e-Nyaya Sarathi

Confession made while in police custody.

Only if made before a magistrate.

Confession made outside court.

Yes, but courts are cautious about it.

Evidence in the form of written or recorded documents.

Yes, but weight depends on circumstances.

Yes, but authenticity must be proved.

Yes, if legible and verified.

Making a false document with intent to cheat.

No, once proven forged, it is rejected.

A document signed by witnesses as proof of authenticity.

Not always, only for specific documents.

Yes, they have equal legal value.

Its ability to prove something.

The judge.

Copies or printouts of electronic records.

Yes, with proper certification.

Yes, if authenticated.

Yes, with forensic methods.

Maintaining records of who handled the data.

It prevents tampering.

The original server or device record.

Yes, it shows data has not been altered.

Yes, if clear and authentic.

Yes, to compare with recordings.

Yes, they can be compared by experts.

Yes, by experts or witnesses.

A written statement sworn before an authority.

Yes, but generally not substitutes for oral testimony.

Yes, it carries credibility.

When government withholds evidence for security reasons.

Yes, but subject to restrictions.

Yes, their correctness can be questioned.

Records of cases maintained by courts.

Yes, they are.

Yes, they are admissible.

Yes, if authenticated.

Proving foreign law through expert testimony or certified documents.

Yes, with proper certification.

Courts may recognize customs if proved.

The party making a claim must prove it on balance of probabilities.

Prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt.

Level of certainty required to prove a case.

Yes, civil requires probability; criminal requires certainty.

Yes, depending on facts and presumptions.

In dowry death cases, husband may need to explain circumstances.

Duty of proving a fact in issue.

Burden is fixed by law; onus may shift during trial.

Child born during marriage is presumed legitimate.

Yes, with contrary proof.

A person not heard of for 7 years is presumed dead.

Government acts are presumed properly done.

Yes, with evidence to the contrary.

Stopping a person from denying something they previously admitted.

Yes, in limited situations.

Not automatically; it depends on reliability.

Yes, partially.

Challenging a witness’s credibility.

By showing contradictions or bad character.

A confession later taken back.

Yes, but need strong corroboration.

A written statement before death.

Yes, if credible.

Yes, if reliable.

Yes, but consistency is important.

Yes, but magistrate recording is preferred.

Yes, judges may record it.

They prove the person was fit to speak.

Court examines carefully before relying.

Because the victim’s words may be the only direct evidence.

It is the view of a specialist on technical matters.

Yes, their testimony is admissible.

Yes, fingerprint experts are recognized.

Yes, DNA experts’ opinions are valid evidence.

No, the court is not bound to accept it blindly.

Yes, the court may hear more than one expert.

Evidence based on science like DNA, fingerprints, or ballistics.

No, they are not admissible as proof.

No, it cannot be relied upon in court.

No, such reports are not admissible.

When a person gives views rather than facts.

No, except from experts or when law allows.

Yes, on matters like age, identity, or handwriting familiarity.

Character may be relevant in specific cases.

Yes, especially in criminal trials to support innocence.

Yes, if the accused first puts their good character in issue.

Yes, reputation in society may be relevant.

Past behaviour that shows a pattern.

Yes, when it establishes intent or design.

Yes, post-mortem reports are valid evidence.

Yes, with proper certification.

Yes, judges may compare handwriting.

Yes, by fingerprint experts.

Not usually, they seek corroboration.

When a witness testifies about what they personally saw.

Yes, if they perceived events through other senses.

Yes, through signs or interpreters.

Yes, by writing or gestures.

Yes, for witnesses unable to speak the court language.

A formal promise to speak truth.

Yes, if the court is satisfied about their understanding.

They may face perjury charges.

Giving false evidence knowingly.

Yes, under criminal law.

Yes, if legally recorded.

Evidence in the form of sworn written statement.

Not in all cases, depends on law.

The original document itself.

Copies, certified versions, or substitutes.

Yes, if original data is produced.

No, they are secondary evidence.

Yes, under secondary evidence rules.

Government documents produced in official course.

Documents by individuals or organizations.

Yes, with certification.

Yes, they are admissible.

Yes, if properly authenticated.

An official copy verified by authority.

Yes, in case of public documents.

A document officially registered with government.

It adds weight but can still be challenged.

Yes, like entries in family books.

Yes, depending on relevancy.

Yes, private letters are admissible.

Yes, digital era does not need negatives.

Yes, if proved authentic.

Yes, if data is genuine.

Yes, subject to verification.

Yes, with authentication.

Emails are admissible with certificates.

Yes, if verified.

Yes, with proper access and verification..

Yes, if reliability is established.

Yes, so authenticity must be checked.

By certificates, hash values, and expert testimony.

Yes, with records from e-commerce companies.

Yes, if genuine.

Yes, telecom records are admissible.

Generally no, certificate is required.

Yes, through forensic tools.

Yes, by digital forensics.

Yes, through service providers.

Yes, authenticity must be proved.

Yes, so expert verification is vital.

Yes, using forensic analysis.

Tracking every stage of handling evidence.

Evidence may lose credibility.

Hidden data showing time, date, author etc.

Yes, it is strong evidence.

Not always, they need corroboration.

Yes, with proper certification.

Yes, digital payment records are admissible.

Yes, blockchain proof can be used.

Yes, if they represent real facts.

Yes, e-signatures are legally valid.

It states proof of contents of documents.

It defines primary evidence.

It defines secondary evidence.

It requires documents to be proved by primary evidence.

It explains exceptions for secondary evidence.

It deals with rules for giving notice to produce documents.

