Evidence Act 1950

Evidence Act 1950 · Act 56
Akta Keterangan 1950
Applies to: Federal (whole of Malaysia); applies to judicial proceedings in the civil courts (not Syariah courts, which have their own evidence laws) · Official text ↗

Key points

Only facts in issue and facts the Act declares relevant may be proved (s 5).
Whoever asserts a fact must prove it (ss 101 to 103). In a criminal case the prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; in a civil case, the claimant must prove the case on a balance of probabilities.
Computer-generated documents, including printouts, screenshots and system records, are admissible under s 90A if produced in the ordinary use of the computer, often proved with a certificate.
Since 31 July 2012, s 114A presumes that the person named or pictured as owner or administrator of a website or account, the registered subscriber, or the person controlling the computer published the content, unless they prove otherwise.
Everyone is a competent witness unless unable to understand questions or give rational answers (s 118). Spouses can testify (s 120), and communications with your lawyer are privileged (s 126).
A confession caused by an inducement, threat or promise from a person in authority is irrelevant in a criminal case (s 24).

What this law covers

The Evidence Act 1950 (Akta Keterangan 1950) contains the rules of evidence for proceedings in the civil courts, from the Magistrates' Court to the Federal Court. It does not apply to affidavits in the same way, or to arbitrations, and Syariah courts use their own evidence enactments (see Syariah Court Evidence (Federal Territories) Act 1997).

The Act is organised in three Parts:

Part I, Relevancy: what facts may be proved, including admissions, confessions, statements by people who cannot be called, expert opinion and character (ss 5 to 55).
Part II, On proof: facts that need no proof, oral evidence, documents and electronic records (ss 56 to 100).
Part III, Production and effect of evidence: burden of proof, presumptions, estoppel, witnesses and examination (ss 101 to 167).

Separate laws add special rules, for example the Evidence of Child Witness Act 2007, which allows child witnesses to testify through video links and screens.

Relevance and admissibility

Under s 5, evidence may be given only of facts in issue and of facts the Act declares relevant. Common categories include facts forming part of the same transaction, motive and conduct, admissions, and statements made by people who are dead or cannot be found (s 32).

Oral evidence must be direct (s 60): a witness can generally only speak about what they personally saw, heard or perceived. Repeating what someone else said, to prove it is true, is hearsay and is generally not allowed unless an exception applies.
Expert opinion (s 45): opinions of people specially skilled in, for example, science, foreign law, handwriting or finger impressions are relevant.
Admissions (ss 17 to 23): statements by a party suggesting a fact against their interest may be proved against them. Statements made "without prejudice" during settlement talks are generally protected in civil cases (s 23).
Confessions in criminal cases: a confession is irrelevant if it appears to have been caused by an inducement, threat or promise from a person in authority relating to the charge (s 24). A confession to a police officer below the rank of Inspector cannot be proved against the accused (s 25), nor a confession made in police custody unless in the immediate presence of a magistrate or Sessions Court judge (s 26), subject to express provision in other written law. But where information from an accused leads to the discovery of a fact, such as where a weapon was hidden, that part may be proved (s 27). The Criminal Procedure Code also has its own rules on statements recorded by police.

The judge decides whether evidence is admissible (s 136).

Burden and standard of proof

The basic rule is in s 101: whoever wants the court to give judgment on a right or liability depending on facts they assert must prove those facts. The burden lies on the person who would fail if no evidence were given on either side (s 102). The burden of proving a particular fact lies on the person who wants the court to believe it, unless a law says otherwise (s 103). For example, an accused who says they were elsewhere (an alibi) must prove it.

Criminal cases: the prosecution must prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt (melampaui keraguan munasabah). If the accused relies on a general exception in the Penal Code, such as private defence, the burden of proving it is on the accused (s 105), on a balance of probabilities. Some laws contain presumptions that shift a burden to the accused, for example drug laws.
Civil cases: the claimant proves the case on a balance of probabilities (imbangan kebarangkalian): that it is more likely than not.
Facts especially within a person's own knowledge must be proved by that person (s 106).

Presumptions. The court may presume facts that are likely given the common course of events and human conduct (s 114). A common one in practice is s 114(g): if a party could produce evidence and does not, the court may presume it would have been unfavourable to them. There are also presumptions about death after seven years without news (s 108) and legitimacy of children born during marriage (s 112).

Documents and electronic evidence (ss 61 to 90C)

The contents of a document are proved by primary evidence, the document itself (ss 61, 62 and 64), or in specified cases by secondary evidence such as certified copies, for example where the original is lost, is in the opponent's possession, or is a public document (s 65). Public documents can be proved by certified copies (ss 74 to 78). In civil cases, s 73A allows certain documentary statements to be admitted even if the maker is not called.

