Golden Rules of Evidence in India

Sections 22 and 144 of the Evidence Act postulate that oral confessions or allegations concerning the contents of documents are relevant only if the party seeking to prove them proves that he has the right to prove the contents of such a document in accordance with the rules of section 65 or if the authenticity of a document presented is in question. Let`s take a look at some of the landmark Indian court decisions that explain the concept of the best evidence rule when applied in its true nature. As can be seen from the above analysis, if the terms of the contract, the deposit of property or a matter required by law in writing are proven by the document, the oral statement is not required to contradict it. Once a document has been submitted to prove its terms under section 91, the provisions of section 92 exclude evidence of oral agreements or statements for the purpose of contradicting, modifying, adding to or subtracting from its terms. Section 95 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 speaks of evidence to document insignificance to existing facts. Simply put, if the wording of a document in question is clear and clear, but the same is applied to the existing facts, the result becomes meaningless, then evidence can be provided in such cases to make sense of what does not make sense. Another type of latent ambiguity is found in section 96 of the 1872 Act, which provides for the proof of the use of a language that can only be applied to one person. Section 97 of the Evidence Act 1872 speaks of evidence for the application of language to one of two situations to which neither applies correctly. This means that if the language of a document applies in part to one party and in part to the other party, evidence may be presented to show to which facts the submitted documents apply. The question now arises as to how oral evidence is excluded by documentary evidence.

In Shivu And Anr vs R.G. High Court Of Karnataka in 2007, the Supreme Court of India based its judgment on the fact that Sir Alfred Wills relied on the circumstantial evidence of Wills, who had held that the best evidence rule was considered «a fortiori for circumstantial evidence» because circumstantial evidence was «inherently inferior to direct and positive testimony». The Apex Tribunal noted that whenever the best evidence has shown that its capacity is presented, attempting to replace a description of evidence that does not have the same degree of power has necessarily raised suspicions that it has been concealed for corrupt and sinister motives. «22. In order to invoke section 106 of the Evidence Act, the Crown must establish essentially that the defendants were present in the hotel room at the material time. PW-1 Ram Singh-Hotel Manager explained that CCTV cameras are installed in the boundaries, near the reception, in the kitchen, in the restaurant and on all three floors. Given that CCTV cameras were installed in conspicuous places, CCTV footage would have been the best evidence to prove whether the accused stayed in the room and whether they went out or not. CCTV footage is strong evidence suggesting whether the accused stayed at the hotel and was responsible for committing a crime.

It would also have shown whether the defendant had left the hotel or not. Since CCTV footage is a crucial piece of evidence, the onus is on the prosecution to have presented the best missing evidence. The lack of CCTV footage, which we believe is the best evidence, raises serious doubts about the charges. Although different types of secondary evidence are presented under section 63, the probative value of one type (e.g., a photograph of an original as shown in Figure (a) of section 63) will certainly be higher than another (e.g., oral representation). The best evidence rule is that the evidence has high probative value. In Digamber Vaishnav v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2019) 4 SCC 522 The Supreme Court was also found guilty of failing to interview key witnesses and concluded that the best evidence that would have shed light on the controversy in question had not been disclosed. `28. Under section 114(g) of the Law on evidence, the court may draw an adverse inference against them, notwithstanding the fact that the burden of proof does not lie with them if a party in possession of the best evidence giving rise to the dispute refuses it. The presumption under section 114(g) of the Evidence Act is only an admissible conclusion and not a necessary finding. Unlike the presumption under section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, where the court has no choice but to establish the legal presumption under section 114 of the Evidence Act. The meaning of the Golden Rule in interpretation is explained as follows: A panel of judges Anil R.

Dave, Kurian Joseph, R. Banumathi of the Supreme Court of India gave a relevant dictum while listening to Tomaso Bruno & Anr v. State Of U.P (2015). The conclusion that CCTV footage should be considered the best evidence to prove the presence of the accused at the crime scene and that it was for the prosecution to produce such evidence. If this fails, serious doubts about the prosecution`s case could be welcome.