(a) The good faith of a sale by a client to an attorney is in question in a suit brought by the client. The burden of proving the good faith of the transaction is on the attorney.

(b) The good faith of a sale by a son just come of age to a father is in question in a suit brought by the son. The burden of proving the good faith of the transaction is on the father. 3 [111A. Presumption as to certain offences. ––

(a) any area declared to be a disturbed area under any enactment, for the time being in force, making provision for the suppression of disorder and restoration and maintenance of public order; or

(b) any area in which there has been, over a period of more than one month, extensive disturbance of the public peace, and it is shown that such person had been at a place in such area at a time when firearms or explosives were used at or from that place to attack or resist the members of any armed forces or the forces charged with the maintenance of public order acting in the discharge of their duties, it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is shown, that such person had committed such offence.

(a) an offence under section 121, section 121A, section 122 or section 123 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860);

(b) criminal conspiracy or attempt to commit, or abetment of, an offence under section 122 or section 123 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).] 112. Birth during marriage, conclusive proof of legitimacy. –– The fact that any person was born during the continuance of a valid marriage between his mother and any man, or within two hundred and eighty days after its dissolution, the mother remaining unmarried, shall be conclusive proof that he is the legitimate son of that man, unless it can be shown that the parties to the marriage had no access to each other at any time when he could have been begotten. 113. Proof of cession of territory. –– A notification in the Gazette of India that any portion of British territory has 1[before the commencement of Part III of the Government of India Act, 1935 (26 Geo. 5, c. 2)] been ceded to any Native State, Prince or Ruler, shall be conclusive proof that a valid cession of such territory took place at the date mentioned in such notification. 2 [113A. Presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married woman. ––When the question is whether the commission of suicide by a woman had been abetted by her husband or any relative of her husband and it is shown that she had committed suicide within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage and that her husband or such relative of her husband had subjected her to cruelty, the court may presume, having regard to all the other circumstances of the case, that such suicide had been abetted by her husband or by such relative of her husband. Explanation. –– For the purposes of this section, “cruelty” shall have the same meaning as in section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).] 3 [113B. Presumption as to dowry death. ––-When the question is whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon before her death such woman had been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, the court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death. Explanation. –– For the purposes of this section, “dowry death” shall have the same meaning as in section 304B of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).] 114. Court may presume existence of certain facts. –– The Court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct and public and private business, in their relation to the facts of the particular case. 1. Ins. by the A.O. 1937, Part III of the Government of India Act 1935, came into force on the 1st April, 1937. 2. Ins. by Act 46 of 1983, s. 7. 3. Ins. by Act 43 of 1986, s. 12 (w.e.f. 5-1-1986). 48 Illustrations The Court may presume ––

(a) that a man who is in possession of stolen goods soon, after the theft is either the thief or has received the goods knowing them to be stolen, unless he can account for his possession;

(b) that an accomplice is unworthy of credit, unless he is corroborated in material particulars;

(c) that a bill of exchange, accepted or endorsed, was accepted or endorsed for good consideration;

(d) that a thing or state of things which has been shown to be in existence within a period shorter than that within which such things or states of things usually cease to exist, is still in existence;

(e) that judicial and official acts have been regularly performed;

(f) that the common course of business has been followed in particular cases;

(g) that evidence which could be and is not produced would, if produced, be unfavourable to the person who withholds it;

(h) that if a man refuses to answer a question which he is not compelled to answer by law, the answer, if given, would be unfavourable to him;

(i) that when a document creating an obligation is in the hands of the obligor, the obligation has been discharged. But the Court shall also have regard to such facts as the following, in considering whether such maxims do or do not apply to the particular case before it: –– as to illustration

(a) –– a shop-keeper has in his bill a marked rupee soon after it was stolen, and cannot account for its possession specifically, but is continually receiving rupees in the course of his business; as to illustration

(b) ––A, a person of the highest character, is tried for causing a man’s death by an act of negligence in arranging certain machinery. B, a person of equally good character, who also took part in the arrangement, describes precisely what was done, and admits and explains the common carelessness of A and himself; as to illustration

(b) –– a crime is committed by several persons. A, B and C, three of the criminals, are captured on the spot and kept apart from each other. Each gives an account of the crime implicating D, and the accounts corroborate each other in such a manner as to render previous concert highly improbable; as to illustration

(c) –– A, the drawer of a bill of exchange, was a man of business. B, the acceptor, was a young and ignorant person, completely under A’s influence; as to illustration

