Indian evidence law in 2026 is being decided under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 while being examined under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. The Supreme Court of India delivered at least six significant evidence rulings between January and August 2026 — on DNA versus the legitimacy presumption, attestation, confessions, postmortem reports and custom — every one of them arising from a pre-BSA trial.
Why this scores 15 out of 15. The BSA transition is the single most examinable structural change in the Indian law syllabus right now, and every ruling below gives you a doctrine plus a section-number mapping. That is two marks from one fact. The trap is equally reliable: papers ask for the BSA number and offer the Evidence Act number as a distractor.
The Transition Rule to State in Every Answer
The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 replaced the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Because trials that began before the changeover continue under the old Act, almost all 2026 judgments cite Evidence Act section numbers. Both are therefore live.
The Supreme Court settled the interpretive question directly in Nikhat Parveen v. Rafique, 2026 INSC 399: Section 116 BSA is identical in wording to Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and "the same judicial framework applies under the new statute". Read that across: where the BSA reproduces a provision, the pre-2023 case law is undisturbed.
Verified section map for the provisions in this digest
| Indian Evidence Act, 1872 | Subject | Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 | Nature of change |
|---|---|---|---|
| Section 3 | Interpretation clause | Section 2 | Modified — definitions restructured; "document" expressly includes electronic and digital records |
| Section 13 | Facts relevant when right or custom in question | Section 12 | Identical |
| Section 24 | Confession caused by inducement, threat or promise | Section 22 | Modified — adds "coercion" as an explicit ground |
| Sections 25 and 26 | Confession to police / in police custody | Section 23(1) | Merged into one provision with sub-sections |
| Section 27 | How much information from accused may be proved | Section 23(2) | Modified — structured as a proviso to the confession bar |
| Section 30 | Confession affecting the maker and others jointly under trial | Section 24 | Modified — adds Explanation II on the absconded accused |
| Section 68 | Proof of execution of document required by law to be attested | Section 66 | Identical |
| Section 112 | Birth during marriage as conclusive proof of legitimacy | Section 116 | Identical |
| Section 145 | Cross-examination as to previous statements in writing | Section 150 | Identical |
| Section 157 | Former statements to corroborate later testimony | Section 162 | Identical |
| Section 159 | Refreshing memory | Section 164 | Identical |
Two companion mappings from the procedural code, because evidence questions routinely reach across: Section 161 CrPC → Section 180 BNSS (police examination of witnesses, with audio-video recording now mandatory for certain offences) and Section 164 CrPC → Section 183 BNSS (recording of confessions, with audio-video recording mandatory).
Memorise the two hardest ones. Section 30 of the Evidence Act — the co-accused confession provision — becomes Section 24 BSA, and Section 27 of the Evidence Act — the discovery provision — becomes Section 23(2) BSA. The numbers 24 and 27 exist in both statutes with different content, which is precisely why examiners use them.
Ruling 1 — DNA Versus the Legitimacy Presumption
Nikhat Parveen @ Khusboo Khatoon v. Rafique @ Shillu, 2026 INSC 399, decided 21 April 2026 by Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, is the highest-value case of the year in this subject.
Facts. The appellant, employed as domestic help in the respondent's household, married him in March 2016; a child was born in April 2016. She filed proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 seeking maintenance. The respondent denied paternity and sought a DNA test, which the trial court directed and which was conducted in May 2017. The report established that he was not the biological father. Interim maintenance was refused; the appellate court and the Delhi High Court affirmed.
Holding. Where a DNA test is court-directed, conducted with both parties' consent, and its result is not subsequently disputed, the scientific finding displaces the conclusive presumption in Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The Court traced the doctrinal line — Goutam Kundu (presumption paramount), Nandlal Wasudeo Badwaik (DNA superior to a legal presumption), Aparna Ajinkya Firodia (presumption survives absent proof of non-access; the child's privacy matters) and Ivan Rathinam (balancing the child's right to know parentage against the stigma of illegitimacy) — and applied Badwaik on these facts.
