Section 79 BSA: Presumption as to Records of Evidence

Understand Section 79 BSA, its three statutory presumptions, judicial records, recorded statements and confessions.

Introduction

Section 79 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023 deals with the presumption attached to certain documents produced before a court as records of evidence, statements or confessions. It is relevant when a document purports to have been recorded in accordance with law and signed by a Judge, Magistrate or another officer legally authorised to take the evidence.

The provision enables courts to presume certain aspects of the authenticity and proper recording of qualifying documents without requiring separate proof of every detail. However, it does not automatically establish that every statement recorded in a document is true or that every confession is voluntary and admissible.

Section 79 BSA corresponds to Section 80 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The essential rule has been retained under the new evidence law.

Bare Act: Section 79 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023

79. Presumption as to documents produced as record of evidence, etc.—

Whenever any document is produced before any Court, purporting to be a record or memorandum of the evidence, or of any part of the evidence, given by a witness in a judicial proceeding or before any officer authorised by law to take such evidence or to be a statement or confession by any prisoner or accused person, taken in accordance with law, and purporting to be signed by any Judge or Magistrate, or by any such officer as aforesaid, the Court shall presume that—

(i) the document is genuine;

(ii) any statements as to the circumstances under which it was taken, purporting to be made by the person signing it, are true; and

(iii) such evidence, statement or confession was duly taken.

Meaning of Section 79 BSA

Section 79 creates three statutory presumptions concerning qualifying records produced before a court.

First, the court presumes that the document is genuine. Second, it presumes that statements made by the signing officer concerning the circumstances in which the document was recorded are true. Third, it presumes that the evidence, statement or confession was duly taken.

These presumptions apply only when the requirements of the provision are met. The document must purport to record evidence given in a judicial proceeding or before an officer authorised by law to take such evidence, or a statement or confession by a prisoner or accused person taken in accordance with law. It must also purport to bear the signature of a Judge, Magistrate or other authorised officer.

For example, where a qualifying record of evidence from an earlier judicial proceeding is produced before a court and bears the signature of the authorised officer, Section 79 may permit the court to presume that the record is genuine and was duly taken.

The provision concerns the authenticity and proper recording of the document. It does not make every statement contained in it conclusive proof of the truth of its contents.

Essential Conditions for Applying Section 79 BSA

1. The document must be produced before a court

The provision applies when a document is produced before a court. It does not create a general presumption for every statement or record maintained outside the relevant legal framework.

2. The document must fall within a category specified by the section

The document must purport to be one of the following:

• A record or memorandum of evidence, or part of the evidence, given by a witness in a judicial proceeding.
• A record or memorandum of evidence given before an officer authorised by law to take such evidence.
• A statement or confession by a prisoner or accused person, taken in accordance with law.

The nature of the document and the circumstances in which it was recorded are therefore important.

3. The document must purport to be signed by the appropriate authority

The document must purport to be signed by a Judge, Magistrate or another officer legally authorised to take the relevant evidence.

The signature requirement helps identify the official record to which the statutory presumption applies.

4. The statement or confession must have been taken in accordance with law

Where the document purports to contain a statement or confession by a prisoner or accused person, it must have been taken in accordance with law.

Section 79 does not independently validate an unlawful recording procedure. Compliance with the applicable procedural and substantive safeguards must still be considered.

5. The presumption concerns three distinct matters

Once the conditions are satisfied, the court shall presume:

1. The document is genuine.
2. Statements by the signing officer concerning the circumstances in which the document was taken are true.
3. The evidence, statement or confession was duly taken.

These are related but distinct presumptions. They should not be treated as an automatic determination of every issue concerning the contents or admissibility of the document.

Also Read: Section 88 BSA: Presumption as to Certified Copies of Foreign Judicial Records

The Three Presumptions Under Section 79 BSA

Statutory presumption	Meaning	Example
Genuineness of the document	The qualifying document is presumed to be genuine.	A properly signed judicial record is presumed to be authentic.
Truth of statements concerning recording circumstances	Statements by the signing officer about the circumstances in which the document was taken are presumed true.	A signed record stating that the statement was recorded through the prescribed procedure receives the statutory presumption, subject to the scope of the provision.
Evidence, statement or confession duly taken	The court presumes that the recording was duly carried out.	A qualifying record of evidence is presumed to have been duly taken in accordance with the applicable requirements.

The presumptions are mandatory when the provision applies, but they are not conclusive proof of every fact mentioned in the document.

Examples of Section 79 BSA

Example 1: Record of evidence in an earlier proceeding

A witness gives evidence in a judicial proceeding. The evidence is recorded and the record purports to be signed by the Judge. If that record is later produced before another court and satisfies Section 79, the court shall presume that the document is genuine and that the evidence was duly taken.

