According to Section 60 of the Indian Evidence Act, **oral evidence** …

Question

According to Section 60 of the Indian Evidence Act, **oral evidence** must in all cases whatever be **direct**. Which of the following correctly states what this means?

Accepted Answer

A. {'text': 'If the fact could be seen, it must be the evidence of a witness who says he saw it; if heard, of a witness who says he heard it; if perceived by any other sense, by a witness who says he so perceived it', 'label': 'A'}

1. **Section 60** of the Indian Evidence Act codifies the **rule against hearsay** by requiring oral evidence to be direct.
2. The lesson reproduces the four-part rule:
   - If the fact could be seen → evidence of the witness who **saw** it.
   - If it could be heard → evidence of the witness who **heard** it.
   - If perceived by any other sense → evidence of the witness who **perceived** it by that sense.
   - If it refers to an opinion → evidence of the person who **holds that opinion**.
3. By defining direct evidence this way, Section 60 implicitly enacts the rule against hearsay.
_Source: ICSI CS Executive Paper 1 — Jurisprudence, Interpretation & General Laws, Lesson 11 (Indian Evidence Act, 1872), pp. 251-272._

Answer

{'text': 'Any oral statement about a fact is admissible regardless of whether the witness perceived the fact himself, on the assumption that the witness is honest under all circumstances', 'label': 'B'}

Answer

{'text': 'Only sworn affidavits made before a Magistrate of competent jurisdiction qualify as direct oral evidence and any other form of oral statement is excluded as hearsay under the Indian Evidence Act', 'label': 'C'}

Answer

{'text': 'Only evidence relating to a written contract or document is admissible orally and any oral evidence about a fact not in any written document is excluded as hearsay under the Indian Evidence Act', 'label': 'D'}