic Law-Prostitution under Islamic Law, Penal Code and Syariah Law in Malaysia
​

Question 1

What is the Islamic position on prostitution?


Answer:
Islam strictly prohibits prostitution as it violates the sanctity of life, honour, dignity, and chastity. The Qur’an and the teachings of the Prophet (SAW) emphasise the protection of human life, property, and honour. Since all promiscuous and immoral sexual relationships are forbidden in Islam, prostitution is regarded as a serious offence, and a Muslim who commits it cannot escape punishment.

Question 2




What Qur’anic and Prophetic principles support the prohibition of prostitution?


Answer:
The prohibition is supported by Qur’anic injunctions that safeguard human life and dignity, such as Surah al-An‘am (6):151, which declares human life sacred. Additionally, the Prophet (SAW) emphasised that Muslims’ lives, property, and honour are sacred and must not be violated. These principles extend to protecting sexual morality and chastity.


Question 3




How is prostitution generally defined?


Answer:
Prostitution refers to offering one’s body for sexual gratification in return for payment, whether in money or in kind. Although the Penal Code does not expressly define prostitution, dictionaries describe it as engaging in sexual activity for payment or debasing oneself for personal gain.


Question 4




What provisions under the Penal Code regulate prostitution in Malaysia?


Answer:
While the Penal Code does not define prostitution, it criminalises related activities such as:

• Exploiting another person for prostitution,
• Living on or trading in prostitution, and
• Soliciting for prostitution,
  under sections 372, 372A, and 372B.
  The suppression of brothels is governed by section 373 of the Penal Code.

Question 5




Is prostitution an offence under Syariah law in Malaysia?


Answer:
Yes. Prostitution is a criminal offence under section 21 of the Syariah Criminal Offences (Federal Territories) Act 1997, which applies to Muslims.



Question 6




What offence is committed by a woman who prostitutes herself under Syariah law?


Answer:
Under section 21(1), any woman who prostitutes herself commits an offence and may, upon conviction, be punished with:

• A fine not exceeding RM5,000, or
• Imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years, or
• Whipping not exceeding six strokes, or
• Any combination of the above.

Question 7




What offence is committed by a person who prostitutes his wife or female child?


Answer:
Under section 21(2), any person who prostitutes, causes, or allows his wife or a female child under his care to prostitute herself commits an offence. The punishment is the same as for self-prostitution:

• Fine up to RM5,000,
• Imprisonment up to three years,
• Whipping up to six strokes, or
• Any combination thereof.

Question 8




Who is a muncikari under Syariah law?


Answer:
A muncikari is defined as a person who acts as a procurer or intermediary between a male and a female for purposes contrary to Islamic law, typically facilitating prostitution.


Question 9




What is the punishment for acting as a muncikari?


Answer:
Under section 22 of the Syariah Criminal Offences (Federal Territories) Act 1997, a person who acts as a muncikari is liable upon conviction to:

• A fine not exceeding RM5,000, or
• Imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years, or
• Whipping not exceeding six strokes, or
• Any combination thereof.

Question 10




Why is prostitution treated seriously under both civil and Syariah law?


Answer:
Prostitution is treated seriously because it undermines public morality, personal dignity, and social order. Civil law focuses on preventing exploitation and public harm, while Syariah law emphasises the protection of chastity, honour, and moral values among Muslims.


Exam Tip (One-liner)

Prostitution is criminalised under both the Penal Code and Syariah law, but while civil law targets exploitation and brothel-related activities, Syariah law directly penalises the act itself and those who facilitate it.

Indian Evidence Law – Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023Primary Evidence [Section 57]

Section 57: Meaning of Primary Evidence
​Section 57 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 defines primary evidence as the document itself produced before the Court for inspection. The expression “itself” signifies that the original document or original data must be produced by the party relying upon it.
The purpose of producing primary evidence is to enable the Court to directly inspect the originality, authenticity, and contents of the document. This provision is founded on the Best Evidence Rule, which requires that the best available evidence within the power and possession of the party must be placed before the Court.
As a general rule, the contents of a written document must be proved by the document itself so long as it exists. Where documentary evidence is available, oral evidence cannot substitute it and carries no evidentiary weight.
IllustrationWhere the dispute relates to the contents of a contract, sale deed, or gift deed and the document itself is produced before the Court, such document constitutes primary evidence.