(d) –– it is proved that a river ran in a certain course five years ago, but it is known that there have been floods since that time which might change its course; as to illustration

(e) –– a judicial act, the regularity of which is in question, was performed under exceptional circumstances; as to illustration

(f) –– the question is, whether a letter was received. It is shown to have been posted, but the usual course of the post was interrupted by disturbances; as to illustration

(g) –– a man refuses to produce a document which would bear on a contract of small importance on which he is sued, but which might also injure the feelings and reputation of his family; as to illustration

(h) –– a man refuses to answer a question which he is not compelled by law to answer, but the answer to it might cause loss to him in matters unconnected with the matter in relation to which it is asked; as to illustration

(i) –– a bond is in possession of the obligor, but the circumstances of the case are such that he may have stolen it. 49 1 [114A. Presumption as to absence of consent in certain prosecution for rape. ––In a prosecution for rape under clause

(a), clause

(b), clause

(c), clause

(d), clause

(e), clause

(f), clause

(g), clause

(h), clause

(i), clause

(j), clause

(k), clause

(l), clause

(m) or clause

(n) of sub-section

(a) to

(d) of section 375 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).] STATE AMENDMENT Chhattisgarh Insertion of new Section 114B.––After section 114A of the Indian Evidence Act, the following shall be inserted, namely:–– 114B. Presumption as to offences committed under section 354, section 354A, section 354B, section 354C, section 354D, section 509, section 509A or section 509B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.-When the question is whether a person has committed an offence under Section 354, section 354A, section 354B, section 354C, section 354D, section 509, section 509A, or section 509B of the Indian Penal Code and if the victim deposes before the court that she has been subjected to sexual harassment or her modesty was outraged or she was disrobed or she was stalked or her privacy was intruded or she was sexually harassed by any means, as the case may be, the court may, unless contrary is proved, presume that such offence has been committed by that person. [Vide Chhattisgarh Act 25 of 2015, s. 14.] CHAPTER VIII. –– ESTOPPEL 115. Estoppel.––When one person has, by his declaration, act or omission, intentionally caused or permitted another person to believe a thing to be true and to act upon such belief, neither he nor his representative shall be allowed, in any suit or proceeding between himself and such person or his representative, to deny the truth of that thing. Illustration A intentionally and falsely leads B to believe that certain land belongs to A, and thereby induces B to buy and pay for it. The land afterwards becomes the property of A, and A seeks to set aside the sale on the ground that, at the time of the sale, he had no title. He must not be allowed to prove his want of title. 116. Estoppel of tenants and of licensee of person in possession. –– No tenant of immovable property, or person claiming through such tenant, shall, during the continuance of the tenancy, be permitted to deny that the landlord of such tenant had, at the beginning of the tenancy, a title to such immovable property; and no person who came upon any immovable property by the licence of the person in possession there of shall be permitted to deny that such person had a title to such possession at the time when such licence was given. 117. Estoppel of acceptor of bill of exchange, bailee or licensee. –– No acceptor of a bill of exchange shall be permitted to deny that the drawer had authority to draw such bill or to endorse it; nor shall any bailee or licensee be permitted to deny that his bailor or licensor had, at the time when the bailment or licence commenced, authority to make such bailment or grant such licence. Explanation

(a) A, on his trial before the Court of Session, says that a deposition was improperly taken by B, the Magistrate. B cannot be compelled to answer questions as to this, except upon the special order of a superior Court.

(b) A is accused before the Court of Session of having given false evidence before B, a Magistrate. B cannot be asked what A said, except upon the special order of the superior Court.

(c) A is accused before the Court of Session of attempting to murder a police-officer whilst on his trial before B, a Sessions Judge. B may be examined as to what occurred. 122. Communications during marriage.––No person who is or has been married, shall be compelled to disclose any communication made to him during marriage by any person to whom he is or has been married; nor shall he be permitted to disclose any such communication, unless the person who made it, or his representative in interest, consents, except in suits between married persons, or proceedings in which one married person is prosecuted for any crime committed against the other. 123. Evidence as to affairs of State.––No one shall be permitted to give any evidence derived from unpublished official records relating to any affairs of State, except with the permission of the officer at the head of the department concerned, who shall give or withhold such permission as he thinks fit. 124. Official communications.––No public officer shall be compelled to disclose communications made to him in official confidence, when he considers that the public interests would suffer by the disclosure. 1. Subs. by Act 13 of 2013, s. 27 for s. 119 (w.e.f. 3-2-2013). 51 1 [125. Information as to commission of offences. –– No Magistrate or police-officer shall be compelled to say whence he got any information as to the commission of any offence, and no revenue- officer shall be compelled to say whence he got any information as to the commission of any offence against the public revenue. Explanation.–– “Revenue-officer” in this section means any officer employed in or about the business of any branch of the public revenue.] 126. Professional communications. –– No barrister, attorney, pleader or vakil, shall at any time be permitted, unless with his client’s express consent, to disclose any communication made to him in the course and for the purpose of his employment as such barrister, pleader, attorney or vakil, by or on behalf of his client, or to state the contents or condition of any document with which he has become acquainted in the course and for the purpose of his professional employment, or to disclose any advice given by him to his client in the course and for the purpose of such employment: Provided that nothing in this section shall protect from disclosure ––

