Best evidence rule : an overview - Judiciary Exams PDF Download

This article provides a comprehensive analysis of the best evidence rule as outlined in the Indian Evidence Act of 1872. The concept is crucial for determining the admissibility and reliability of evidence presented in court.

Introduction to the Best Evidence Rule

The best evidence rule, stemming from the doctrine of profert in curia, mandates that if a party cannot present the original documents in written form, they forfeit their rights related to those documents. This rule, also known as the "original document rule," emphasizes that the highest quality evidence available must be provided in legal proceedings.

Best Evidence Rule under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872

The provisions of the best evidence rule are encapsulated within Sections 91 to 100 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. These sections prioritize documentary evidence over oral evidence, underscoring the necessity of presenting original documents in court.

Key Provisions

• Exclusion of Oral Evidence by Documentary Evidence: Sections 91 to 100 emphasize that documentary evidence is preferred over oral evidence in most cases.
• Section 91: This section stipulates that the terms of contracts, grants, and property dispositions must be evidenced in writing.
• Section 92: It prohibits oral evidence that contradicts the contents of a written document once that document has been presented.

Importance of Documentary Evidence

Documentary evidence is essential in establishing facts in court. The Delhi High Court and the Allahabad High Court have ruled that oral evidence cannot be used to prove the contents of unregistered deeds, affirming the importance of written documents.

Judicial Interpretations

• The Supreme Court in Taburi Sahai v. Jhunjhunwala (1967) clarified that not all documents fall under the best evidence rule.
• In Bakhtawar Singh v. Gurdev Singh (1996), the Court noted that when both oral and documentary evidence are admissible, the court may choose the more reliable evidence.

Exclusions and Exceptions

Sections 91 and 92 outline exceptions to the best evidence rule, allowing for oral evidence in specific circumstances, such as:

• Validity of Documents: Oral evidence can be presented to challenge the validity of a document.
• Matters on which Document is Silent: If a written agreement does not address a specific issue, oral evidence may be used to clarify.
• Condition Precedent: Oral agreements detailing conditions that must be met before a contract takes effect may be admissible.

Ambiguities in Documents

Sections 93 to 100 address issues surrounding ambiguous documents, which can be categorized as:

• Patent Ambiguity (Sections 93-94): Obvious defects that can be seen upon reading the document.
• Latent Ambiguity (Sections 95-97): Defects that are not immediately apparent and only become clear when applied to specific facts.

Examples of Judicial Decisions

• In Mohan Lal Shamlal Soni v. Union Of India (1991), the Supreme Court emphasized that only the best available evidence should be presented in court.
• The case of Musauddin Ahmed v. State of Assam (2009) highlighted that failure to produce the best evidence can lead to adverse inferences.
• In Tomaso Bruno & Anr v. State of U.P (2015), the Supreme Court ruled that CCTV footage is considered the best evidence, and failure to present it raises doubts about the prosecution's case.

Conclusion

The best evidence rule is fundamental in the Indian legal framework, ensuring that the highest quality of evidence is presented in court. This principle not only aids in the fair adjudication of cases but also protects the rights of parties involved by ensuring that evidence is reliable and credible.

References

• This overview is based on established legal principles and landmark cases that shape the understanding of the best evidence rule.

Key Judicial Precedents

• Mohan Lal Shamlal Soni v. Union Of India (1991): Defined the necessity of presenting the best available evidence.
• Musauddin Ahmed v. State of Assam (2009): Established that failure to present best evidence leads to adverse inferences.
• Tomaso Bruno & Anr v. State of U.P (2015): Emphasized the importance of CCTV footage as critical evidence.