Section 62: Proof of Documents by Oral Admission

Overview

Section 62 of the Bhartiya Sakshya Bill, 2023, provides a straightforward way to prove what a document says in court. Instead of presenting the original document itself, you can prove its contents by getting the person who *should* be acknowledging the document (or their representative) to admit what it says. Essentially, if someone is trying to deny a document’s content, their own words can be used to prove it.

Key Principles / Ingredients

• Type of Evidence: This section deals with documentary evidence, but the proof of its contents relies on oral evidence – what someone says in court. It applies to all types of documents, including those in electronic form.
• Conditions for Admissibility/Relevancy: The key condition is that the admission must come from the person against whom the document is being used (the 'adverse party') or someone authorized to speak for them (their 'agent'). The admission must relate directly to the contents of the document.
• Burden of Proof Implications: While the overall burden of proof remains with the party alleging a fact, a clear oral admission significantly shifts the weight of evidence. It doesn’t *automatically* win the case, but it makes it much harder for the adverse party to deny the document’s contents. The party relying on the admission doesn’t need to produce the original document if the admission is clear and unambiguous.

How Courts Use this Provision

Judges often use Section 62 when the original document is lost, destroyed, or difficult to obtain. If the opposing party admits in court to the contents of a lost contract, for example, the court can consider that admission as proof of the contract’s terms. The court will assess the credibility of the person making the admission and the context of the admission to determine its weight.

Illustrations and Examples

• Example 1 – Simple Situation: A plaintiff claims a defendant owes them ₹50,000 based on a loan agreement. The original agreement is missing. In court, the defendant says, “Yes, I borrowed ₹50,000 from the plaintiff.” This oral admission, under Section 62, proves the existence of the debt, even without the original document.
• Example 2 – More Complex Situation: A company sues a former employee for breaching a confidentiality agreement. The employee claims they never signed the agreement. During cross-examination, the employee states, “I remember receiving a document about keeping company secrets, and I generally followed those guidelines.” This isn’t a direct admission of signing the agreement, but the court might consider it as partial admission relevant to the content of the agreement, requiring further evidence but making a complete denial less credible.

Important Provisos / Explanations

The Bhartiya Sakshya Bill, 2023 doesn’t include specific provisos or explanations attached to Section 62. However, the general principles of evidence law regarding admissions (like ensuring the admission is voluntary and not coerced) will apply. The court will consider the circumstances surrounding the admission.

Difference from Old Evidence Act (if applicable)

Section 62 of the Bhartiya Sakshya Bill, 2023 largely mirrors Section 62 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. There are no significant shifts in the core principle of proving document contents through oral admission. The new Bill aims for clarity and simplification, but the fundamental rule remains the same.

Key Takeaways

• You can prove a document’s contents with someone’s own words.
• The admission must come from the person it’s against or their authorized representative.
• A clear admission can be powerful evidence, even without the original document.
• Courts will assess the credibility and context of the admission.