As per the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, secondary evidence relating to a document *cannot* be given when the original
[amp_mcq option1=”is of such a nature as not to be easily movable” option2=”is a private document” option3=”is destroyed or lost” option4=”consists of numerous accounts or other documents which cannot conveniently be examined in the Court” correct=”option2″]
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.