1. Meaning of Neighbour Affidavit Based on Hearsay

A neighbour affidavit becomes “hearsay-based” when:

• The neighbour did not personally see or hear the incident
• The affidavit is based on:
  • what others told them, or
  • community rumours, or
  • assumptions about events inside another house

Legal consequence:

Such an affidavit is treated as:

• indirect evidence
• weak or inadmissible evidence
• often requiring corroboration or cross-examination

2. Legal Position on Affidavits in India

Affidavits are governed mainly by CPC (Order XIX), not the Evidence Act directly.

Key principle:

An affidavit is not automatically substantive evidence unless the court permits it.

• Courts insist on personal knowledge
• Courts can reject inadmissible or hearsay portions

Case Law

Sudha Devi v. M.P. Narayanan (1988) AIR 1381 (SC)

• Affidavit evidence without cross-examination has weak evidentiary value.
• Courts should not rely on affidavits as sole proof of disputed facts.

3. Hearsay Rule in Indian Evidence Law

Core rule:

Under Sections 60 and 3 of the Evidence Act:

• Evidence must be direct
• Hearsay is generally inadmissible

Case Law

Sarkar v. State of West Bengal (1962 SC)

• Hearsay evidence is not admissible unless it falls within recognized exceptions.

V. Rama Naidu v. V. Ramadevi (2018)

• Oral evidence must be direct; hearsay is excluded except statutory exceptions.

4. Neighbour Testimony Must Be Based on Direct Knowledge

Neighbour evidence is often used in:

• land disputes
• domestic violence cases
• criminal complaints

But courts require:

• actual presence at the scene
• personal observation

Case Law

Bajranglal v. Sitaram (AIR 1949 Cal 457)

• Witnesses who are distant or not actual observers are unreliable.
• Courts may draw adverse inference if material witnesses are not produced.

5. Affidavit Based on Hearsay is Weak Evidence

Courts consistently hold:

• Affidavit = not proof by itself
• Hearsay inside affidavit = even weaker

Case Law

Range Forest Officer v. S.T. Hadimani (2002 SC 1147)

• Affidavit without cross-examination is insufficient proof of facts.

Needle Industries Ltd. v. N.I.N.I.H. Ltd. (1981 SC)

• Courts should avoid deciding serious factual disputes purely on affidavits.

6. Courts Can Strike Out Hearsay Parts of Affidavit

Courts actively remove:

• irrelevant material
• argumentative content
• hearsay statements

Case Law

Harish Loyalka v. Dileep Nevatia (Bombay HC, 2014)

• Affidavits must contain only admissible evidence.
• Courts may ignore or expunge hearsay and argumentative portions.

7. When Neighbour Hearsay Affidavit May Still Be Used

It may be considered only when:

• it is corroborative evidence, not primary proof
• supported by:
  • CCTV
  • documents
  • other eyewitnesses
• or falls under exceptions like:
  • res gestae (Section 6)
  • admission
  • dying declaration (rarely relevant here)

8. Adverse Inference if Neighbour is Not Examined

If a party relies on a neighbour affidavit but:

• does not call them for cross-examination

Court may draw adverse inference.

Case Law

Tomaso Bruno v. State of U.P. (2015 SC)

• Withholding best evidence allows adverse inference under Section 114(g).

9. Practical Legal Effect

A neighbour affidavit based on hearsay:

Usually:

❌ not sufficient alone
❌ weak in cross-examination
❌ may be rejected in final judgment

Only useful when:

✔ supported by independent evidence
✔ used for corroboration
✔ witness is cross-examined

Conclusion

A neighbour affidavit based on hearsay is legally fragile in Indian courts. The consistent judicial position is:

• Hearsay is not substantive evidence
• Affidavits must be based on direct knowledge
• Neighbour statements require strict scrutiny
• Courts may ignore or strike them unless corroborated