Example 2: Statement recorded by an authorised officer

A legally authorised officer records evidence in a proceeding and signs the record. When the document is produced before a court, the statutory presumption may apply if the requirements of Section 79 are met.

Example 3: Statement or confession of an accused person

A document purports to contain a confession by an accused person, recorded in accordance with law and signed by a Judge, Magistrate or other authorised officer. Section 79 may support a presumption that the document is genuine and that the confession was duly taken.

However, this does not automatically establish that the confession was voluntary, admissible for every purpose or sufficient to convict the accused. Those questions must be determined under the applicable law.

Example 4: Statement recorded by the police during investigation

A statement recorded by the police during investigation does not automatically attract Section 79 merely because it is part of an official file. The court must consider whether the document falls within the specific categories covered by the section and the restrictions governing the use of the statement.

Important Case Laws on Section 79 BSA

The following judgments interpret Section 80 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the predecessor provision. They are relevant to understanding Section 79 BSA, although they were decided under the former law.

1. Modi Ganga v. State of Orissa

Citation: AIR 1981 SC 1165

Court: Supreme Court of India

Legal principle: The decision is cited in discussions of the evidentiary treatment of judicial records and the application of the presumption under Section 80 of the Indian Evidence Act. The statutory presumption can dispense with separate examination of the officer who recorded qualifying evidence in circumstances covered by the provision.

Relevance to Section 79 BSA: The case helps explain the practical purpose of the presumption: a qualifying official record may be relied upon without requiring the recording officer to be called merely to establish the matters covered by the statutory presumption.

The presumption remains limited to the provision’s scope. It does not remove other requirements concerning relevance, admissibility or the legal effect of the recorded evidence.

2. Deorao s/o Sonbaji Bhalerao v. State of Maharashtra

Court: Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench

Case: Criminal Appeal No. 103 of 2003

Decision date: 30 June 2008

Facts: The case concerned a criminal conviction based substantially on a dying declaration recorded by a Special Judicial Magistrate. The prosecution argued that Section 80 of the Indian Evidence Act supplied a presumption of genuineness, so the Magistrate did not need to establish the material contents of the declaration through testimony.

Decision and legal principle: The Bombay High Court held that the presumption under Section 80 did not apply to the dying declaration in the circumstances before it. The declaration had not been recorded as evidence in a judicial proceeding or before an officer authorised to take such evidence in the manner contemplated by that provision.

The Court distinguished the document prepared by the Magistrate from the deceased person’s statement, which was relevant under the separate statutory rule governing dying declarations. It held that the person who recorded the declaration, or another person who heard it being made, had to prove the material statement in court.

Relevance to Section 79 BSA: This decision illustrates an important limit. A document does not attract the presumption merely because a Magistrate signed it. The court must first determine whether the document falls within the categories covered by the provision.

3. State of Gujarat v. Visheshbhai Kali Chhaganbhai Gangavane

Court: Gujarat High Court

Decision date: 7 November 2014

Legal principle: The case considered Section 80 of the Indian Evidence Act in connection with a statement recorded by a Magistrate under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The court discussed the statutory presumption of genuineness and proper recording and the circumstances in which the Magistrate who recorded the statement need not be examined merely to prove those matters.

Relevance to Section 79 BSA: The decision illustrates the operation of the predecessor provision in relation to qualifying judicial records. Its application must be assessed according to the nature of the recorded statement, the authority of the person recording it and the legal requirements governing the procedure.

Also Read: Section 91 BSA: Presumption as to Due Execution of Documents Not Produced

Does Section 79 BSA Make Every Confession Admissible?

No. Section 79 concerns presumptions about the genuineness and proper recording of a qualifying document. It does not independently determine whether a confession is admissible.

The court must separately consider the rules governing confessions, including whether the confession was voluntary, whether it was made to a person legally competent to receive it, and whether any statutory exclusion applies.

For example, a confession may appear in a document signed by a Magistrate, but questions about voluntariness, coercion, statutory safeguards and admissibility must still be considered under the applicable law.

Remember: A presumption that a confession was duly recorded is not the same as a finding that the confession is voluntary or that its contents are true.

Is the Presumption Under Section 79 BSA Conclusive?

No. Section 79 uses the expression “shall presume”, rather than declaring the presumed matters to be conclusive proof.

Under the law of evidence, “shall presume” creates a mandatory presumption when the necessary conditions are met. The court must treat the relevant matter as proved unless and until it is disproved.

Accordingly, the opposing party may challenge the document or the matters presumed by presenting legally admissible evidence. The court must consider the challenge in accordance with the applicable law.

