In legal proceedings, there are instances where oral evidence (evidence provided by witnesses through spoken testimony) may be excluded or restricted by the presence of documentary evidence (written or physical records, documents, or other tangible evidence). The principle that documentary evidence may exclude or limit oral evidence is often referred to as the “Best Evidence Rule.” The Best Evidence Rule is a principle that gives primacy to the original written or documentary evidence when it is available and relevant. Here’s an explanation of how this rule works:
- Original Documentary Evidence: When a party seeks to prove the contents of a written or documentary record (e.g., a contract, letter, or business record), the original document itself is typically considered the best evidence. This is because the original document is presumed to be the most accurate and reliable representation of the information it contains.
- Hierarchy of Evidence: The Best Evidence Rule establishes a hierarchy of evidence, with original written or documentary evidence at the top. When the original document is available, it should be presented as evidence. Oral testimony about the contents of the document is generally considered secondary to the document itself.
- Exceptions: There are exceptions to this rule. Oral evidence may be admissible when the original document is lost, destroyed, or not readily accessible. Additionally, oral evidence may be used to explain, clarify, or supplement the contents of a document.
- Verification and Authentication: Before a document can be admitted as evidence, it may need to be properly verified and authenticated. This process ensures that the document is genuine, accurate, and free from tampering.
- Cross-Examination: When oral evidence is used to explain or interpret a document, the opposing party may have the opportunity to cross-examine the witness to challenge the accuracy and credibility of the oral testimony.
The Best Evidence Rule is intended to maintain the integrity of the evidentiary process by prioritizing the most reliable and accurate sources of information. It is a fundamental principle in many legal systems and is designed to prevent the introduction of hearsay evidence (i.e., statements made by someone who is not testifying) when a more direct and reliable source of evidence is available.
Rule of Best Evidence
Section 60 – Exclusion of hearsay evidence
Section 64 – Primacy of Primary Evidence
Section 91 – Exclusion of oral Evidence by documentary evidence
In summary, the presence of documentary evidence may limit or exclude oral evidence when the original document is available and relevant. However, exceptions exist, and oral evidence may still be admissible under certain circumstances. Legal practitioners are responsible for applying these rules in court proceedings to ensure that the most reliable evidence is presented.
Section 60 – Exclusion of Hearsay Evidence
- Section 60 deals with the exclusion of hearsay evidence, which is a fundamental principle of evidence law. Hearsay evidence refers to statements made by a person who is not testifying in court, offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted in those statements.
- Section 60 essentially states that oral evidence of the contents of documents is not admissible if the original document is available and can be produced. In other words, when the original document is accessible, it should be presented in court, and oral evidence about its contents is generally excluded.
Section 64 – Primacy of Primary Evidence
- Section 64 of the Indian Evidence Act emphasizes the primacy of primary evidence. Primary evidence refers to the original document itself, and it is considered the best and most reliable form of evidence.
- Section 64 establishes that primary evidence must be preferred and presented in court when available. It outlines the hierarchy of evidence, with primary evidence taking precedence over secondary evidence, which includes oral testimony and copies of documents.
Section 91 – Exclusion of Oral Evidence by Documentary Evidence
- Section 91 addresses situations where oral evidence may be excluded by documentary evidence. It establishes that when the terms of a contract, grant, or other disposition of property are reduced to writing, no oral evidence can be admitted to contradict or vary the terms of that document.
- In simpler terms, if there is a written contract or document, the parties cannot use oral evidence to change or contradict what is clearly stated in that document. The written document is the primary evidence and takes precedence.
These sections collectively contribute to the principles of evidence law in India, ensuring that primary evidence is given precedence, that hearsay evidence is generally excluded, and that the contents of written documents are not easily altered by oral testimony. Legal practitioners use these provisions to guide the admissibility and treatment of evidence in court proceedings.
Section 91 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, deals with the exclusion of oral evidence when the terms of a contract, grant, or other disposition of property are reduced to writing. It essentially states that when a document exists, oral evidence cannot be admitted to contradict or vary the terms of that document. Here are some relevant case laws that illustrate the application of Section 91:
G. Raja Rama Goundan vs. Ramier and Another (1928)
- In this case, the Madras High Court held that Section 91 applies to dispositions of property in writing, and oral evidence cannot be admitted to vary the terms of such written documents. The court emphasized the importance of the written word in such cases.
