primary/secondary evidence
barun deka
(Querist) 22 January 2010
This query is : Resolved
dear friends,
the other day i was having a discussion with my friend regarding primary and secondary evidence.
going strictly by the book, a photograph apparently is considered as secondary evidence. during the course of our discussion, i suggested that where the character of a photograph is the question to be determined, it shall be regarded as primary evidence.
say, an obscene photo that is clicked of me violating privacy norms is put up on a public board. now when i take off the photo and file a suit against the person responsible for the act, wouldn't the photo be considered as primary evidence against his actions??? and only the photos clicked of the photo be secondary evidence???
my friend however argues that a photo no matter wat will remain secondary evidence.
i'm just out of law school and i'm not sure he's right... kindly post your opinions on it....
Arul Kumar
(Expert) 22 January 2010
A photograph of an original is secondary evidence of its contents.
barun deka
(Querist) 22 January 2010
wat when the original in itself is a photograph???
Adv ramesh chheda
(Expert) 22 January 2010
dear barun
for u , it is u r photo which needs to be appreciated and as such u r photo is primary evidence which needs to be proved and not earlier photos of whose u have taken photo.
Anish goyal
(Expert) 22 January 2010
Barun nice quarry. I appreciate your enthusiasm to learn law. Keep it brother.
As far as your quarry is concerned you r right, that a photograph will constitute the primary evidence with in the meaning of documentary evidence given in the section 3 of evidence act
Bhumik Dave
(Expert) 22 January 2010
good question. U R RIGHT UR EVIDEN. IS PRIMARY U/S 3.
adv. rajeev ( rajoo )
(Expert) 23 January 2010
if foto is produced it will not be considered as evidence, negative of the foto is necessary.
Sachin Bhatia
(Expert) 26 January 2010
Negative is very much necessary to produce it as a primary evidence.
