Summary

Here's a summary of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, with key concepts, theories, and definitions,
explained in simple terms:

I. Introduction

• The Indian Evidence Act is a law that provides rules for presenting evidence in court to
help judges make decisions.
• It is a procedural law, focusing on how to present facts, not defining rights.
• It applies to all court proceedings, both civil and criminal, across India.
• It came into effect on September 1, 1872.
• It has 167 sections, 11 chapters, and 3 parts.
• The main aim is to consolidate, define, and amend the rules of evidence.
• It aims to ensure fair justice by protecting the innocent and highlighting the guilty.
• The Act is based on English law, but it is not fully comprehensive and it is a 'Lex Fori'
law, which means the law of the land where court proceedings are taken.
• The word "evidence" is derived from Latin "evidentia," meaning something that is easy
to see or understand.

II. Key Definitions

• Evidence: Includes statements by witnesses and documents presented to the court.

o Oral Evidence: Statements made by witnesses in court.
o Documentary Evidence: Documents, including electronic records, presented to
the court.
• Fact: Anything that can be perceived by the senses, or a mental condition a person is
aware of.
o Physical facts can be perceived by the senses (external).
o Psychological facts are internal mental states (like intention).
• Relevant Fact: A fact that is connected to another fact in a way that makes it legally
relevant.
• Fact in Issue: A fact that is directly in question in a case and needs to be proven.
• Proved: When the court believes a fact exists based on evidence.
• Disproved: When the court does not believe a fact exists based on evidence.
• Not Proved: When a fact is neither proved nor disproved.

III. Types of Evidence

• Oral Evidence: Testimony given by witnesses, which must be direct, meaning the
witness personally experienced the fact.
o Hearsay evidence (second-hand) is generally not allowed.
• Documentary Evidence: Written evidence, classified as:
o Primary Evidence: The original document itself.
o Secondary Evidence: Copies of the original document, or oral accounts of the
contents of the document, when the original is not available.
 • Real Evidence: Evidence that the court perceives directly, like the witness's behavior or
a visit to a crime scene.
• Electronic Evidence: Any information stored or transmitted electronically, considered a
document.
o Must have a source and be authentic to be admissible.

IV. Relevancy of Facts

• Relevant facts must be legally connected to the case.

• Evidence can only be given for facts that are in issue or relevant facts.
• Res Gestae: Facts that form part of the same transaction are relevant.
• Facts that establish the identity of the accused are relevant.
• Statements under Special Circumstances: Statements made in certain situations, like
dying declarations, are relevant.

V. Expert Opinions

• Courts can consider opinions of experts in technical areas.

• An expert has special knowledge in areas like foreign law, science, art, handwriting, or
fingerprints.
• Expert opinions are admissible if the matter is beyond common knowledge.
• Expert opinions can corroborate substantive evidence, but are not substantive evidence
themselves.

VI. Admissions and Confessions

• Admissions: Statements suggesting a fact in issue or relevant fact.

o Can be oral, written, or electronic.
o Must relate to the subject matter and be self-harming.
• Confessions: Admissions of guilt by an accused.
• Admissions can act as estoppels, meaning the party cannot later deny the fact admitted.

VII. Proof

• Oral evidence must be direct.

• Documentary evidence can be primary or secondary.
• Public documents can be proven with certified copies.
• Best evidence must be produced.
• Facts admitted by parties do not need proof.
• The contents of documents may be proved either by primary or by secondary evidence.
• Judicial Notice: The court can recognize certain facts without needing proof like laws or
holidays.

VIII. Presumptions

• A presumption is when a fact is assumed to be true without direct proof.

 • May Presume: The court may consider a fact as proven until disproved or may ask for
more evidence. It is a rebuttable presumption.
• Shall Presume: The court must consider a fact as proven unless disproven. It is a
rebuttable presumption of law.
o Examples include the genuineness of certified copies, government maps, and
powers of attorney.
• Conclusive Proof: The court must accept a fact as absolutely proven; no contradictory
evidence is allowed. It is an irrebuttable presumption.
o Examples include the legitimacy of a child born in a valid marriage.