Raj Kumar Singh vs. State of Rajasthan (2008)
- The Supreme Court of India in this case reiterated that when there is a written document containing the terms of a contract or grant, oral evidence to contradict or vary those terms is not admissible. The court emphasized that the terms of the written document must be given primacy.
Ramabai vs. Subbaiya (1945)
- The Madras High Court held that oral evidence cannot be used to contradict or vary the terms of a written document, especially in cases involving dispositions of property. The court noted the importance of adhering to the contents of the document.
Gurbaksh Singh vs. Buta Singh (1963)
- In this case, the Supreme Court clarified that the exclusion of oral evidence under Section 91 is not limited to contracts alone but also extends to dispositions of property and grants. The court stressed that the statute’s language is clear in its intent to prevent oral evidence from contradicting the terms of a written document.
Section 92 – Exclusion of evidence of oral agreement
This section states that evidence of any oral agreement is not admissible if the terms of such an agreement are reduced to writing. In other words, when a contract is in writing, oral evidence cannot be used to contradict, vary, add to, or subtract from its terms.
Illustration: A and B enter into a written contract for the sale of a house, with specific terms and conditions. Later, A claims that there was an oral agreement to reduce the sale price. Section 92 would prohibit A from introducing oral evidence to modify the terms of the written contract.
Section 93 – Exclusion of evidence of oral agreement in terms of collateral contracts
This section explains that evidence of any oral agreement which forms part of the transaction, but which is not contained in the written document, is inadmissible.
Illustration: In the same example as above, if A claims that there was a separate oral agreement for B to make some repairs to the house, and this agreement is not included in the written contract, Section 93 would bar A from introducing evidence of the oral agreement about repairs.
Section 94 – Exclusion of evidence to explain terms of a family custom or right
This section specifies that evidence to explain the meaning of terms in a family custom or right is inadmissible. This is based on the principle that such customs are well-known in the family.
Illustration: If a family follows a specific custom regarding the distribution of ancestral property and the terms are clear to the family members, the court would not admit evidence to explain the meaning of those terms.
Section 95 – Evidence as to document unmeaning in reference to existing facts
This section allows evidence to be admitted to show that the meaning of a document is unconnected with existing facts.
Illustration: A document contains a statement about the price of a horse that appears to be unusually high. If it is shown that the horse was an unusually fine one, evidence may be admitted to explain that the price was high due to the horse’s exceptional quality.
Section 96 – Evidence as to application of language to related facts
Section 96 permits evidence to be admitted to show that words used in a document apply to existing facts, regardless of whether they are applicable as they stand.
Illustration: A document states that “the estate shall pass to my son.” If the evidence demonstrates that “son” was a title given to a particular adopted individual, then the title would apply to that person.
Section 97 – Evidence as to time when facts in issue occur
This section allows evidence to be admitted to establish the time at which a particular event or fact took place.
Illustration: In a criminal case, the prosecution may introduce evidence to prove the exact time when the alleged crime occurred.
Section 98 – Evidence to explain or introduce a fact in issue or relevant fact
This section permits evidence to be admitted to clarify or introduce a fact in issue or relevant fact.
Illustration: In a civil dispute over the ownership of a piece of land, a party may introduce evidence to explain the history of land ownership to establish the chain of title.
Section 99 – Evidence of agreement varying terms of document
Section 99 allows evidence to be admitted to prove that the parties to a document have agreed to modify its terms.
Illustration: If a written contract for the sale of goods specifies a certain delivery date, but both parties later agree to extend the delivery date, evidence of this agreement can be admitted to modify the terms of the written contract.
| Concept | Definition | Sections (IEA) |
|---|---|---|
| Patent Ambiguity | Ambiguity that is evident on the face of a document and does not require extrinsic evidence to be recognized. This means that the ambiguity is apparent to anyone reading the document. | Sections- 93 & 94 |
| Latent Ambiguity | Ambiguity that is not evident on the face of a document and requires extrinsic evidence to identify or understand. This type of ambiguity is not apparent when reading the document alone. | Section 95-98 |