(a) Primary Evidence Where a Document Is Executed in Several Parts(Explanation 1)
Where a document is executed in several identical parts, each part constitutes primary evidence of the document. Such execution is generally done for convenience and record-keeping.
Judicially, carbon copies prepared through the same process as the original and signed by the parties have been recognised as original documents and treated as primary evidence.
Examples

• Identical copies of agreements (lease, partnership, settlement agreements) signed by all parties
• Duplicate original property deeds executed and sealed by both parties
• Multiple signed copies of a will created for safekeeping
• Identical original copies of powers of attorney

In all such cases, each signed copy is primary evidence.

(b) Primary Evidence Where a Document Is Executed in Counterparts(Explanation 2)
Where a document is executed in counterparts, each counterpart is signed by one or some of the parties and exchanged between them.

• Each counterpart is primary evidence against the party who executed it
• As against a party who did not execute it, the same counterpart constitutes secondary evidence

This method of execution is commonly adopted where two parties execute separate but identical instruments, such as Patta and Qabuliat.
IllustrationAn instrument signed by A and delivered to B is:

• Primary evidence against A
• Secondary evidence against B

Similarly, the instrument signed by B is primary evidence against B and secondary evidence against A.

(c) Primary Evidence Where Documents Are Made by One Uniform Process(Explanation 3)
Where several documents are produced by one uniform process, such as printing, lithography, or photography, each document is primary evidence of the contents of the others.
However, where all such documents are merely copies of a common original, they do not constitute primary evidence of the original document, though they may be primary evidence inter se.
Examples

1. Multiple printed copies made from the same original manuscript are primary evidence of each other.
2. Several photocopies of a document are primary evidence of one another but secondary evidence of the original.
3. Placards printed at one time from a single original—any placard is primary evidence of the contents of another, but not of the original.

(d) Primary Evidence of Electronic or Digital Records Stored in Multiple Files(Explanation 4 – Newly Inserted)
Where an electronic or digital record is created or stored simultaneously or sequentially in multiple files, each such file is treated as primary evidence.
Examples

• Database entries stored across multiple tables
• Cloud storage files stored across different servers
• Digital receipts generated in multiple formats (PDF, XML, JSON)
• Electronic medical records stored in multiple modules
• Financial statements generated in multiple formats
• Transaction logs stored in main, backup, and audit logs
• Emails stored in separate databases or folders

(e) Primary Evidence Where Electronic or Digital Record Is Produced from Proper Custody(Explanation 5 – Newly Inserted)
Where an electronic or digital record is produced from proper custody, it shall be treated as primary evidence, unless its authenticity is disputed.
Examples

• Call Detail Records produced by telecom authorities
• Electronic bank statements certified by authorized officers
• CCTV footage produced from secure storage
• Certified email records from service providers
• Digital forensic reports from accredited laboratories
• Electronic medical records from hospital databases
• GPS location data from service providers
• Social media records produced by platforms
• ATM transaction records produced by banks
• Digitally signed emails, provided the signature is verified and untampered

(f) Primary Evidence of Video Recordings Stored and Transmitted Simultaneously(Explanation 6)
Where a video recording is simultaneously stored in electronic form and transmitted, broadcast, or transferred, each stored recording constitutes primary evidence.
Examples

• Court proceedings recorded and live-streamed
• Online meetings recorded and transmitted
• Webinars recorded and broadcast live
• Live television broadcasts
• Live sports event recordings
• Reality TV shows recorded and broadcast
• CCTV surveillance footage
• Police body camera recordings
• Traffic monitoring footage

(g) Primary Evidence Where Electronic Record Is Stored in Multiple Storage Spaces(Explanation 7 – Newly Inserted)
Where an electronic or digital record is stored in multiple storage spaces within a computer resource, each automated storage, including temporary files, is treated as primary evidence.
Examples

• Data backups stored in multiple locations
• Data mirroring systems
• Email archiving systems
• Documents stored across multiple cloud platforms
• Distributed databases
• Blockchain-based data storage systems

Conclusion (Exam-Ready)
Primary evidence under Section 57 represents the original and best form of proof of documentary and electronic records, ensuring authenticity, reliability, and direct judicial inspection under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.