It covers proof of signature and handwriting.

It deals with proof of attested documents.

It explains how to prove documents when attesting witnesses are dead or unavailable.

It allows admission of execution by party as proof.

It deals with proof when attesting witness denies execution.

It covers proof of documents not required by law to be attested.

It allows courts to compare handwriting, signatures, or fingerprints.

It defines public documents.

It defines private documents.

It provides for certified copies of public documents.

It allows certified copies to be used as proof.

It explains proof of official documents.

It presumes genuineness of certified copies.

It presumes documents produced as records of evidence are genuine.

It presumes official gazettes, newspapers, and journals are genuine.

It presumes documents over 20 years old are genuine.

It presumes maps and plans made by authority are accurate.

It presumes collections of laws and reports are genuine.

It presumes powers of attorney are validly executed.

It presumes certified copies of foreign records are genuine.

It presumes books and maps printed by authority are genuine.

It presumes telegraphic and electronic messages are authentic.

It presumes documents in proper custody are genuine.

It presumes electronic records 5 years old are genuine.

It reduces burden of proving old electronic records.

It states that contents of documents must be proved by the documents themselves.

It bars oral evidence against the terms of written documents.

It deals with excluding oral evidence when terms are clear.

It covers exclusion of oral evidence when terms are ambiguous.

It allows oral evidence to explain illegible or obsolete terms.

It covers evidence for explaining material facts in documents.

It allows evidence to clarify language used in documents.

It allows evidence to explain technical terms.

It covers evidence of usage or custom in documents.

It provides that persons not party to a document may give evidence about it.

It explains who has the burden of proof.

It says burden of proof lies on the person who would fail if no evidence is given.

It places burden on the person who asserts a fact.

It places burden to prove conditions for admissibility.

It places burden on accused to prove ex...(truncated 4435 characters)...ng a witness’s credibility.

It allows corroborative evidence of a witness’s testimony.

It allows use of previous statements for corroboration.

It allows using statements for refreshing memory.

It allows witnesses to refresh memory using writings.

It allows cross-examining a witness about documents used to refresh memory.

It allows production of documents for cross-examination.

It restricts production of documents without notice.

It allows using documents handed over to opponents.

It allows court to inspect documents.

It allows judge to ask any question to discover truth.

It allows jury or assessors to ask questions.

They give wide powers to the court to seek truth.

It says no evidence will be rejected for minor errors if sufficient otherwise.

It ensures justice by setting clear rules for what evidence courts can rely on.

Yes, BSA 2023 repeals and replaces it.

To modernize evidence law and adapt to digital times.

Yes, it applies to all judicial proceedings.

No, BSA applies only in courts.

No, unless parties agree otherwise.

Yes, it has detailed provisions on electronic records.

Yes, if it meets conditions under BSA.

Yes, but must be proved as authentic.

Yes, if properly authenticated.

Yes, if proved genuine.

It may lose evidentiary value.

An authorized person provides certificate under Section 63.

Yes, it is admissible under BSA.

Yes, if properly verified.

Yes, they are legally valid.

Yes, with proper certification.

Yes, if retrieved and authenticated.

The original document or thing itself.

Copies or substitutes of original evidence.

When original is lost, destroyed, or not available.

Yes, if conditions for secondary evidence are met.

Yes, as it is a public document.

Yes, with certification.

Evidence based on what someone else said, not direct knowledge.

Generally no, except in specific cases.

Evidence directly proving a fact, like eyewitness testimony.

Evidence that indirectly proves a fact through circumstances.

Yes, if chain of circumstances is complete.

Evidence given by experts in fields like medicine, science, handwriting.

No, they are advisory.

Yes, as expert evidence.

Yes, it is admissible as expert evidence.

Yes, courts may seek their opinion.

Yes, if properly collected and proved.

Facts courts accept without proof.

The fact that the sun rises in the east.

No, courts take judicial notice.

Yes, if law prohibits it.

Yes, if relevant, but court may weigh its reliability.

No, unless made before magistrate.

No, it is inadmissible.

No, unless before magistrate.

Statement by a person about cause of death before dying.

Yes, it is an exception to hearsay.

Yes, if reliable.

Preferably yes, but not compulsory.

Yes, if lawfully recorded and authenticated.

Courts may admit them if relevant.

Certain communications protected from disclosure.

Yes, under BSA.

Yes, it is protected.

Yes, if disclosure harms public interest.

No, judges cannot be compelled to testify about their conduct in court.

No, identity of informants is protected.

Generally no, unless privilege applies.

Witness must answer, but law protects him from prosecution.

A rule preventing a person from denying what they earlier represented.

Tenant cannot deny landlord’s ownership.

Yes, if they understand the questions.

No, capacity depends on understanding.

Yes, if capable of understanding and answering.

Yes, but cannot be compelled.

Yes, but certain communications are privileged.

Yes, judges can disallow such questions.

Yes, court can protect them.

No, quality of evidence matters more than quantity.

Yes, if credible.

Yes, partly if reliable.

Questioning a witness by the opposite party.

It tests truthfulness of the witness.

Yes, if relevant to credibility.

Yes, freely.

Not unless permitted by court.

Questioning a witness after cross-examination.

To clarify matters raised in cross-examination.

Yes, to refresh memory.

Yes, under Section 165.

Yes, with court’s permission.

No, court may forbid them.

Case will not be reversed if decision is otherwise sound.

Case may be affected if vital evidence is excluded.

Yes, court has power to call for them.

Yes, whenever needed.

Yes, admissions are valid evidence.

Yes, but court will check reliability.