Quick Answer
Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 has been replaced by Section 2 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA). The new provision restructures the old interpretation clause into a modern definitions section with alphabetically arranged terms. The most significant expansion is the addition of Sub-section 2(2), which incorporates by reference all definitions from the Information Technology Act, 2000, the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — ensuring that terms relating to electronic records, computer systems, and digital communication do not need separate definition within the BSA.
What Changed
| Feature | Section 3, Evidence Act | Section 2, BSA |
|---|---|---|
| Title | Interpretation clause | Definitions |
| Structure | Narrative paragraphs | Alphabetically organised sub-clauses (a) through (l) |
| Core terms defined | Court, Fact, Relevant, Facts in issue, Document, Evidence, Proved, Disproved, Not Proved, May presume, Shall presume, Conclusive proof | Court, Conclusive proof, Disproved, Document, Evidence, Fact, Facts in issue, India, May presume, Proved, Relevant, Shall presume |
| Cross-referencing | None | Sub-section (2) imports all definitions from IT Act 2000, BNSS 2023, and BNS 2023 |
| Document definition | "any matter expressed or described upon any substance by means of letters, figures or marks" | Same wording — "any matter expressed or described or otherwise recorded upon any substance by means of letters, figures or marks or any other means" |
| Electronic records | Not explicitly addressed in definitions | Covered through IT Act cross-reference (Section 2(1)(t) of IT Act defines "electronic record") |
Full Statutory Text
Section 3, Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Interpretation clause. — In this Act the following words and expressions are used in the following senses, unless a contrary intention appears from the context: —
"Court" — "Court" includes all Judges and Magistrates, and all persons, except arbitrators, legally authorised to take evidence.
"Fact" — "Fact" means and includes — (1) any thing, state of things, or relation of things, capable of being perceived by the senses; (2) any mental condition of which any person is conscious.
"Relevant" — One fact is said to be relevant to another when the one is connected with the other in any of the ways referred to in the provisions of this Act relating to the relevancy of facts.
"Facts in issue" — The expression "facts in issue" means and includes — any fact from which, either by itself or in connection with other facts, the existence, non-existence, nature or extent of any right, liability, or disability, asserted or denied in any suit or proceeding, necessarily follows.
"Document" — "Document" means any matter expressed or described upon any substance by means of letters, figures or marks, or by more than one of those means, intended to be used, or which may be used, for the purpose of recording that matter.
"Evidence" — "Evidence" means and includes — (1) all statements which the Court permits or requires to be made before it by witnesses, in relation to matters of fact under inquiry; such statements are called oral evidence; (2) all documents including electronic records produced for the inspection of the Court; such documents are called documentary evidence.
"Proved" — A fact is said to be proved when, after considering the matters before it, the Court either believes it to exist, or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists.
"Disproved" — A fact is said to be disproved when, after considering the matters before it, the Court either believes that it does not exist, or considers its non-existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it does not exist.
"Not proved" — A fact is said not to be proved when it is neither proved nor disproved.
"May presume" — Whenever it is provided by this Act that the Court may presume a fact, it may either regard such fact as proved, unless and until it is disproved, or may call for proof of it.
"Shall presume" — Whenever it is directed by this Act that the Court shall presume a fact, it shall regard such fact as proved, unless and until it is disproved.
"Conclusive proof" — When one fact is declared by this Act to be conclusive proof of another, the Court shall, on proof of the one fact, regard the other as proved, and shall not allow evidence to be given for the purpose of disproving it.
Section 2, Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023
Definitions. — (1) In this Adhiniyam, unless the context otherwise requires, —
(a) "Court" includes all Judges and Magistrates, and all persons, except arbitrators, legally authorised to take evidence;
(b) "conclusive proof" — When one fact is declared by this Adhiniyam to be conclusive proof of another, the Court shall, on proof of the one fact, regard the other as proved, and shall not allow evidence to be given for the purpose of disproving it;
(c) "disproved" — A fact is said to be disproved when, after considering the matters before it, the Court either believes that it does not exist, or considers its non-existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it does not exist;
(d) "document" means any matter expressed or described or otherwise recorded upon any substance by means of letters, figures or marks or any other means or by more than one of those means, intended to be used, or which may be used, for the purpose of recording that matter;
(e) "evidence" means and includes — (i) all statements including statements given electronically which the Court permits or requires to be made before it by witnesses, in relation to matters of fact under inquiry; such statements are called oral evidence; (ii) all documents including electronic or digital records produced for the inspection of the Court; such documents are called documentary evidence;
(f) "fact" means and includes — (i) any thing, state of things, or relation of things, capable of being perceived by the senses; (ii) any mental condition of which any person is conscious;
(g) "facts in issue" — The expression "facts in issue" means and includes any fact from which, either by itself or in connection with other facts, the existence, non-existence, nature or extent of any right, liability, or disability, asserted or denied in any suit or proceeding, necessarily follows;
(h) "India" means the territory of India as referred to in Article 1 of the Constitution;
(i) "may presume" — Whenever it is provided by this Adhiniyam that the Court may presume a fact, it may either regard such fact as proved, unless and until it is disproved, or may call for proof of it;
(j) "proved" — A fact is said to be proved when, after considering the matters before it, the Court either believes it to exist, or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists;
(k) "relevant" — One fact is said to be relevant to another when the one is connected with the other in any of the ways referred to in the provisions of this Adhiniyam relating to the relevancy of facts;
(l) "shall presume" — Whenever it is directed by this Adhiniyam that the Court shall presume a fact, it shall regard such fact as proved, unless and until it is disproved.
