Indian Evidence Act, 1872 · Chapter IV: Of Oral Evidence
Section 60: Oral evidence must be direct
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was repealed and replaced by the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 from 1 July 2024. It still applies to offences and proceedings from before that date.
Oral evidence must, in all cases whatever, be direct; that is to say–– if it refers to a fact which could be seen, it must be the evidence of a witness who says he saw it; if it refers to a fact which could be heard, it must be the evidence of a witness who says he heard it; if it refers to a fact which could be perceived by any other sense or in any other manner, it must be the evidence of a witness who says he perceived it by that sense or in that manner; if it refers to an opinion or to the grounds on which that opinion is held, it must be the evidence of the person who holds that opinion on those grounds:
Provided that the opinions of experts expressed in any treatise commonly offered for sale, and the grounds on which such opinions are held, may be proved by the production of such treatises if the author is dead or cannot be found, or has become incapable of giving evidence, or cannot be called as a witness without an amount of delay or expense which the Court regards as unreasonable:
Provided also that, if oral evidence refers to the existence or condition of any material thing other than a document, the Court may, if it thinks fit, require the production of such material thing for its inspection.
Corresponding sections were matched by comparing the wording of both official texts, and for the IPC and BNS, also against a published correspondence table. Wording, punishments and structure often changed, so read both sections before relying on the match.
Source: India Code (Legislative Department), the text of the Act as it stood before its repeal. Words in square brackets [ ] were inserted or substituted by later amending Acts, and *** marks words omitted by an amendment. The amendment footnotes are not reproduced here.
Supreme Court judgments citing the section 60
-
Dharmrao Sharanappa Shabadi and Others v. Syeda Arifa Parveen
Whether the impugned judgments suffer from perversity and misreading of evidence, warranting re-appreciation of evidence under Article 136 of the Constitution of India; whether the High Court is correct in reversing the…
-
Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar and Others v. State of Karnataka
Whether the High Court was justified in deciding the appeal as a first Court on independent appreciation of evidence and recording its own findings to hold the accused appellants (A-1, A-2 and A-3) guilty of charge u/s.…
-
Krishan Kumar and Anr. v. The State of
Conviction of the appellants-accused u/ ss.201, 300, 302, IPC r/w s.34 based on circumstantial evidence, consisting of evidence of last seen, extra judicial confession, recovery of w eapon of offence and motive, if…
- Neeraj Dutta v. State (Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi)
- The State of Jharkhand v. Shailendra Kumar Rai @ Pandav Rai
- Uttam v. The State of Maharashtra
- Rajesh Dhiman v. State of Himachal Pradesh
- State of Karnataka v. Selvi J. Jayalalitha & Ors.
- State of Maharashtra v. Kamal Ahmed Mohammed Vakil Ansari & Ors.
- Bakshish Ram & Another v. State of Punjab
- Shudhakar v. State of M.P.
- Kalyan Kumar Gogoi v. Ashutosh Agnihotri and Another
- Lakhan v. State of M.P.
- Amar Singh v. State of Rajasthan
- Shyam Lal @ Kuldeep v. Sanjeev Kumar & Ors
- Brindaban Das and Ors. v. State of West Bengal
- Bant Singh & Anr. v. Niranjan Singh(D) by Lrs,& Anr.
- Smt. Shakuntala v. State of Haryana
- Iddar and Ors. v. Aabida and Anr.
- Sunder Lal v. State of Rajasthan
- Rama Paswan and Ors. v. State of Jharkhand
- Zahira Habibullah Sheikh and Anr . v. State of Gujarat and Ors.
- Achutananda Baidya v. Prafullya Kumar Gayen and Ors.
- Vijender v. The State of Delhi
- Balaram Prasad Agrawal v. State of Bihar & Ors.
- Jagdjsh Narain and Anr. v. State of U.P.