IX. Burden of Proof

• The burden of proof is on the person who asserts a fact and wants the court to believe it.
• In civil cases, parties must present their case to the court.
• In criminal cases, the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
o The burden of proof does not shift to the accused.
• The burden of proof for a particular fact lies on the person who wants the court to believe
that fact exists.
• If a person wants to present certain evidence, they have the burden of proving the facts
that make that evidence admissible.

X. Witnesses and Examination

• Anyone is competent to be a witness if they can understand questions and give rational
answers.
• Even dumb witnesses can give evidence through signs or writing.
• There are three stages in examining a witness:
o Examination-in-Chief: Questioning by the party who called the witness.
o Cross-Examination: Questioning by the opposing party.
o Re-examination: Further questioning by the party who called the witness after
cross-examination.
• Leading Questions: Questions that suggest the answer are not allowed during
examination-in-chief.
• Hostile Witness: A witness who does not cooperate with the party that called them.
• Character Evidence: Generally not allowed in civil cases but can be used in criminal
cases.
o Good character evidence is relevant; bad character is not, with exceptions.
• Witnesses can be cross-examined about previous statements made in writing.

XI. Exclusion of Oral Evidence by Documentary Evidence

• If a contract or property disposition is in writing, the written document is the best

evidence; oral evidence to the contrary is generally not allowed.
• Oral evidence is excluded when a document is being used to prove the document.

XII. Estoppel
 • Estoppel prevents a person from denying something they previously said or did if it
caused someone else to act on that belief.
o A tenant cannot deny the landlord's title, and a licensee cannot deny the licensor's
title.

XIII. Miscellaneous Points

• The law of evidence does not affect the substantive rights of parties.
• The Evidence Act does not apply to military/naval laws, disciplinary acts, or affidavits.
• Tape recordings and electronic records are considered documents.

This summary should provide a helpful overview of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and its main
concepts.
Define evidence explain different kinds of evidence
The term "evidence" originates from the Latin word "evidentia," which means something easily
seen or understood. In legal contexts, evidence is anything that can be used to determine
whether a fact or claim is true or not. It serves as a means to prove or disprove a fact in
question. Evidence is crucial for reaching a verdict in legal proceedings.

According to the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, evidence includes:

• Oral evidence: Statements that witnesses make in court regarding the facts under
inquiry.
• Documentary evidence: All documents, including electronic records, presented for the
court's inspection.

Beyond this basic definition, evidence can be further categorized into various types:

• Real or Material Evidence: This is evidence presented to the court through the
inspection of a physical object, rather than through witness testimony or documents.
Examples include a murder weapon, blood samples, and fingerprints.
• Personal Evidence: This type of evidence comes from human sources, such as oral
testimony from a witness or observations made by the court. For example, a witness's
statement about seeing a crime occur is personal evidence.
• Direct Evidence: Direct evidence establishes a fact without needing additional reasoning
or connection to other facts. For instance, a witness testifying to seeing rain fall is direct
evidence that it rained.
• Indirect or Circumstantial Evidence: This type of evidence proves a fact by
establishing other facts and showing how they are related. In other words, it uses indirect
facts to prove the fact in question.
• Judicial Evidence: Evidence presented in a court of law for the purpose of proving or
disproving facts before them. Examples include witness statements, documentary
evidence, and confessions made in court.
• Non-Judicial Evidence: Confessions or admissions made outside of court, such as a
confession to a police officer or an admission made to a third party.
• Oral Evidence: Statements made by witnesses in court, as permitted by the court, about
the truth of facts. Oral evidence must be direct, meaning it should come from a witness
who perceived the fact with their own senses.
• Documentary Evidence: Documents presented to the court for inspection, such as
marriage certificates, medical records, contracts, and affidavits.
• Primary Evidence: The original document or item itself, which is considered the most
reliable form of evidence. Examples include original manuscripts, audio or video
recordings, and CCTV footage. If a document is made in multiple parts, each part is
considered primary evidence.
• Secondary Evidence: Copies or substitutes for the original document, such as
photocopies or oral testimony about the contents of a document. Secondary evidence may
be allowed when primary evidence is not available, such as when the original has been
 lost or destroyed or when the original is in possession of someone who cannot be reached
by the court.