​Indian Evidence Law – Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023Secondary Evidence [Section 58]
Section 58: Meaning and Nature of Secondary Evidence
Section 58 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 provides an inclusive definition of secondary evidence. The use of the word “includes” makes it clear that the provision is not exhaustive, and it allows courts sufficient flexibility to admit other forms of secondary evidence that may not strictly fall within the enumerated categories, provided the statutory conditions are satisfied.
Secondary evidence becomes relevant only when primary evidence under Section 57 cannot be produced, and its admissibility is governed by the conditions laid down in Section 60.

Forms of Secondary Evidence under Section 58
Section 58 recognises the following kinds of secondary evidence:

1. Certified copies issued in accordance with law
2. Copies made from the original by mechanical processes ensuring accuracy
3. Copies made from or compared with the original
4. Counterparts of documents against parties who did not execute them
5. Oral accounts of the contents of a document
6. Oral admissions
7. Written admissions
8. Evidence of a person who has examined a document

Judicial interpretation and the Law Commission of India have clarified that:

• Clauses (i), (ii) and (iii) relate to copies of documents
• Clause (iv) relates to counterparts
• Clause (v) relates to oral accounts of contents

Relationship Between Section 57 (Explanation 3) and Section 58(ii)Section 57 (Explanation 3): Uniform Process

• Where several documents are produced by one uniform process (such as printing, lithography, or photography), each document is primary evidence of the contents of the others, provided they are original products of the same process.
• However, where such documents are merely copies derived from a common original, they do not constitute primary evidence of the contents of that original.

Section 58(ii): Mechanical Process

• Section 58(ii) covers copies made from the original by mechanical or electronic processes which themselves ensure the accuracy of the copy.
• It also includes copies compared with such mechanically produced copies.
• Printing, lithography, photography, photocopying, scanning, microfilm, microfiche, CDs, DVDs, pen drives, and similar electronic reproductions fall within this clause.

Thus, while documents produced by a uniform original process may amount to primary evidence under Section 57, copies produced mechanically from an existing original fall within the scope of secondary evidence under Section 58(ii).

(a) Scope of Section 58

• Section 58 is inclusive, not exhaustive.
• It must be read together with Section 57 (Primary Evidence) and Section 60 (Conditions for admissibility).
• Secondary evidence is admissible only when a legally recognised ground for non-production of the original is proved.
• Clauses (ii) and (iv) of Section 58 must be interpreted in light of the definition of primary evidence under Section 57.

(b) Certified Copies as Secondary Evidence
Certified copies issued under the provisions of law constitute valid secondary evidence.
Essential Requirements of Certified CopiesFor a certified copy to be admissible:

• It must be issued by a public officer
• The officer must have lawful custody of the public document
• The copy must be issued to a person entitled to inspect
• It must be issued upon payment of prescribed fees
• It must bear a certificate stating that it is a true copy, along with:
  • Date
  • Name and official designation of the officer
• It must be sealed, wherever the law so requires

Such certified copies carry a rebuttable presumption of genuineness under Section 78 of the Adhiniyam.
Courts have consistently held that certified copies of registered documents, including sale deeds, are admissible as secondary evidence where the original is unavailable for valid reasons.

(c) Copies Made by Mechanical Processes

• Mechanical reproduction of a document amounts to secondary evidence when the process ensures accuracy.
• Examples include:
  • Photographs
  • Photocopies
  • Scanned copies
  • Digital copies stored in CDs, DVDs, pen drives
  • Microfilm or microfiche
  • Digitally printed or reproduced records

However, the party relying on such evidence must explain:

• The circumstances in which the copy was prepared, and
• Who was in possession of the original at the relevant time.

Failure to establish entitlement under Section 60 renders such evidence inadmissible.

(d) Copies Made From or Compared With the Original

• A copy neither made from nor compared with the original is inadmissible.
• A copy of a copy may still be admissible if it is subsequently compared with the original.
• A Xerox copy, though not primary evidence, becomes admissible secondary evidence once duly compared with the original.
• Certification by a notary that the copy was compared with the original strengthens its evidentiary value.

(e) Counterparts of Documents

• A counterpart of a document is:
  • Primary evidence against the party who executed it
  • Secondary evidence against the party who did not execute it

This principle flows directly from Section 57 (Explanation 2).