The provision does not prevent a party from questioning whether the document falls within its scope, whether it was properly recorded or whether another rule of evidence limits its use.

Difference Between Section 78 and Section 79 BSA

Section 78 and Section 79 concern different categories of documents and different presumptions.

Basis	Section 78 BSA	Section 79 BSA
Subject	Presumption as to genuineness of certified copies	Presumption as to documents produced as records of evidence, etc.
Documents covered	Qualifying certificates, certified copies and other documents declared admissible by law	Qualifying records of evidence, statements and confessions
Main presumption	Genuineness of the document and the official character of the certifying officer	Genuineness of the document, truth of specified statements about recording circumstances, and due recording
Corresponding provision under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872	Section 79	Section 80

Section 78 primarily addresses qualifying certified copies and related documents. Section 79 addresses records of evidence, statements and confessions that meet its specific conditions.

Difference Between Section 79 BSA and Section 80 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872

Section 79 BSA corresponds to Section 80 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

Both provisions cover documents purporting to record evidence given by a witness in a judicial proceeding or before an officer authorised by law to take such evidence. They also cover qualifying statements or confessions by prisoners or accused persons, provided the relevant requirements are met.

Both provisions establish three presumptions:

• The document is genuine.
• Statements made by the signing officer about the circumstances in which the document was taken are true.
• The evidence, statement or confession was duly taken.

The BSA retains the essential rule of the earlier law. Decisions interpreting Section 80 remain relevant to understanding Section 79, subject to the wording of the current statute and the facts of each case.

Important Points for Law Students and Judiciary Aspirants

• Section 79 BSA deals with the presumption as to documents produced as records of evidence, statements or confessions.
• It corresponds to Section 80 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
• The document must fall within a category specified by the section.
• It must purport to be signed by a Judge, Magistrate or another officer authorised by law to take the relevant evidence.
• The court shall presume that the document is genuine.
• The court shall presume that statements by the signing officer concerning the circumstances of recording are true.
• The court shall presume that the evidence, statement or confession was duly taken.
• The presumption does not automatically establish the truth of every recorded statement or the voluntariness of every confession.
• A dying declaration does not automatically attract Section 79 merely because it was recorded and signed by a Magistrate.
• Deorao s/o Sonbaji Bhalerao v. State of Maharashtra is an important decision on the limits of the predecessor provision.
• Modi Ganga v. State of Orissa is relevant to the use of qualifying judicial records without separately examining the recording officer in circumstances covered by the law.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

1. What is Section 79 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023?

Section 79 provides that courts shall presume the genuineness of qualifying records of evidence, statements or confessions, the truth of specified statements about the circumstances of recording, and that the evidence, statement or confession was duly taken.

2. Which section of the Indian Evidence Act corresponds to Section 79 BSA?

Section 79 BSA corresponds to Section 80 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

3. What are the three presumptions under Section 79 BSA?

The court shall presume that the document is genuine, that statements made by the signing officer about the circumstances in which it was taken are true, and that the evidence, statement or confession was duly taken.

4. Does Section 79 apply to every statement recorded by a Magistrate?

No. The document must fall within the categories specified by the provision and satisfy its requirements. A Magistrate’s signature alone does not automatically bring every recorded statement within Section 79.

5. Does Section 79 make a confession admissible in evidence?

No. The provision creates presumptions about the document and its recording. The admissibility of the confession must be assessed separately under the applicable law governing confessions.

6. Does Section 79 apply to a dying declaration recorded by a Magistrate?

Not automatically. In Deorao s/o Sonbaji Bhalerao v. State of Maharashtra (2008), the Bombay High Court held that the presumption under Section 80 of the former Evidence Act did not apply to the dying declaration in the circumstances of that case.

7. Is the presumption under Section 79 conclusive?

No. It is a mandatory but rebuttable presumption. The opposing party may challenge the document or the matters presumed in accordance with law.

8. Why is Section 79 important for judiciary examinations?

It is important because it identifies three statutory presumptions concerning qualifying judicial records and statements. Candidates should know the conditions for applying the section, its three presumptions, and its correspondence with Section 80 of the former Evidence Act.

Conclusion

Section 79 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 establishes three presumptions concerning qualifying records of evidence, statements and confessions produced before a court. The court shall presume that the document is genuine, that specified statements by the signing officer about the circumstances of recording are true, and that the evidence, statement or confession was duly taken. These presumptions facilitate proof of qualifying official records but do not automatically establish the truth of every statement or the admissibility and voluntariness of every confession. The section corresponds to Section 80 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and should be applied only after examining the nature of the document and the legal requirements governing its recording.

dfsad