Other classifications of evidence include:

• Hearsay Evidence: A witness's testimony about what they heard someone else say,
which is generally inadmissible.
• Substantive Evidence: Evidence that relates to the rights and duties of the parties
involved and is considered reliable.
• Non-Substantive Evidence: Evidence that corroborates or contradicts substantive
evidence.
• Pre-appointed Evidence: Evidence obtained in anticipation of its use, either voluntarily
or as required by law.
• Casual Evidence: Evidence that is not pre-arranged and depends on the circumstances of
the case.
• Prima Facie Evidence: Evidence that is accepted as reliable unless contradictory
evidence is presented.
• Conclusive Evidence: Facts involving the application of the rule of law, for example, a
decree from a competent court.
• Scientific Evidence: Evidence based on scientific principles.
• Digital Evidence: Electronic records used to prove a fact in a case.
• Ocular evidence: Evidence that is connected to vision.

It is important to note that evidence may also be categorized as either a factum probandum (fact
in issue, the fact to be proved) or a factum probans (relevant fact, the evidence that proves the
fact in issue).

The type of evidence presented and the rules of its admissibility are essential to the proper
functioning of legal proceedings.
Explain and evaluate Admisia is the species and confession is the
subspecies
The concepts of admission and confession are related, with confession being a specific type of
admission. Here's a breakdown of how these terms are defined and how they relate to each other:

Definitions

• Admission: An admission is a statement, whether oral or documentary, that suggests an

inference about a fact in issue or a relevant fact. An admission can be made by a party to
a proceeding or their agent, or by a person from whom a party derives their interest. An
admission is a broad concept that can apply to civil or criminal proceedings.
• Confession: A confession is a specific kind of admission, made by a person charged with
a crime, stating or suggesting that they committed that crime. A confession must either
admit the offense in terms, or substantially admit all the facts that constitute the offense.

Relationship

• Hierarchy: A "statement" is the most general term, "admission" is a specific type of

statement, and "confession" is a specific type of admission. Therefore, all confessions are
admissions, but not all admissions are confessions.
• Application: Admissions are relevant in both civil and criminal proceedings while
confessions are generally only relevant in criminal proceedings.
• Guilt: A confession is a direct acknowledgement of guilt, whereas an admission is a
statement of facts that may suggest guilt or liability but is not a direct admission of it. The
acid test to distinguish between a confession and admission is that when a conviction can
be based on the statement alone, it is a confession, while if supplementary evidence is
required, it is an admission.

Types of Admissions

• Admissions can be divided into judicial and extra-judicial admissions

• Judicial admissions are formal admissions made in court during a legal proceeding.
• Extra-judicial admissions are admissions made outside of court, such as to a police
officer, a third party, or any other person.

Types of Confessions

• Confessions are also broadly categorized into judicial and extra-judicial confessions.
o Judicial confessions are those made before a magistrate or in court during a
judicial proceeding.
o Extra-judicial confessions are made outside of court to anyone other than a
magistrate or judge. This may include confessions made to a police officer, or any
other person.
• Confessions can also be classified as retracted confessions. A retracted confession is
one where a person initially makes a confession but later withdraws or denies it.
Evidentiary Value

• Admissions: Admissions are considered substantive evidence of the facts admitted, and
may shift the burden of proof onto the party against whom it is produced. However,
admissions are not always conclusive and can be challenged or explained by the person
who made them. Unless it constitutes an estoppel, the maker of an admission can prove it
to be mistaken or untrue.
• Confessions: A voluntary and true judicial confession is considered strong evidence and
can form the basis of a conviction. Extra-judicial confessions are considered weak
evidence and require corroboration to be relied upon. Confessions must be shown to be
voluntary to be relevant. Confessions made to a police officer are not admissible in court
as evidence. Confessions made while in police custody are also inadmissible unless made
before a magistrate. If a confession is recorded after any threat or inducement is removed
and is deemed voluntary, then it is admissible.