Two refinements to carry into an answer:
- Section 116 BSA is identical. The legislature's decision to retain the presumption in 2023 reflects an intent to shield children from illegitimacy stigma, but that intent does not override conclusive, unchallenged scientific evidence.
- The ruling is fact-specific. Contested tests, tests ordered without proper consent, or privacy objections remain governed by the Firodia/Ivan Rathinam balancing.
Child-welfare direction: even while denying maintenance, the Court directed Delhi government child welfare authorities to assess and monitor the minor's education, nutrition, health and living conditions.
Ruling 2 — Section 68 Does Not Reach a Registered Sale Deed
R. Veronica & Anr. v. Rudrayani Devaki (D) through LRs, 2026 INSC 703, decided 14 July 2026 by Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra, turned on a 1978 sale deed.
The trial court decreed the suit on the strength of an attesting witness. The first appellate court reversed, disbelieving that witness. In second appeal the Kerala High Court restored the decree — reasoning that because the executant had not herself sued to deny execution, the proviso to Section 68 was not attracted.
The Supreme Court held that the High Court had asked the wrong question:
- Section 68 is inapplicable to sale deeds. It reaches only documents which the law requires to be attested — gift deeds and mortgages. A sale deed is governed by Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and needs no attestation. Marginal witnesses signing it changes nothing.
- The proviso is equally inapplicable, for the same reason.
- A substantial question of law is mandatory. Under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 read with Order XLII Rule 2, a High Court cannot reverse the first appellate court in second appeal without first formulating one; failure vitiates the judgment.
The matter was remitted for de novo hearing within three months and the judgment circulated to all High Courts. The BSA equivalent of Section 68 is Section 66, and the mapper records the two as identical.
Ruling 3 — Confessions: Two Separate Tests
Bernard Lyngdoh Phawa v. State of Meghalaya, 2026 INSC 85, decided 27 January 2026 by Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran, is the cleanest quotation in the set. The conviction was under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, resting substantially on a confession recorded under Section 164 CrPC.
The Court's formulation: "A confession can form a legal basis of conviction if the Court is satisfied that it was true and was voluntarily made. However, a Court shall not base a conviction on such a confession without corroboration."
The examinable point is that these are two sequential inquiries, not one. Voluntariness is necessary but not sufficient; corroboration must be separately identified in the judgment, and a failure to do so is itself an appellate ground.
The co-accused variant came on 22 May 2026, when the Supreme Court set aside a murder conviction that rested substantially on an extra-judicial confession attributed to a co-accused. The holdings: an extra-judicial confession is not excluded outright but is treated as weak evidence; a co-accused's confession may be considered against others at a joint trial only as corroborative material, never as primary or sole proof; and the corroboration required was absent. The transition point the Court made expressly: the move from the Evidence Act to the BSA has not altered these substantive principles.
Two cautions for accuracy. First, the underlying Veritect report of that ruling described the co-accused-confession provision as Section 27 BSA; Veritect's own verified Evidence Act-to-BSA mapper records Section 30 of the Evidence Act as Section 24 BSA, and Section 27 of the Evidence Act as Section 23(2) BSA. Use the mapper figure and flag the discrepancy if asked. Second, that ruling's case name, bench and neutral citation were not available on sci.gov.in when reported — cite it by date only.
Judicial versus extra-judicial, the standard two-mark distinction: a judicial confession is recorded before a Magistrate under Section 183 BNSS (formerly Section 164 CrPC), who must satisfy himself of voluntariness and administer a warning; an extra-judicial confession is made outside that process, to a private person, and requires corroboration.
Ruling 4 — A Postmortem Report Is Corroborative, Not Substantive
Talari Naresh v. The State of Telangana, 2026 INSC 486, Criminal Appeal No. 2506/2026, decided 13 May 2026 by Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice N.V. Anjaria, acquitted the appellant of murder under Section 302 IPC and offences under Sections 3(1)(x) and 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, reversing concurrent convictions affirmed by the Telangana High Court in February 2025.
The ratio, authored by Justice Anjaria: "the postmortem report by itself cannot be treated as a piece of substantive evidence; it needs to be corroborated by other oral evidence."
