Best Evidence Rule under Indian Evidence Act

Reservation (6): Extrinsic proof of the circumstances that accompany it The best rule of proof was born in the 18th century. At first, a large number of the population was illiterate and emphasizes a great importance for ceremonies and documents concerning property and their rights. Later, this way of thinking about the people disappeared in the early 18th century, when the doctrine of the best rule of proof was introduced, also known as the original documentary rule. In India, the best evidence rule is not explained anywhere, but the basis is given in sections 60, 64 and 91 of the Evidence Act 1872. In the sections above, it has been pointed out what is the best rule of proof and what falls within the scope of doctrine. It includes direct oral evidence and primary documentary evidence, as both of these elements are highly admissible in court during the courses. Im 20. == References ===== External links ===* Official website This led to a reproduction of the originals without fear of errors. The best evidence rule is now used to decide the authenticity of documents presented to the court for the track. This is more often the case in civil cases where the party is required to submit documents to the court.

It is the duty of the court to verify the authenticity of the documents submitted before using them as evidence for the trial. Stemming from the doctrine of profert in curia, which means that if a party could not submit the original documents in writing to the court in question, he would have lost his rights created by the documents, the best evidence rule is also known as the “original document rule”. Hardwicke J.`s decision in Ford v. Hopkins (1700) and Omychund v. Barker (1745) is remarkable, since he mentioned that “no evidence will be admissible unless it is the best evidence that nature will allow.” The rule of best evidence appeared because in the 16th century, the copying of documents was made manually by court clerks to make room for significant errors in the copied object. In India, the best evidence rule is contained in sections 91 to 100 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872, which is intended to determine the authenticity of documents presented to the court. This article provides an in-depth understanding of the concept of the best evidence rule in light of the Indian Evidence Act of 1872 and previous decisions of Indian and international courts. I.

Allowing inferior evidence when the law requires a higher value would be tantamount to nullifying the law, the best evidence rule is a legal standard that states that when evidence is presented, such as a document or record, only the original is accepted, unless there is a legitimate reason why the original cannot be used. This rule has its origins in the 1800s. With the advent of electronic communications, there have been discussions about how the best evidence rule should be applied and whether it is relevant or not. The idea behind the best evidence rule is that the best evidence is the original proof. For example, if someone writes a letter and someone else makes a copy of it, the copy may contain errors if it was made by hand, or the copying process may somehow interfere with the letter. For example, a bad photocopy could hide the details of handwriting, while a digital copy could change color and be manipulated by someone with skills. For this reason, the courts, if possible, want to see the original evidence. If the original is destroyed or inaccessible for any reason, a copy will be accepted. However, the copy must be proven by a witness who can testify to the contents and confirm that it is an exact copy of the original. For example, in the sample letter above, a lawyer may ask the person who wrote the letter to ask if the copy is in fact a copy of the letter that person wrote and to confirm that the copy was not falsified. The phrase “best evidence rule” is misleading.

The rule only applies to writings, photographs and photographs – and only if their content is proven. There is no general rule that requires “best evidence.” A party is generally not required to provide actual evidence to prove its cause. The nature of the scriptures leads them to be chosen for special treatment. Copying the handwriting is particularly likely to introduce inaccuracies, and even a slight inaccuracy can have significant legal consequences – for example, in wills, deeds and contractsSparases 91 to 100 are based on the principle that the best evidence must always be provided and acceptance of the fact that, regardless of the quality of a person`s memory, the best evidence of the content of a document is the document itself. The principle does not require the greatest amount of evidence – it simply requires the best evidence and since it is documentary evidence, oral evidence is excluded. And this document deals with these sections concisely and accurately. The failure to hear the best person as a witness was also taken seriously by our Supreme Court in Jagga Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1995 SC 135, stating that “the best evidence was not on file”, it would not be justified to “claim that it was the complainant who caused the wrongdoing”. It would be unfair not to check extrinsic evidence while discussing the best evidence rule. The purpose of extrinsic evidence, which is admissible by the means referred to in reservation 6 of § 92, is to establish the real intentions of the parties by establishing a relationship between the terms of the document and the previous and subsequent conduct of the parties in relation to the document, but these intentions of the parties must be drawn from the language of the document, as explained by the extrinsic evidence. With regard to the unfavourable presumption, the Supreme Court stated in the Tomaso Bruno judgment: “It is a cardinal rule in the law of evidence that the best available evidence must be submitted to the Court to prove a fact or points at issue. However, it is up to the prosecution or defence to support their respective arguments by providing the best available evidence, and the court is not empowered under the provisions of the Code not to force the prosecution or defence to hear a particular witness or witness on their side.

.