In summary, an admission is a statement that suggests an inference as to a fact in issue or a

relevant fact, whereas a confession is a specific type of admission by an accused admitting guilt.
A statement is the genus, admission is the species, and confession is the sub-species. While all
confessions are admissions, not all admissions are confessions. The admissibility and evidentiary
value of each depend on the circumstances in which they are made, as well as the applicable
legal provisions.
define fact, fact in issue and relevant fact, distinguish between fact
in issue and relevant fact
Fact:

• A fact is defined as anything or a state of things that is capable of being perceived by the
senses. This includes things that can be seen, heard, touched, smelled, or tasted.
• A fact also includes any mental condition of which a person is conscious. This means a
person's thoughts, intentions, knowledge, good faith, and other states of mind are also
considered facts.
• Facts can be categorized into physical facts (external, perceptible by senses) and
psychological facts (internal, related to mental conditions).
• Examples of facts:
• That a man heard or saw something
• That a man said certain words
• That certain objects are arranged in a certain order
• A person's intention to commit murder
• That a man has a certain reputation

Fact in Issue:

• A fact in issue is a specific fact that is in dispute or controversy and that needs to be
proven in a case. It is a fact that is essential to establish a right, liability, or disability
asserted by one party and denied by another.
• Facts in issue are also known as "principal facts" or factum probandum.
• In civil cases, facts in issue are determined by the pleadings. In criminal cases, facts in
issue are based on the contents of the charge-sheet.
• Facts in issue are the foundation for arguments made by the parties in a case.
• Examples of facts in issue in a case where 'X' is accused of defaming 'Y':
o Whether 'X' caused damage to 'Y's reputation.
o Whether 'Y's business suffered losses due to 'X's defamation.
o Whether 'X' wrote and published defamatory statements about 'Y' out of malice.
• In a murder case, facts in issue could be:
o That A caused B's death
o That A intended to cause B's death
o That A had received a grave and sudden provocation from B

Relevant Fact:

• A relevant fact is a fact that is needed to prove or disprove a specific fact in a case.
Relevant facts provide context or circumstances that help to draw conclusions about facts
in issue.
• Relevant facts are also called 'evidentiary facts' or factum probans.
• Relevant facts help to establish a connection between different facts using logic and
common sense. They support the arguments made by parties related to the main facts in
issue.
 • Examples of relevant facts:
o Admissions and confessions
o Statements by non-witnesses
o Previous court cases that set a precedent
o Statements made under special circumstances
o Facts that logically connect to the main facts in issue
o Opinions of third parties
• Evidence about a person's character
• Example: if 'A' is accused of theft, a relevant fact could be that 'A' has a history of
previous pickpocketing and shoplifting cases.
• There are two kinds of relevancy:
o Logical Relevancy: When a fact has a bearing on another fact based on logic.
o Legal Relevancy: When a fact is expressed as relevant under Sections 5 to 55 of
the Indian Evidence Act.

Distinction between Fact in Issue and Relevant Fact:

Basis of
Fact in Issue Relevant Fact
Distinction
The specific fact in dispute; the
An evidentiary fact, that helps in proving
Nature of Fact primary fact that needs to be
or disproving a fact in issue.
proven.
To directly establish a right, To provide context or circumstances from
Purpose liability, or disability that is being
which inferences can be drawn about the
asserted or denied by a party fact in issue.
A question of fact, not in itself essential
Relation to A question of law determined by
for a right or liability but helps establish
Law substantive and procedural laws.
or refute the fact in issue.
Forms the basis for the court's Renders probability to the existence or
Judicial Value
judgment. non-existence of a right or liability.
Matters in dispute that are affirmed Not the matter in dispute, but essential in
Essentiality
by one party and denied by another. deciding the dispute.
Factum Probandum (the fact to be
Terminology Factum Probandi (evidentiary fact).
proved).

In short, facts in issue are the core facts that the court must decide, while relevant facts are pieces
of evidence that help the court reach a conclusion about those core facts.
explain the relevancy of motive, preparation and conduct under
evidence act
The Indian Evidence Act addresses the relevancy of motive, preparation, and conduct,
particularly in cases where direct evidence is lacking. These concepts are crucial for
understanding the circumstances surrounding an incident and establishing a connection between
the accused and the crime.