(f) Oral Accounts of Contents of Documents

• Oral evidence of the contents of a document given by a person who has read the document is secondary evidence.
• Mere physical sight of a document without reading it is insufficient.
• Oral accounts of copies or photographs of a document do not amount to secondary evidence of the original.

(g) Admissions as Secondary Evidence

• Oral admissions and written admissions relating to the contents of a document are recognised forms of secondary evidence under Section 58.

(h) Evidence of Skilled Persons

• Where documents are voluminous and cannot be conveniently examined by the court, evidence of a skilled person who has examined them is admissible as secondary evidence.
• Examples include:
  • Valuation reports by property evaluators
  • Certificates issued by jewellers
  • Hash value certificates or expert reports relating to electronic records

(i) Equal Status of All Categories

• All categories of secondary evidence under Section 58 are of equal evidentiary status.
• There is no hierarchy or gradation among them.
• One form of secondary evidence need not be exhausted before another is relied upon, provided admissibility conditions are satisfied.

Exam-Ready Conclusion
Section 58 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 provides an inclusive framework for secondary evidence, permitting various documentary substitutes, subject to strict compliance with statutory conditions and judicial scrutiny.

Kembaraxtra-Islamic Law-Khalwat (Proximity) under Islamic Law and Malaysian Syariah Law

Question 1

What is meant by khalwat in Islamic law?


Answer:
Khalwat refers to a situation where a man and a woman who are not married to each other and not mahram are found together in seclusion or in circumstances that may give rise to a reasonable suspicion of immoral conduct. Islam prohibits such proximity as it may lead to immoral acts.

Question 2

What is the Islamic basis for the prohibition of khalwat?


Answer:
The prohibition of khalwat is based on the saying of the Prophet (SAW):


“Whoever believes in Allah and the Last Day must never be in proximity with a woman without there being a mahram with her, for otherwise Satan will be the third person with them.”


This reflects Islam’s preventive approach in safeguarding morality by avoiding situations that may lead to sinful behaviour.

Question 3

Who is considered a mahram in Islamic law?


Answer:
A mahram is a person with whom marriage is permanently prohibited. This includes:

• Husband
• Father, grandfather
• Son, grandson
• Brother
• Uncle (father’s or mother’s side)
• Nephews
• Foster relatives through suckling

The prohibited degrees of marriage are laid down in Surah Al-Nisa (4): 22–24.

Question 4

What circumstances amount to the offence of khalwat?


Answer:
An offence of khalwat arises when:

• A man and a woman are alone together;
• They are not husband and wife and not mahram;
• They are found in a secluded place, house, or room; and
• The circumstances give rise to a reasonable suspicion that they were engaged in immoral acts.

Question 5

What is the legal provision governing khalwat in Malaysia?


Answer:
Khalwat is governed by section 27 of the Syariah Criminal Offences (Federal Territories) Act 1997, which criminalises close proximity between non-mahram men and women in suspicious circumstances.


Question 6

What are the essential elements of the offence under section 27?


Answer:
The prosecution must prove:

1. The accused is a man or woman;
2. Found together with a person of the opposite sex;
3. They are not spouses and not mahram;
4. The place is secluded (house, room, or similar); and
5. The circumstances give rise to suspicion of immoral conduct.

Question 7

What is the punishment for khalwat under the Syariah Criminal Offences (Federal Territories) Act 1997?


Answer:
Upon conviction, the offender is liable to:

• A fine not exceeding RM3,000, or
• Imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or
• Both.

Question 8

What principle was illustrated in Pendakwa Syariah v Ghazali & 5 Ors (Kedah case)?


Answer:
The case illustrates that mere presence of men and women in the same premises is insufficient to prove khalwat. The prosecution must show that the accused were together in seclusion under circumstances giving rise to suspicion of immoral acts. Failure to prove these elements will result in acquittal.

Question 9

What was decided in Pendakwa v Zahid Nasir and Juniadah (Perak case)?


Answer:
The court found the accused guilty of khalwat as the evidence established suspicious proximity. Each accused was sentenced to a fine of RM3,000 or three months’ imprisonment, demonstrating that where suspicion of immorality is proven, conviction will follow.


Question 10

How does marriage operate as a defence to a charge of khalwat?


Answer:
Marriage is a complete defence if it is valid under Hukum Syarak. In Pendakwa Syarie, Kelantan v Mat Rahim & Anor, the accused successfully proved that they were lawfully married in Thailand. As the marriage was recognised by the Islamic Religious Council, the court acquitted them.