Four prosecution failures, all worth memorising as a set:
- A 26-hour discrepancy — the inquest report recorded autopsy completion at 2:30 p.m. on 13 May, the postmortem report at 4:00 p.m. on 14 May. PW7 explained it only as "night duty fatigue".
- The sole eyewitness PW3 turned hostile, contradicting the prosecution account. The Court applied Sections 145, 157 and 159 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — now Sections 150, 162 and 164 BSA.
- No independent bystander was examined although the alleged incident occurred on a busy main road near active quarries. An adverse inference followed.
- PW4 and PW5 denied that any village panchayat proceedings occurred over the earlier elopement, collapsing the caste-motive theory.
The SC/ST Act point is separately examinable: where neither the predicate offence nor independent proof of caste motivation is established, the Section 3(2)(v) charge falls with the substantive charge. Caste identity of the parties is not a substitute for proof of caste motive.
Ruling 5 — Custom Must Be Proved, Never Presumed
Bejla Oraon v. Kali Das Oraon & Ors., 2026 INSC 672, decided 9 July 2026 by Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, rejected a succession claim founded on an alleged custom permitting an uncle-in-law to adopt his niece's husband as a "ghardamad".
Three propositions:
- The burden lies on the party alleging the custom and never shifts to the party denying it.
- A custom must be shown to be ancient, certain, reasonable and continuous; bare assertion of usage is not enough.
- Absent a proved custom, no succession rights arise from the claimed relationship.
The relevant provisions were Sections 3 and 13 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — now Sections 2 and 12 BSA, the latter recorded as identical in the mapper.
Legislative Watch — Bankers' Books Evidence Bill, 2026
The Bankers' Books Evidence Bill, 2026 was one of twelve Bills passed by both Houses during the Monsoon Session, 2026, which ran 20 July to 13 August 2026 across 19 sittings over 25 days. It is framed as a replacement for the Bankers' Books Evidence Act, 1891, which governs the admissibility of certified copies of bank records and the conditions on which a banker may be compelled to produce books.
Unverified gap, stated plainly. The assent status, Act number, enacted text and commencement date of this Bill were not retrieved from the Gazette of India when this digest was prepared. A Bill passed by both Houses is not an Act; it becomes one on presidential assent under Article 111 of the Constitution of India. Do not write in an examination that the 1891 Act has been repealed. Write that the Bill was passed in the Monsoon Session, 2026 and that its enactment status is unconfirmed.
If enacted as framed, it interacts directly with the BSA on documentary and electronic evidence, and transitional provisions will determine whether certificates issued under the 1891 Act remain good.
Key Facts to Remember
| # | Date | Case / Development | Key Fact | Subject |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 27 Jan 2026 | Bernard Lyngdoh Phawa v. State of Meghalaya | 2026 INSC 85; confession needs voluntariness and corroboration | Evidence / Criminal |
| 2 | 21 Apr 2026 | Nikhat Parveen v. Rafique | 2026 INSC 399; undisputed consent-based DNA displaces s.112 IEA / s.116 BSA | Evidence / Family |
| 3 | 13 May 2026 | Talari Naresh v. State of Telangana | 2026 INSC 486; postmortem report not substantive evidence; 26-hour discrepancy | Evidence / Criminal |
| 4 | 22 May 2026 | Extra-judicial confession ruling | Co-accused confession is corroborative only; citation not yet available | Evidence / Criminal |
| 5 | 9 Jul 2026 | Bejla Oraon v. Kali Das Oraon | 2026 INSC 672; custom must be ancient, certain, reasonable, continuous | Evidence / Succession |
| 6 | 14 Jul 2026 | R. Veronica v. Rudrayani Devaki | 2026 INSC 703; s.68 IEA / s.66 BSA does not apply to a sale deed | Evidence / Property |
| 7 | 20 Jul – 13 Aug 2026 | Bankers' Books Evidence Bill, 2026 | Passed by both Houses; assent unverified | Legislation |
| 8 | — | IEA → BSA map | 112→116, 68→66, 30→24, 27→23(2), 25/26→23(1), 3→2, 13→12 | Evidence |
Exam Angle
- MCQ format: "The conclusive presumption of legitimacy of a child born during marriage is contained in which section of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023? (a) 112 (b) 116 (c) 66 (d) 24" — Answer: (b) 116.