Motive

• Definition: Motive is the purpose, emotion, or desire that induces a person to form an
intention or have knowledge with respect to the awareness of consequences of an act. It is
the underlying reason that drives someone to commit an act.
• Relevancy:
o Motive becomes particularly significant in cases involving circumstantial
evidence.
o If the evidence presented by witnesses is reliable, the motive behind an act
becomes less important.
o The absence of a proven motive does not invalidate the prosecution's case if other
credible evidence is available. However, it may require the court to scrutinize the
evidence more carefully.
o Proof of motive can add weight to the prosecution's case, but its absence does not
necessarily undermine the case.
o The existence of a strong motive is not an essential prerequisite for conviction if
there is other credible evidence.
o If the court believes the eye-witnesses, then the question of motive becomes
irrelevant.
• Evidentiary value: Although it's difficult to obtain direct evidence of motive, evidence
of motive becomes very important in cases of circumstantial evidence. If a crime is
committed voluntarily, a motive is likely to be present. The court determines the
adequacy of a motive but there is no standard rule.
• Motive vs. Intention: Intention is a pre-calculation or knowledge of the consequences of
an act in the mind of the offender. Motive can be good, but the intention is usually bad or
guilt-oriented.

Preparation

• Definition: Preparation denotes the actions and arrangements made to commit a crime. It
includes assembling essential objects for committing an offense.
• Relevancy:
o Evidence indicating that an accused person made preparations for a crime is
always admissible.
o Preparation shows a design or plan to commit an act, especially when an
opportunity for execution is also present.
o Preparation combined with an attempt to commit a crime is considered an offense.
 • Evidentiary value: The court may draw inferences based on certain facts to establish the
preparation of a crime. However, proving preparation can be difficult, as it is not always
carried out before committing a crime.

Conduct

• Definition: Conduct refers to the external behavior of a person.

• Relevancy:
o For conduct to be relevant, there must be a connection between the conduct of the
person who committed the crime and the incident itself. The conduct must lead
the court to a conclusion about the dispute.
• Conduct is admissible when it directly influences the facts in issue or relevant facts, or
when it is related to a suit or proceeding.
• Types of relevant conduct:
o The previous or subsequent conduct of a party, agent, or victim related to a suit or
proceeding is relevant, provided it influences or is influenced by a fact in issue or
relevant fact.
o Statements made by a party that explain their conduct are relevant.
o Statements made in the presence of a party that affect their conduct may also be
relevant.
• Examples of relevant conduct:
• Previous attempts to commit a crime.
• Absconding after the occurrence of a crime.
• Evidentiary value: Conduct is significant when the element of mens rea (guilty mind) is
strong.

Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act

• Section 8 specifically addresses the relevance of motive, preparation, and conduct.

• It states that any fact that shows or constitutes a motive or preparation for any fact in
issue or relevant fact is relevant.
• It also states that the conduct of a party, agent or victim that influences or is influenced
by any fact in issue or relevant fact is relevant.

In summary, motive, preparation, and conduct are relevant factors under the Indian Evidence
Act. Motive is about why a crime was committed, preparation is about the planning of a crime,
and conduct is about how a person's actions relate to a crime. These elements are crucial for
establishing a complete picture of an event and can be used to support a case when direct
evidence is not available.
Define "fact," "fact in issue," and "relevant fact."
Based on the provided sources, here are the definitions of "fact," "fact in issue," and "relevant
fact," as they pertain to the law of evidence:

Fact

• A "fact" is anything that can be perceived by the senses, including sight, hearing, touch,
smell, and taste.
• It also includes any mental condition of which a person is conscious, such as thoughts,
intentions, knowledge, good faith, or other states of mind.
• Facts are categorized into two types:
o Physical Facts: These are external and can be perceived by the senses. They are
also called "external facts". Examples include a man hearing or seeing something,
a man saying certain words, or the arrangement of objects.
o Psychological Facts: These are internal and relate to a person's mental state. They
are also known as "internal facts". Examples include a person's intention,
knowledge, or good faith.
• Under the Evidence Act, a fact is not limited to only what is tangible or visible.

Fact in Issue

• A "fact in issue" is a specific fact that is in dispute or controversy and must be proven
in a case. It is also referred to as a "principal fact" or factum probandum.
• It is a fact from which the existence, non-existence, nature, or extent of any right,
liability, or disability that is asserted or denied in a legal proceeding necessarily follows.
• Facts in issue are essential to the case, and the rights and liabilities of the parties
depend on them.
• In civil cases, facts in issue are determined through the framing of issues, while in
criminal cases, they are based on the contents of the charge-sheet.
• Examples of facts in issue:
o In a defamation case, whether 'X' caused damage to 'Y's reputation, whether 'Y's
business suffered losses, or whether 'X' acted with malice.
o In a murder case, whether A caused B's death or intended to cause B's death.