Question 11

What was the significance of Ketua Pendakwa Syarie v Ahmad bin Rashid & Anor (Negeri Sembilan)?


Answer:
The case emphasised that clear evidence of suspicious circumstances is required. Where the prosecution’s evidence is weak and the defence provides a reasonable explanation (such as a business meeting), the accused cannot be convicted.


Question 12


Can a confession alone support a conviction for khalwat?


Answer:
Yes. In Syarie Prosecutor v Sukree bin Masuyu, the accused was convicted based on a voluntary triple confession, which was made without inducement, threat, or coercion. The confession, together with suspicious circumstances, was sufficient to establish guilt.
​

Exam Tip (One-liner)

Khalwat is a ta‘zīr offence aimed at preventing immorality, and conviction depends on seclusion + non-mahram relationship + reasonable suspicion, not mere association.

​Indian Evidence Law – Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023-Proof of Documents by Primary Evidence [Section 59]

Section 59: General Rule
Section 59 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023 lays down the fundamental rule that documents must be proved by primary evidence, except in cases where the Act expressly permits proof by secondary evidence.

(a) Scope and Principle of Section 59
This section embodies the general principle of documentary proof, namely that the original document itself must be produced before the court for inspection. The concept of primary evidence has been explained under Section 57, which treats the original document as the best evidence of its contents.
However, the legislature has recognized that strict adherence to technical rules should not defeat the ends of justice. Accordingly, Section 60 provides specific exceptions where secondary evidence may be admitted. Secondary evidence is not a matter of right and is permitted only in the circumstances expressly mentioned in the Adhiniyam.
Before secondary evidence can be admitted, the party relying upon it must first prove the existence of one of the statutory grounds justifying the non-production of the original document. In the absence of such proof, secondary evidence is inadmissible. For instance, a certified copy of a registered document cannot be admitted unless a satisfactory explanation is given for the absence of the original document.

(b) Stage for Raising Objections
Any objection relating to the mode of proof of a document, particularly regarding the admissibility of secondary evidence, must be raised at the trial stage itself. If no objection is taken at the time when the document is tendered in evidence, such objection cannot ordinarily be raised for the first time at the appellate stage.
Judicial pronouncements have consistently held that an objection raised for the first time at the appellate stage is belated and would generally not be entertained where no objection was raised before the trial court.

(c) Primary Evidence and Secondary Evidence – Note Form1. Meaning

• Primary Evidence
  • Refers to the original document itself produced before the court.
  • Defined under Section 57 of the Adhiniyam.
  • It is the most authentic and reliable form of documentary evidence.
• Secondary Evidence
  • Refers to copies or substitutes of the original document.
  • Enumerated under Section 58, subject to the conditions under Section 60.
  • Admissible only when the original cannot be produced for legally recognized reasons.

2. Rule and Exception

• Primary Evidence
  • Proof by primary evidence is the general rule under Section 59.
  • Documents must ordinarily be proved by producing the original.
• Secondary Evidence
  • Proof by secondary evidence is an exception to the general rule.
  • Permissible only in cases expressly provided under Section 60.

3. Best Evidence Rule

• Primary Evidence
  • Forms an integral part of the Best Evidence Rule.
  • The original document is regarded as the best proof of its contents.
• Secondary Evidence
  • Does not form part of the Best Evidence Rule.
  • It is inferior and derivative in nature.

4. Requirement of Notice

• Primary Evidence
  • No prior notice is required to be given to the opposite party before producing primary evidence.
• Secondary Evidence
  • Prior notice to the opposite party is generally required before leading secondary evidence, as contemplated under Section 60(a).

5. Evidentiary Value

• Primary Evidence
  • Possesses higher evidentiary value due to its originality and authenticity.
• Secondary Evidence
  • Possesses comparatively lesser evidentiary value as it depends upon the accuracy and existence of the original.

6. Admissibility

• Primary Evidence
  • Admissible as a matter of course once produced before the court.
• Secondary Evidence
  • Admissible only after establishing the statutory grounds for non-production of the original document.

Conclusion
Section 59 reinforces the principle that primary evidence is the normal and preferred mode of proof of documents, while secondary evidence is an exception allowed only upon strict fulfillment of the conditions prescribed under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.