Section 27 of BSA : Section 27: Relevancy of certain evidence for proving, in subsequent proceeding, truth of facts therein stated.

Explanation using Example

Example 1:

Scenario: A civil dispute over property ownership.

Details:

• In 2018, Mr. Sharma testified in a court case regarding the ownership of a piece of land. He provided detailed evidence and was cross-examined by both parties.
• In 2023, a new dispute arises over the same piece of land between the same parties (or their legal representatives).
• Mr. Sharma has since passed away.

Application of Section 27:

• The court can use Mr. Sharma's 2018 testimony as evidence in the 2023 case to prove the truth of the facts he stated, since he is no longer available to testify, and the previous proceeding involved the same parties and issues.

Example 2:

Scenario: A criminal trial involving a robbery.

Details:

• In 2020, Ms. Gupta testified in a criminal trial against Mr. Khan, who was accused of robbery. She provided crucial evidence and was cross-examined by Mr. Khan's defense attorney.
• In 2023, a new trial is initiated against Mr. Khan for a related robbery incident that occurred around the same time as the first one.
• Ms. Gupta has moved abroad and cannot be located despite reasonable efforts.

Application of Section 27:

• The court can use Ms. Gupta's 2020 testimony in the 2023 trial to establish the facts she stated, as she cannot be found, and the previous trial involved the same parties and similar issues.

Example 3:

Scenario: A commercial contract dispute.

Details:

• In 2019, Mr. Verma testified in a court case regarding a breach of contract between Company A and Company B. His testimony was crucial and he was cross-examined by both parties.
• In 2022, a new dispute arises between Company A and Company B over a different contract but involving similar terms and conditions.
• Mr. Verma has become mentally incapacitated and is unable to testify.

Application of Section 27:

• The court can use Mr. Verma's 2019 testimony in the 2022 case to prove the truth of the facts he stated, as he is now incapable of giving evidence, and the previous proceeding involved the same parties and similar issues.