Best Evidence Rule : An Overview | Criminal Law - CLAT PG PDF Download

Introduction

The best evidence rule, also known as the "original document rule," has its roots in the doctrine of profert in curia. This doctrine stated that if a party could not present original documents in written form before a court of law, they would lose the rights conferred by those documents. Justice Hardwicke's rulings in cases like Ford v. Hopkins (1700) and Omychund v. Barker (1745) emphasized the importance of presenting the best possible evidence. He asserted that "no evidence will be admissible unless it is the best evidence that nature will allow."

• The rule emerged in response to the 16th-century practice of court clerks manually copying documents, which introduced a significant margin for error in copied materials. In India, the best evidence rule is enshrined in Sections 91 to 100 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. 
• These sections aim to determine the authenticity of documents presented in court. This article delves into the best evidence rule within the framework of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and explores relevant judgments from Indian and international courts.

The Best Evidence Rule Under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872

Sections 91 to 100 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, address the best evidence rule, emphasizing the superiority of documentary evidence over oral evidence. The Act establishes that, in most cases, documentary evidence is paramount in determining the best evidence.

Exclusion of Oral Evidence by Documentary Evidence

• Chapter 6 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, focuses on the exclusion of oral evidence by documentary evidence, reinforcing the best evidence rule. Section 91 specifies the need for documentary evidence to prove the terms of contracts, grants, and property dispositions. The Delhi High Court, in the case of Chandrawati v. Lakhmi Chand (1988), affirmed this principle by stating that written evidence is mandatory for what is available in writing. Consequently, the court rejected oral evidence regarding the contents of an unregistered partition deed.
• The Allahabad High Court, in Ratan Lal v. Hari Shanker (1980), also disallowed oral evidence to prove the contents of an unregistered partition deed. The Supreme Court, in Taburi Sahai v. Jhunjhunwala (1967), clarified that documents not falling under contracts, grants, or property dispositions are not subject to the best evidence rule. In Bakhtawar Singh v. Gurdev Singh (1996), the court emphasized that when both oral and documentary evidence are admissible, the court may prefer the more reliable evidence, regardless of its nature.
• In Roop Kumar v. Mohan Thedani (2003), the Supreme Court reiterated that Section 91 prohibits proving writing contents through any means other than writing, embodying the best evidence rule as a substantive law doctrine. Sections 91 and 92, while differing in specifics, complement each other in establishing this rule.

Section 92 and Its Underlying Principle

Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, addresses the exclusion of oral evidence concerning agreements. It is considered a supplement to Section 91. Section 92 states that once a contract, grant, or disposition is proven through writing, no oral evidence contradicting the written content can be introduced. 

• This principle asserts that oral evidence cannot alter the terms of an already presented document. The Supreme Court of India clarified that Section 92 only restricts parties and their representatives from providing oral evidence to support the document's contents, allowing third parties to do so, as seen in Vishwa Nathan v. Abdul Wajid (1986).

• In Nabin Chandra v. Shuna Mala (1932), the Calcutta High Court disagreed with the notion that the consideration in a document could be challenged by presenting evidence of an alternative consideration.

Both Sections 91 and 92 recognize nine exceptions to their general rules, permitting oral evidence in relation to a document under specific circumstances:

• Validity of Documents (Section 92 Proviso 1): Oral evidence can be presented to establish the invalidity of a document.
• Matters on Which Document is Silent (Section 92 Proviso 2): Oral evidence may be introduced if a written agreement is silent on a specific term, such as price payment.
• Condition Precedent (Section 92 Proviso 3): Any separate oral agreement that constitutes a condition precedent to the obligations under the presented document can be proved.
• Rescission or Modification (Section 92 Proviso 4): Oral agreements that modify or rescind the document in question may be established.
• Usages or Customs (Section 92 Proviso 5): Oral evidence may be used to prove incidents in a contract related to a specific custom or usage.
• Relation of Language to Facts (Section 92 Proviso 6): Oral evidence can be introduced to demonstrate how the document's language relates to existing facts.
• Appointment of a Public Officer (Section 91, Exception 1): If the law requires the appointment of a public officer to be made in writing, it must be done accordingly.
• Wills (Section 91, Exception 2): Wills admitted to probate in India must be proved by means of probate only.
• Extraneous Facts (Section 91, Explanation 1): Oral evidence is always allowed for facts referred to in the document that are additional to the case's facts.

Landmark Judgments on the Best Evidence Rule in India

Mohan Lal Shamlal Soni v. Union Of India And Another (1991)

• The Supreme Court of India emphasized the importance of presenting the best available evidence in legal proceedings.
• The court defined the best evidence rule as the necessity to provide superior evidence when it is accessible.
• This principle aims to ensure a fair trial and prevent any party from gaining an unfair advantage.

Musauddin Ahmed v. State of Assam (2009)

• The Supreme Court highlighted the duty of the prosecution to present the best evidence in court.
• It was noted that failing to produce the best evidence could lead to adverse inferences against the prosecution.
• This principle serves as a guiding tool for courts to evaluate the strength of the prosecution's case.

Tomaso Bruno & Anr v. State of U.P (2015)

• The Supreme Court underscored the significance of CCTV footage as crucial evidence in establishing the presence of an accused at a crime scene.
• The prosecution bore the responsibility of presenting such evidence, and failure to do so raised doubts about their case.
• The court clarified that under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, the burden of proving a fact within a person's knowledge lies with that person.

Jitendra And Anr v. State Of M.P (2003)

• The Supreme Court stressed the relevance of the best evidence rule in cases involving seizures, particularly under the NDPS Act.
• Goods seized serve as the best evidence for the prosecution, and failure to present them undermines the prosecution's case.

Digamber Vaishnav v. the State Of Chhattisgarh (2009)

• The Supreme Court noted the prosecution's failure to examine key witnesses present at the incident, withholding the best evidence.

Shivu And Anr v. R.G. High Court Of Karnataka (2007)

• The Supreme Court referenced Wills’ Circumstantial Evidence, emphasizing the superiority of direct evidence over circumstantial evidence.
• When the best evidence is available, attempts to substitute it with weaker evidence raise suspicions of corrupt motives.

Mohd. Aman, Babu Khan And Another v. State Of Rajasthan (1997)

• The Supreme Court dismissed evidence not supporting seizure and fingerprint matching in this case.
• The prosecution failed to establish that seized articles for fingerprint analysis were not altered before reaching the forensic lab.
• Producing the seized article would have been the best evidence for seizure and fingerprint examination, and its non-production created a missing link in the evidence chain.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the best evidence rule is a crucial aspect of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, significantly influencing the legal framework in India and beyond. This rule aids judges in determining the admissibility of evidence and serves as a vital mechanism for ensuring justice. By acting as a check on the evidence presented, it helps establish whether an accused can be deemed guilty based on the evidence available. Overall, the best evidence rule is pivotal in shaping evidence law, ensuring fairness and accuracy in legal proceedings.