- MCQ format: "Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, on confession affecting the maker and others jointly under trial, corresponds to which BSA provision? (a) 23(1) (b) 23(2) (c) 24 (d) 27" — Answer: (c) 24.
- MCQ format: "In R. Veronica v. Rudrayani Devaki (2026), the Supreme Court held that Section 68 of the Evidence Act does not apply to — (a) a gift deed (b) a mortgage (c) a registered sale deed (d) a will" — Answer: (c).
- Descriptive format: "Examine the interplay between scientific evidence and the conclusive presumption of legitimacy with reference to Goutam Kundu, Nandlal Wasudeo Badwaik, Aparna Ajinkya Firodia and Nikhat Parveen v. Rafique (2026 INSC 399)." (Judiciary Mains, UPSC Law Optional)
- Descriptive format: "'A confession is not a substitute for proof.' Discuss the evidentiary value of judicial and extra-judicial confessions, and of a co-accused's confession, under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023." (Judiciary Mains)
- Key facts to memorise: 112→116; 68→66; 30→24; 27→23(2); 25 and 26 merged into 23(1); 145→150; 157→162; 159→164; Section 164 CrPC→Section 183 BNSS; the 26-hour postmortem discrepancy; twelve Bills in Monsoon Session 2026.
- Related provisions: Sections 2, 12, 22, 23, 24, 66, 116, 150, 162, 164 BSA; Section 54, Transfer of Property Act, 1882; Section 100 and Order XLII Rule 2, CPC 1908; Sections 3(1)(x) and 3(2)(v), SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989; Article 111, Constitution of India.
Exam-wise Relevance
For CLAT / AILET aspirants
- The old-to-new section pairs are pure legal-GK recall and appear almost every cycle.
- Nikhat Parveen makes an ideal comprehension passage: science versus a statutory presumption, with a child-welfare direction attached.
For judiciary exam aspirants
- Prelims: the mapping table, and the R. Veronica rule that attestation-proof applies only to gifts and mortgages.
- Mains: the confession chapter as a whole — Sections 22 to 24 BSA — and the corroboration discipline in Bernard Lyngdoh Phawa. Talari Naresh is the model answer on appreciation of medical and hostile-witness evidence.
For UPSC Law Optional
- Build one answer around the theme that the BSA re-codified rather than reformed the law of evidence, and use Nikhat Parveen — where the Court expressly said Section 116 BSA is identical — as the anchor authority.
- The Bankers' Books Evidence Bill, 2026 is a legitimate "recent developments" mention provided you record that its assent status is unconfirmed.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which section of the BSA replaces Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act?
Section 116 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, with identical wording on the conclusive presumption of legitimacy of a child born during a valid marriage. The Supreme Court noted in Nikhat Parveen v. Rafique, 2026 INSC 399, that the legislature deliberately retained the presumption to protect children from the stigma of illegitimacy, notwithstanding advances in DNA technology.
Does an extra-judicial confession of a co-accused ever support a conviction?
Only as corroboration. Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 24 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 — permits a proved confession to be considered against others jointly under trial for the same offence, but the consistent position of the Supreme Court, restated on 22 May 2026, is that it cannot be the sole or primary basis of guilt. Independent corroboration connecting the accused to the offence is required. Section 24 BSA also adds an Explanation dealing with the absconded accused.
Why do 2026 judgments still cite the Indian Evidence Act, 1872?
Because the trials they arose from began before the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 took effect. Talari Naresh concerned an incident of 12 May 2013; R. Veronica turned on a 1978 sale deed. In an answer, cite the provision the Court itself applied, then add the BSA equivalent in parenthesis. Substituting the new number into an old judgment is a factual error.
Is a postmortem report enough to prove murder?
No. Talari Naresh v. State of Telangana, 2026 INSC 486, held that a postmortem report is corroborative medical evidence, not primary substantive proof, and must be supported by the oral testimony of the medical witness and other evidence. Where the report carries an unexplained internal inconsistency — there, a 26-hour discrepancy in autopsy timing attributed only to "night duty fatigue" — its evidentiary value collapses and cannot sustain a conviction.
