As per the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, secondary evidence relating to a document *cannot* be given when the original
is of such a nature as not to be easily movable
is a private document
is destroyed or lost
consists of numerous accounts or other documents which cannot conveniently be examined in the Court
Answer is Right!
Answer is Wrong!
This question was previously asked in
UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2017
A) If the original is of such a nature as not to be easily movable (Section 65(c)), secondary evidence *can* be given.
B) If the original is a private document, secondary evidence *can* only be given if one of the conditions under Section 65 (e.g., original lost, destroyed, in possession of the opponent, etc.) is satisfied. Merely being a private document does not *allow* secondary evidence; conversely, secondary evidence *cannot* be given *unless* one of the Section 65 conditions applies, even if it is a private document. This contrasts with options A, C, and D, which are specific conditions that *permit* secondary evidence.
C) If the original is destroyed or lost (Section 65(b)), secondary evidence *can* be given.
D) If the original consists of numerous accounts or other documents which cannot conveniently be examined in the Court (Section 65(f)), secondary evidence *can* be given.
The question asks when secondary evidence *cannot* be given. Options A, C, and D are situations where it *can* be given. Being a private document (B) is not, by itself, a reason to allow secondary evidence; primary evidence is mandatory unless a specific exception (like those in A, C, D, or others in 65) applies. Therefore, secondary evidence *cannot* be given simply because it’s a private document; it requires an additional condition from Section 65 to be met.