(a) A, a client, says to B, an attorney –– “I have committed forgery, and I wish you to defend me.” As the defence of a man known to be guilty is not a criminal purpose, this communication is protected from disclosure.

(b) A, a client, says to B, an attorney –– “I wish to obtain possession of property by the use of a forged deed on which I request you to sue.” This communication, being made in furtherance of a criminal purpose, is not protected from disclosure.

(c) A, being charged with embezzlement, retains B, an attorney, to defend him. In the course of the proceedings, B observes that an entry has been made in A’s account book, charging A with the sum said to have been embezzled, which entry was not in the book at the commencement of his employment. This being a fact observed by B in the course of his employment, showing that a fraud has been committed since the commencement of the proceedings, it is not protected from disclosure. 127. Section 126 to apply to interpreters, etc. –– The provisions of section 126 shall apply to interpreters, and the clerks or servants of barristers, pleaders, attorneys and vakils. 128. Privilege not waived by volunteering evidence. –– If any party to a suit gives evidence therein at his own instance or otherwise, he shall not be deemed to have consented thereby to such disclosure as is mentioned in section 126; and, if any party to a suit or proceeding calls any such barrister, 1. Subs. by Act 3 of 1887, s. 1, for the original s. 125. 2. Subs. by Act 18 of 1872, s. 10, for “criminal”. 3. Ins. by s. 10, ibid. 52 1 [pleader], attorney or vakil as a witness, he shall be deemed to have consented to such disclosure only if he questions such barrister, attorney or vakil on matters which, but for such question, he would not be at liberty to disclose. 129. Confidential communications with legal advisers. –– No one shall be compelled to disclose to the Court any confidential communication which has taken place between him and his legal professional adviser, unless he offers himself as a witness, in which case he may be compelled to disclose any such communications as may appear to the Court necessary to be known in order to explain any evidence which he has given, but no others. 130. Production of title-deeds of witness not a party. –– No witness who is not a party to a suit shall be compelled to produce his title-deeds to any property, or any document in virtue of which he holds any property as pledge or mortgagee or any document the production of which might tend to criminate him, unless he has agreed in writing to produce them with the person seeking the production of such deeds or some person through whom he claims. 2 [131. Production of documents or electronic records which another person, having possession, could refuse to produce. –– No one shall be compelled to produce documents in his possession or electronic records under his control, which any other person would be entitled to refuse to produce if they were in his possession or control, unless such last-mentioned person consents to their production.] 132. Witness not excused from answering on ground that answer will criminate. –– A witness shall not be excused from answering any question as to any matter relevant to the matter in issue in any suit or in any civil or criminal proceeding, upon the ground that the answer to such question will criminate, or may tend directly or indirectly to criminate, such witness, or that it will expose, or tend directly or indirectly to expose, such witness to a penalty or forfeiture of any kind: Proviso. –– Provided that no such answer, which a witness shall be compelled to give, shall subject him to any arrest or prosecution, or be proved against him in any criminal proceeding, except a prosecution for giving false evidence by such answer. 133. Accomplice. –– An accomplice shall be a competent witness against an accused person; and a conviction is not illegal merely because it proceeds upon the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice. 134. Number of witnesses. –– No particular number of witnesses shall in any case be required for the proof of any fact. CHAPTER X. –– OF THE EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES 135. Order of production and examination of witnesses. –– The order in which witnesses are produced and examined shall be regulated by the law and practice for the time being relating to civil and criminal procedure respectively, and, in the absence of any such law, by the discretion of the Court. 136. Judge to decide as to admissibility of evidence. ––When either party proposes to give evidence of any fact, the Judge may ask the party proposing to give the evidence in what manner the alleged fact, if proved, would be relevant; and the Judge shall admit the evidence if he thinks that the fact, if proved, would be relevant, and not otherwise. If the fact proposed to be proved is one of which evidence is admissible only upon proof of some other fact, such last-mentioned fact must be proved before evidence is given of the fact first-mentioned, unless the party undertakes to give proof of such fact, and the Court is satisfied with such undertaking. 1. Ins. by Act 18 of 1872, s. 10. 2. Subs. by Act 21 of 2000, s. 92 and the Second Schedule, for “Section 131” (17-10-2000). 53 If the relevancy of one alleged fact depends upon another alleged fact being first proved, the Judge may, in his discretion, either permit evidence of the first fact to be given before the second fact is proved, or require evidence to be given of the second fact before evidence is given of the first fact. Illustrations