(2) Words and expressions used herein and not defined but defined in the Information Technology Act, 2000, the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 shall have the same meanings as assigned to them in the said Act and Sanhitas.
Key Differences
Structural modernisation. Section 3 used a narrative paragraph format common to 19th-century drafting. Section 2 adopts an alphabetically numbered sub-clause format — (a) through (l) — consistent with contemporary legislative practice. This makes look-up and citation significantly easier.
Cross-referencing of definitions. Sub-section 2(2) is entirely new. It imports all definitions from the Information Technology Act, 2000 (including "electronic record", "computer", "computer system", "data", "digital signature", "electronic form", "intermediary"), the BNS, and the BNSS. This eliminates the need to duplicate definitions and ensures the evidence law stays synchronised with technology law as it evolves.
Electronic and digital records in "evidence". The definition of "evidence" in Section 2(1)(e) now explicitly includes "statements given electronically" for oral evidence and "electronic or digital records" for documentary evidence. The old Section 3 included "electronic records" in documentary evidence (added by the IT Act 2000 amendment) but did not address electronically given statements.
Definition of "document" unchanged in substance. The wording remains materially identical — "any matter expressed or described or otherwise recorded upon any substance by means of letters, figures or marks or any other means" — preserving continuity with 150 years of case law on what constitutes a "document".
Core evidentiary concepts preserved. The definitions of "proved", "disproved", "not proved", "may presume", "shall presume", and "conclusive proof" are verbatim reproductions. The "prudent man" standard remains the touchstone for determining whether a fact is proved.
"India" now defined. The BSA defines "India" as the territory of India under Article 1 of the Constitution. The old Evidence Act did not include this definition in Section 3, though it appeared elsewhere.
What This Means for Practitioners
The definitional changes are more structural than substantive, but practitioners should note three practical consequences. First, the cross-referencing mechanism in Section 2(2) means that any future amendment to the IT Act's definitions — for instance, expanding the definition of "electronic record" or "computer system" — will automatically flow into the BSA without needing a separate legislative amendment. This creates a dynamic, self-updating definitional framework.
Second, the explicit inclusion of "statements given electronically" within the definition of oral evidence provides a clear statutory basis for video-conferenced testimony, statements recorded via electronic means, and depositions taken through digital platforms — a practice already judicially sanctioned in State of Maharashtra v. Praful B. Desai (2003) 4 SCC 601 but now codified.
Third, while no definition has changed in substantive meaning, the cleaner alphabetical structure will likely lead courts to cite Section 2(1)(j) (proved) rather than "Section 3 — Proved" in future judgments. Practitioners should update their pleading templates and written arguments to reference BSA section numbers for proceedings initiated after 1 July 2024.
Does Old Case Law Still Apply?
Yes, substantially. Since the core definitions — proved, disproved, not proved, may presume, shall presume, conclusive proof, court, fact, relevant, document, and evidence — are either verbatim reproductions or contain only minor additions (such as "electronic or digital records"), all existing case law interpreting these concepts continues to apply under the BSA.
The Supreme Court's extensive jurisprudence on the standard of proof (the "prudent man" test), the distinction between "may presume" and "shall presume", and the meaning of "facts in issue" remains fully authoritative. The only new dimension is the cross-referencing under Section 2(2), which has no prior equivalent — courts will need to develop jurisprudence on how definitional conflicts between the BSA and the cross-referenced statutes are resolved.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does the BSA change what counts as "proof" in court? No. The definitions of "proved", "disproved", and "not proved" are word-for-word identical to the Evidence Act. The "prudent man" standard that Indian courts have applied for over 150 years remains unchanged.
Why does the BSA import definitions from the IT Act and BNS? To avoid duplicating technology-related definitions and to ensure that the evidence law stays current as technology legislation is updated. Terms like "electronic record", "computer", "data", "digital signature", and "intermediary" are already defined in the IT Act, 2000 and do not need redefinition.
Does the new structure affect how lawyers cite evidence law provisions? Yes, in practice. Lawyers should now cite "Section 2(1)(j) BSA" instead of "Section 3 — Proved, Evidence Act". The alphabetical sub-clause structure makes citation more precise. For proceedings under the old Act, the old citation format remains appropriate.
Are electronic statements now formally part of "oral evidence"? Yes. Section 2(1)(e)(i) explicitly includes "statements given electronically" within the definition of oral evidence. This codifies existing judicial practice of accepting video-conferenced testimony and provides a stronger statutory foundation for remote depositions.