Step 1: Understanding the Concept:
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872, lays down specific rules for proving the contents of a document. A document's content speaks for itself, and the Act specifies the types of evidence that are admissible for this purpose.
Step 2: Detailed Explanation:
Section 61 of the Indian Evidence Act provides the answer directly. It states: "The contents of documents may be proved either by primary or by secondary evidence."
\begin{itemize}
\item Primary Evidence is defined in Section 62 as the document itself produced for the inspection of the court. It is considered the best evidence.
\item Secondary Evidence is defined in Section 63 and includes things like certified copies, copies made from the original by mechanical processes, counterparts of documents, or oral accounts of the contents by a person who has seen the original. Secondary evidence is generally admissible only when the primary evidence is unavailable for reasons specified in Section 65.
\end{itemize}
The other options are incorrect pairings:
\begin{itemize}
\item Direct and circumstantial evidence are types of evidence related to proving a fact in issue, not specifically for proving the contents of a document.
\item Documentary evidence is the category to which primary and secondary evidence belong; it's not a method of proof in itself to be contrasted with primary evidence.
\end{itemize}
Step 3: Final Answer:
According to Section 61 of the Evidence Act, the contents of documents may be proved either by Primary evidence or by secondary evidence.