Section 107

Evidence law allows certain special kinds of evidence — like dying declarations or secondary evidence of documents — only when specific preconditions are met. This rule, carried forward from Section 104 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, ensures courts don't accept shortcuts (like a copy of a document, or a dead person's statement) unless the party first proves the condition that justifies using that shortcut. It stops parties from bypassing the normal rule of producing original, direct evidence without first showing why they can't.

Under the predecessor provision (Section 104, Indian Evidence Act 1872), courts have consistently held that before secondary evidence of a document is admitted, the party must strictly prove that the original is lost, destroyed, or otherwise unavailable — mere assertion is not enough (as seen in judicial discussions following cases like Ashok Dulichand v. Madahavlal Dube). Similarly, before a statement is treated as a dying declaration, courts require proof of the declarant's death and the circumstances qualifying the statement as such. Courts treat this as a threshold or 'foundational fact' requirement, distinct from the burden of proving the main disputed fact itself.

• Myth: You can just claim a document is lost and immediately show a copy in court.
  Fact: You must first actually prove the document is lost or destroyed before the copy (secondary evidence) can be admitted.
• Myth: Anyone can repeat what a dead person allegedly said and call it a 'dying declaration' without more.
  Fact: The person relying on the dying declaration must first prove that the declarant actually died, as a precondition to using the statement.