Has the Bankers' Books Evidence Act, 1891 been repealed?
Not so far as can be verified here. The Bankers' Books Evidence Bill, 2026 was passed by both Houses in the Monsoon Session, 2026, but its presidential assent under Article 111 of the Constitution of India, its Act number and its commencement date were not retrieved from the Gazette of India for this digest. State the fact of passage; do not state that the 1891 Act stands repealed.
Sources: Supreme Court of India — Judgments by date | Supreme Court of India — Latest orders | Supreme Court of India — Bernard Lyngdoh Phawa v. State of Meghalaya, 2026 INSC 85, judgment dated 27 January 2026 | Press Information Bureau, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs — Monsoon Session, 2026 | India Code | Gazette of India
source_notes: All facts are re-synthesised from Veritect's own previously published daily-news articles on disk, each carrying its Tier 1 primary source. Nikhat Parveen (2026 INSC 399), the 21 April 2026 date, the bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, the March 2016 marriage, April 2016 birth, May 2017 DNA test, the Goutam Kundu/Badwaik/Firodia/Ivan Rathinam line and the Section 116 BSA identity finding come from legal-news-output/2026/April/22-to-23/2026-04-21-supreme-court-dna-test-overrides-section-112-evidence-act-paternity.md (primary source: sci.gov.in judgments-by-date). R. Veronica (2026 INSC 703), the 14 July 2026 date, the 1978 sale deed, the Section 54 Transfer of Property Act, 1882 point and the Section 100 CPC / Order XLII Rule 2 holding come from legal-news-output/2026/July/14-to-15/2026-07-14-supreme-court-section-68-evidence-act-not-apply-registered-sale-deed.md. The confession two-pronged test and both quoted sentences come from legal-news-output/2026/January/22-to-28/2026-01-27-supreme-court-confession-corroboration-conviction-standard.md, whose primary source is the judgment PDF at api.sci.gov.in linked above. The 22 May 2026 extra-judicial-confession holdings come from legal-news-output/2026/May/22-to-23/2026-05-23-supreme-court-murder-conviction-set-aside-extra-judicial-confession-inadmissible.md, whose own source note records that the case name, bench and neutral citation were unavailable on sci.gov.in at the time of writing; that gap is disclosed rather than filled by inference, and that file's description of the co-accused provision as Section 27 BSA is expressly corrected in the body against the verified mapper. Talari Naresh (2026 INSC 486), Criminal Appeal No. 2506/2026, the 13 May 2026 date, the 12 May 2013 incident date, the February 2025 Telangana High Court affirmation, the 26-hour discrepancy, the PW3/PW4/PW5/PW7 findings and the Sections 145, 157 and 159 references come from legal-news-output/2026/May/12-to-13/2026-05-13-supreme-court-talari-naresh-murder-acquittal-postmortem-evidence-scst-act.md. Bejla Oraon (2026 INSC 672) and the custom-proof propositions come from legal-news-output/2026/July/09-to-10/2026-07-09-supreme-court-party-alleging-custom-must-prove-it.md. The Monsoon Session, 2026 figures — 20 July to 13 August 2026, 19 sittings over 25 days, twelve Bills passed, and the presence of the Bankers' Books Evidence Bill, 2026 in that list — come from legal-news-output/2026/August/12-to-13/2026-08-13-monsoon-session-2026-adjourns-sine-die-twelve-bills-passed.md, whose primary source is the Press Information Bureau release of the Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs linked above; no assent record for that Bill was retrieved, and its status is published as a gap. Every Indian Evidence Act, 1872 to Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 section equivalence in the mapping table was read directly from old-law-new-law/evidence-to-bsa.md in this repository, and the two CrPC-to-BNSS equivalences from old-law-new-law/crpc-to-bnss.md. No mapping was guessed; none is stated that was not found in those files. No event date in this digest was derived from a report's publication timestamp.
This digest is prepared for legal-examination preparation. It is not legal advice.