Relevant Fact

• A "relevant fact" is one that is needed to prove or disprove a specific fact in a case. It
provides context and helps in drawing conclusions about the facts in issue. These are also
called "evidentiary facts" or factum probans.
• Relevant facts provide additional information to support or challenge the main facts.
• They establish a connection between different facts using logic and reasoning, and they
support arguments regarding the facts in issue.
• Examples of relevant facts include:
o Admissions and confessions
o Statements by non-witnesses
 o Previous court cases that set a precedent
o Statements made under special circumstances
o Facts that logically connect to the main facts in issue
o Opinions of third parties
o Evidence about a person's character
• If someone is accused of theft, a relevant fact could be a history of previous
pickpocketing cases.
• There are two types of relevancy:
o Logical Relevancy: This is when one fact has a bearing on another fact based on
logic.
o Legal Relevancy: This is when a fact is deemed relevant under specific sections
(5 to 55) of the Indian Evidence Act.

In summary:

• A fact is anything that can be perceived or is a mental state.

• A fact in issue is a key fact that is in dispute and needs to be proven.
• A relevant fact helps prove or disprove a fact in issue.
a short note on 'May presume'
A "may presume" provision in the Indian Evidence Act grants the court discretion to either
consider a fact as proven until it is disproven, or to call for additional evidence to confirm it. This
is a rebuttable presumption, meaning it can be challenged with contradictory evidence. It is a
type of natural presumption.

Here's a breakdown of key aspects:

• Discretionary Power: The court has the option to accept the presumed fact as true or to
seek further proof. It is not mandatory for the court to draw an inference. The court may
choose to treat the fact as proved until it is disproved, or it may require proof of it.
• Basis: "May presume" inferences are drawn naturally and logically from common sense,
human behavior, and the course of nature. These presumptions are based on general
experiences and the way people typically act.
• Rebuttable Nature: Presumptions under "may presume" are not final and can be
challenged by presenting contrary evidence. If sufficient evidence is presented to
disprove the presumed fact, the court will no longer consider the fact as proven.
• Examples:
o If someone is found with stolen goods shortly after a theft, the court may presume
that they are the thief, although this presumption can be challenged.
o The court may presume that government officials perform their duties correctly,
unless evidence suggests otherwise.
o Certified copies of foreign records may be presumed genuine.
o A telephonic message may be presumed to correspond with the original message
sent.
o Documents that are 30 years old may be presumed to have proper handwriting and
attestation.
o The court may presume that books, maps, and charts were written and published
by the person and at the time and place indicated.
• The court may presume that a telegraphic message corresponds with the message
delivered for transmission.
• The court may presume that a message sent by electronic mail corresponds with the
message as fed into the computer for transmission.
• Evidentiary Value: The "may presume" provision provides a starting point for the court
but does not guarantee the conclusion. The court has to make a decision on the facts of
each case.
• Relationship to Evidence: This type of presumption allows the court to consider certain
facts as likely without requiring strict proof initially, while still allowing for the
possibility of rebuttal. It is a way for the court to deal with situations where direct
evidence is not available or is difficult to obtain. The court can draw inferences based on
experience and common sense.

In summary, "may presume" provides a flexible mechanism for courts, allowing them to make
logical inferences based on common experience but still leaving room for contradictory
evidence. It is a rule of law where the court draws an inference from particular facts or evidence.
Short note on 'Shall presume'
A "shall presume" provision in the Indian Evidence Act means that the court must regard a fact
as proven unless it is disproven. It is a rebuttable presumption of law, also referred to as an
"artificial presumption" or "obligatory presumption," and is a branch of jurisprudence.