(a) It is proposed to prove a statement about a relevant fact by a person alleged to be dead, which statement is relevant under section 32. The fact that the person is dead must be proved by the person proposing to prove the statement, before evidence is given of the statement.

(b) It is proposed to prove, by a copy, the contents of a document said to be lost. The fact that the original is lost must be proved by the person proposing to produce the copy, before the copy is produced.

(c) A is accused of receiving stolen property knowing it to have been stolen. It is proposed to prove that he denied the possession of the property. The relevancy of the denial depends on the identity of the property. The Court may, in its discretion, either require the property to be identified before the denial of the possession is proved, or permit the denial of the possession to be proved before the property is identified.

(d) It is proposed to prove a fact (A) which is said to have been the cause or effect of fact in issue. There are several intermediate facts (B, C and D) which must be shown to exist before the fact (A) can be regarded as the cause or effect of the fact in issue. The Court may either permit A to be proved before B, C or D is proved, or may require proof of B, C and D before permitting proof of A. 137. Examination-in-chief. –– The examination of witness by the party who calls him shall be called his examination-in-chief. Cross-examination. –– The examination of a witness by the adverse party shall be called his cross-examination. Re-examination. ––The examination of a witness, subsequent to the cross-examination by the party who called him, shall be called his re-examination. 138. Order of examinations. –– Witnesses shall be first examined-in-chief, then (if the adverse party so desires) cross-examined, then (if the party calling him so desires) re-examined. The examination and cross-examination must relate to relevant facts, but the cross-examination need not be confined to the facts to which the witness testified on his examination-in-chief. Direction of re-examination. –– The re-examination shall be directed to the explanation of matters referred to in cross-examination; and, if new matter is, by permission of the Court, introduced in re-examination, the adverse party may further cross-examine upon that matter. 139. Cross-examination of person called to produce a document. –– A person summoned to produce a document does not become a witness by the mere fact that he produces it, and cannot be cross-examined unless and until he is called as a witness. 140. Witnesses to character. –– Witnesses to character may be cross-examined and re-examined. 141. Leading questions. –– Any question suggesting the answer which the person putting it wishes or expects to receive, is called a leading question. 54 142. When they must not be asked. –– Leading questions must not, if objected to by the adverse party, be asked in an examination-in-chief, or in a re-examination, except with the permission of the Court. The Court shall permit leading questions as to matters which are introductory or undisputed, or which have, in its opinion, been already sufficiently proved. 143. When they may be asked. –– Leading questions may be asked in cross-examination. 144. Evidence as to matters in writing. –– Any witness may be asked, whilst under examination, whether any contract, grant or other disposition of property, as to which he is giving evidence, was not contained in a document, and if he says that it was, or if he is about to make any statement as to the contents of any document, which, in the opinion of the Court, ought to be produced, the adverse party may object to such evidence being given until such document is produced, or until facts have been proved which entitle the party who called the witness to give secondary evidence of it. Explanation. –– A witness may give oral evidence of statements made by other persons about the contents of documents if such statements are in themselves relevant facts. Illustration The question is, whether A assaulted B. C deposes that he heard A say to D–– “B wrote a letter accusing me of theft, and I will be revenged on him.” This statement is relevant, as showing A’s motive for the assault, and evidence may be given of it, though no other evidence is given about the letter. 1 145. Cross-examination as to previous statements in writing. –– A witness may be cross- examined as to previous statements made by him in writing or reduced into writing, and relevant to matters in question, without such writing being shown to him, or being proved; but, if it is intended to contradict him by the writing, his attention must, before the writing can be proved, be called to those parts of it which are to be used for the purpose of contradicting him. 146. Questions lawful in cross-examination. –– When a witness is cross-examined, he may, in addition to the questions hereinbefore referred to, be asked any questions which tend––