Computer-produced documents (s 90A). This is the key provision for modern evidence such as bank statements, emails, SMS and WhatsApp printouts, screenshots, CCTV stills and system logs.

A document produced by a computer, or a statement in it, is admissible in civil or criminal proceedings as evidence of the facts stated, if it was produced in the course of the computer's ordinary use, whether or not the person tendering it made it (s 90A(1)).
This can be proved by a certificate signed by a person responsible for managing the computer's operation or the related activities (s 90A(2)). Once a certificate is given, the computer is presumed to have been working properly (s 90A(4)). Courts have accepted that oral evidence from such a person can be used instead of a certificate.
"Computer" is widely defined in s 3 and includes phones and storage devices.
The court then decides how much weight to give the document, considering how and why it was made, its accuracy, any time gap, and any motive to misrepresent (s 90B).
Sections 90A and 90B prevail over other provisions on documents (s 90C).

Practical tip: keep the original phone or device, and do not edit or crop screenshots. Export full chat histories where you can, and note who controls the account or device.

Presumption of publication online (s 114A)

Section 114A was added by the Evidence (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 2012 (Act A1432) and came into force on 31 July 2012. It creates three rebuttable presumptions that a person published or re-published content:

a person whose name, photograph or pseudonym appears on a publication as its owner, host, administrator, editor or sub-editor, or who in any way facilitates publishing or re-publishing it (s 114A(1));
the person registered with a network service provider as the subscriber of the service from which the publication originates (s 114A(2));
a person who has custody or control of the computer from which it originates (s 114A(3)).

"Publication" means any statement or representation, in any form, displayed on a computer screen (s 114A(4)). The presumption applies "unless the contrary is proved", so the person may rebut it, for example by showing their account was hacked or someone else used their Wi-Fi or device. It was controversial when introduced and is often relevant in defamation and online offence cases. A 2013 High Court decision held that it does not apply to postings made before 31 July 2012. See Defamation Act 1957 and Communications and Multimedia Act 1998.

Witnesses

Who may testify (s 118): everyone is competent unless the court considers that young age, extreme old age, illness of body or mind, or a similar cause prevents them from understanding questions or giving rational answers.
Spouses (s 120): parties and their spouses are competent in civil cases, and the spouse of an accused is competent in criminal cases. Communications between spouses during marriage are generally privileged (s 122).
Lawyer-client privilege (ss 126 and 129): an advocate cannot disclose communications made in the course of their professional employment without the client's consent, and a client cannot be compelled to disclose confidential communications with their legal adviser. The privilege does not protect communications made to further an illegal purpose.
Self-incrimination (s 132): a witness is not excused from answering a relevant question just because the answer may incriminate them, but such an answer generally cannot be used to prosecute them, except for giving false evidence.
Accomplices (s 133) are competent witnesses, though courts treat their evidence with caution. No particular number of witnesses is needed to prove a fact (s 134).
Examination (ss 137 to 166): evidence-in-chief, cross-examination and re-examination; limits on leading questions, and protection against indecent, scandalous or insulting questions (ss 151 and 152). In rape trials, questions about the complainant's sexual history with others are restricted (s 146A).

Laws cited on this page

Act 56	Evidence Act 1950 · Akta Keterangan 1950	Official text
Act 286	Defamation Act 1957 · Akta Fitnah 1957	Official text
Act 561	Syariah Court Evidence (Federal Territories) Act 1997 · Akta Keterangan Mahkamah Syariah (Wilayah-Wilayah Persekutuan) 1997	Official text
Act 574	Penal Code · Kanun Keseksaan	Official text
Act 588	Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 · Akta Komunikasi dan Multimedia 1998	Official text
Act 593	Criminal Procedure Code · Kanun Tatacara Jenayah	Official text
Act 676	Evidence of Child Witness Act 2007 · Akta Keterangan Saksi Kanak-Kanak 2007	Official text

Listed automatically from the federal Acts named on this page. All laws of Malaysia →

Key sections

Provision	What it says, in plain words
s 3	Definitions, including the wide definition of "computer" and "document".
s 5	Evidence only of facts in issue and relevant facts.
s 24	Confession caused by inducement, threat or promise from a person in authority is irrelevant.
ss 25 to 27	Limits on proving confessions made to police; discovery of facts from an accused's information.
s 32	Statements by people who are dead or cannot be found, relevant in specified cases.
s 45	Expert opinion is relevant.
s 60	Oral evidence must be direct (the rule against hearsay).
ss 62 and 65	Primary evidence of documents, and when secondary evidence may be given.
s 90A	Admissibility of computer-produced documents; certificate and presumption of proper working.
s 90B	Weight to be given to computer-produced documents.
ss 101 to 103	Burden of proof is on the person who asserts a fact.
s 105	Accused must prove a general exception (e.g. private defence) relied on.
s 114(g)	Court may presume that evidence withheld would be unfavourable.
s 114A	Presumption that the named owner or administrator, subscriber, or computer controller published online content.
ss 118, 120, 126	Competency of witnesses, spouses as witnesses, and lawyer-client privilege.

