Section 167 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, deals with the improper rejection of evidence by the court. It stipulates that, in case the court improperly refuses to admit evidence that should be admitted or improperly admits evidence that should not be admitted, it will not automatically render the judgment void. Instead, the judgment may be reversed or altered on appeal, provided the party who was prejudiced by such improper admission or rejection of evidence has been materially affected.
In other words, Section 167 acknowledges that errors or improprieties in admitting or rejecting evidence may occur during a trial. However, such errors do not necessarily invalidate the entire judgment. Instead, if the aggrieved party can demonstrate that they have been materially prejudiced by these errors, they can appeal the judgment, and the higher court may reverse or alter the judgment.
This section is essential for maintaining the fairness of legal proceedings and allowing parties to seek redress if they believe they have been adversely affected by the court’s actions regarding evidence. It recognizes that while errors may occur, the ultimate goal is to achieve justice, and parties should have the opportunity to challenge improper admission or rejection of evidence.
Section 167 of the Indian Evidence Act reads as follows:
“167. No new trial for improper admission or rejection of evidence.—The improper admission or rejection of evidence shall not be ground for a new trial or reversal of any decision in any case, if it shall appear to the Court before which such objection is raised that, independently of the evidence objected to and admitted, there was sufficient evidence to justify the decision, or that, if the evidence had been rejected, it ought not to have varied the decision.”
Effects of improper admission or rejection of evidence in civil cases
In civil cases, it is pretty obvious that where there is enough evidence to justify a decision it is immaterial whether the evidence has been admitted or rejected, initiating a new trial all together is not required.
Section 167 uses the phrase “reversal of judgment”, and judgments can only be reversed by an appellate court. It means that this section is applicable to appeals as well.
In the case of Abdul Rahim v. King-Emperor, it was laid down that:
- Acceptance of inadmissible evidence is not an ipso facto ground for a new trial.
- Acceptance of inadmissible evidence is not a ground to set aside a judgment.
- Provided that there is other evidence to support the findings and reach the same decision.
The High Court of Karnataka, in the case of State of Mysore v. Sampangiramiah observed that:
- Acceptance of inadmissible evidence is less injurious than the rejection of admissible evidence.
- Because in the former case – while deciding the verdict, the evidence improperly admitted can be excluded from consideration.
- But, in the latter case – evidence wrongly rejected can only be recorded by having recourse to further proceedings.
In case a decision is made by the trial court based on a wrongly admitted evidence. Such evidence must be set aside and see if they are relevant. If the decision is solely based on such wrongly admitted evidence, then it must be reversed.
Effects of improper admission or rejection of evidence in criminal cases
This section will be applicable to criminal cases also, as held by The High Court of Bombay in the case of Abdul Rahim v. King-Emperor.
- It was laid down that if evidence has been wrongly admitted in a criminal case at the trial stage,
- The High Court on appeal should try to exclude that inadmissible evidence and still keep the decision the same.
- Provided that the evidence already available was enough to clearly establish the case and reach the same decision.
It means that:
- In case the High Court on appeal is unsure if a fact was missing the opinion or decision of a certain authority would be the same or not.
- The High Court interferes but only if it is totally certain that there would have been no other decision.
- In that case, the irrelevant circumstances above would totally wreck the order, as observed in Madan Lal v. Principal, H.B.T. Institute.
The court in the case of Abdul Rahim v. King-Emperor said that it may be misdirection, and it is not sufficient ground to change the verdict.
Therefore, if the evidence is improperly admitted and there was already enough evidence to establish the case. Such improperly admitted evidence can be ignored and the decision would still remain the same. Or else there has to be a new trial.
Rejection of evidence
In the case of Narain v. State of Punjab, the prosecution had cited a certain person as a witness but, they were not very keen to examine him.
When that witness opposed giving evidence, he was dropped by the prosecution.
The court held that in such case evidence cannot be said to have been rejected within Section 167 of the Indian Evidence Act.
In such a case the prosecution does not actually tender the person as a witness.
The judge observed that the real question regarding Section 167 is not so much as to whether the rejected evidence would not have been accepted against other testimony on record as to whether the evidence – “ought not to have varied decision”.