Here are the key characteristics of "shall presume":

• Mandatory Inference: When the law directs that a court "shall presume" a fact, the court
is obligated to consider that fact as proven. It does not have the discretion to decide
otherwise unless contradictory evidence is presented. The court is bound to draw the
presumption.
• Rebuttable: Although the court is required to presume the fact, this presumption is not
absolute. The opposing party has the opportunity to present evidence to challenge and
disprove the presumed fact. If they succeed, the court will no longer consider the fact as
proven. This is why it is called a "rebuttable" presumption.
• Legal Basis: "Shall presume" provisions are legal rules that courts must apply when
specific facts are present. These presumptions are created by law and are not based on
natural inferences but are uniform and drawn whenever the necessary facts develop.
• Examples:
o Certified copies of documents are presumed to be genuine. Every certified copy
issued by the concerned authority is presumed to be genuine and duly certified.
o Official gazette notifications are presumed to be genuine.
o Maps and plans published under the authority of the government are
presumed to be genuine. The court shall presume that maps or plans made by
government authority were so made and are accurate.
o Law reports and similar publications are presumed to be genuine.
o A power of attorney is presumed to be genuine. The court shall presume that
every document purporting to be a power of attorney was duly executed and
authenticated.
• The court shall presume that records or memorandums of evidence given by a witness or
confessions taken in accordance with the law are genuine.
• The court shall presume that a document called for and not produced after notice was
attested, stamped, and executed as required by law.
• The court shall presume that a secure electronic record has not been altered since the
specific point of time to which the secure status relates.
• The court shall presume that a secure electronic signature was affixed by the subscriber
with the intention of signing or approving the electronic record.
• In cases of dowry death, the court shall presume that the person who subjected the
woman to cruelty or harassment caused the dowry death.
• In prosecutions for rape, if sexual intercourse by the accused is proved and the woman
states that she did not consent, the court shall presume that she did not consent.
• Burden of Proof: Once a fact is presumed under a "shall presume" provision, the burden
of proof shifts to the opposing party to disprove that fact.
 • No Discretion: Unlike "may presume," the court cannot exercise discretion when the
words of a provision are "shall presume". The court is compelled to take a fact as proved,
unless disproven.
• Evidentiary Value: "Shall presume" provisions give a stronger legal standing to certain
facts, requiring the court to accept them as true until proven otherwise. However, they are
not conclusive, and can be challenged through the presentation of evidence.
• Purpose: These presumptions help streamline legal proceedings by allowing courts to
quickly accept certain facts as valid, unless evidence indicates otherwise.

In summary, "shall presume" creates a legal obligation for the court to accept a fact as true unless
proven otherwise, which makes it a stronger presumption than "may presume", but still allows
for the possibility of rebuttal.
a short note on 'conclusive proof '
A "conclusive proof" provision in the Indian Evidence Act means that when one fact is
established, the law requires the court to accept another fact as proven, and no evidence to
the contrary can be admitted. It is also known as an "irrebuttable presumption". This is the
strongest form of presumption in law.

Key aspects of conclusive proof:

• No Discretion: Unlike "may presume" and "shall presume," the court has no discretion
when a fact is designated as conclusive proof of another. The court cannot choose to
disregard the connection between the two facts. The court is bound to accept it as
proven, without any room for discretion.
• Irrebuttable: A fact established as conclusive proof cannot be challenged or disproven
with any contradictory evidence. The law does not allow any evidence that contradicts a
conclusive presumption.
• Not Based on Logic: Conclusive presumptions are not always based on logic, but rather
on the belief that such presumptions are for the welfare or betterment of society.
• Legal Mandate: Conclusive proof is a legal rule that courts must apply when the
conditions are met. It is not based on logic or natural inferences but is an absolute legal
conclusion.
• Examples:
o A judgment in rem is conclusive proof of the legal character it confers, takes
away, or declares. For example, a decree of divorce or the granting of probate are
conclusive of the marital status of parties, or status in insolvency.
o Legitimacy: If a person is born during a valid marriage or within 280 days after a
divorce (with the mother remaining unmarried), it is conclusive proof that the
person is the legitimate child of that man unless it is proven that the parties to the
marriage had no access to each other at the time of conception.
o A notification in the official gazette that any territory has been ceded by the
government is conclusive proof that a valid cession took place on the date
mentioned in the notification.
• Burden of Proof: Since it is an irrebuttable presumption, the burden of proof cannot be
shifted to disprove a fact that is considered conclusive proof.
• Evidentiary Value: Conclusive proof establishes a fact absolutely, without the
possibility of challenge. The court cannot ask for further proof or allow any evidence to
challenge or disprove it. It is the strongest form of evidence.

In summary, "conclusive proof" is the strongest type of presumption, where the law does not
allow for any contrary evidence once a fact is established, compelling the court to accept the
associated fact as proven.