Worked examples

Example 1: Proving a debt with WhatsApp messages

Facts. Aminah lent RM8,000 to a former colleague. The only proof is a WhatsApp chat in which he thanks her for the loan and promises to repay by December.

The law. The chat printout is a computer-produced document admissible under s 90A if produced in the ordinary use of her phone. She can tender a s 90A certificate or give evidence herself as the person in control of the phone. The court weighs it under s 90B. His statements in the chat are admissions (s 18).

Outcome. The messages can be strong evidence. She should keep the phone, export the full chat, and avoid editing screenshots. For a claim up to RM5,000 the small claims procedure is available; for this amount she would file in the Magistrates' Court.

Example 2: Defamatory post from a hacked account

Facts. A defamatory post appears on Mr Tan's Facebook page. He says he did not write it and that his account had been hacked that week.

The law. Under s 114A(1), because his name appears as the account owner, he is presumed to have published the post unless he proves otherwise.

Outcome. Mr Tan must produce evidence to rebut the presumption, such as login alerts, a report to the platform, a police report made at the time, and evidence of when he regained control. Acting quickly helps.

Example 3: Confession after a promise

Facts. Ravi is questioned about a theft. The investigating officer tells him that if he confesses he will only be fined and can go home. Ravi then confesses.

The law. Under s 24, a confession caused by an inducement or promise from a person in authority, relating to the charge, that gives the accused reasonable grounds to think he would gain an advantage, is irrelevant in a criminal proceeding.

Outcome. Ravi's lawyer can challenge the admissibility of the confession. The court will hold a trial within a trial to decide whether it was voluntary.

Example 4: Landlord refuses to produce the CCTV

Facts. A tenant sues her landlord over damage to her car in the building car park. The landlord had CCTV covering the area but does not produce the recording.

The law. Under s 114(g), the court may presume that evidence that could have been produced and was withheld would have been unfavourable to the person withholding it.

Outcome. The tenant should ask the court for discovery of the recording. If the landlord still fails to produce it without a good reason, the court may draw an adverse inference.

Examples are simplified illustrations with invented names; real cases turn on their own facts.

Questions & answers

Are WhatsApp screenshots accepted in Malaysian courts?

Yes, they can be admitted as computer-produced documents under s 90A, usually supported by a certificate or evidence from the person who controls the phone. The court then decides how much weight to give them under s 90B. Keep the original device and full, unedited chat exports.

Who has to prove the case?

The person who asserts a fact must prove it (ss 101 to 103). In criminal cases the prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. In civil cases the claimant must prove the claim on a balance of probabilities. An accused relying on a defence such as private defence must prove it (s 105).

Can I be blamed for something posted using my Wi-Fi or account?

Under s 114A, the registered subscriber of the network service and the person who controls the computer or account are presumed to have published the content, unless they prove otherwise. You can rebut the presumption with evidence that someone else did it.

Can my husband or wife be made to testify against me?

In criminal proceedings, the spouse of an accused is a competent witness (s 120(2)). Communications between spouses during the marriage are generally privileged under s 122, subject to exceptions. Ask a lawyer how this applies to your case.

Is what I tell my lawyer confidential?

Yes. Under s 126, an advocate may not disclose communications made in the course of professional employment without the client's express consent, and under s 129 you cannot be compelled to disclose confidential communications with your legal adviser. The privilege does not cover communications to further an illegal purpose.

Can a child be a witness?

Yes, if the court is satisfied the child can understand the questions and give rational answers (s 118). The Evidence of Child Witness Act 2007 provides special measures, such as video links and screens, to protect child witnesses.

All questions & answers → · Ask your own →

This page explains the general position in Malaysia (last reviewed October 2026). It is not legal advice — check the current law and get advice on your own facts.

Sources

How a civil case runs The criminal process: from police report to verdict Penal Code Criminal Procedure Code Defamation Act 1957 Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 Syariah Court Evidence (Federal Territories) Act 1997 (Act 561)Courts and their powers