Section 64 of the Act requires that documents be proven primarily by “primary evidence,” except in cases where secondary evidence is presented under section 65. It is very important to note that oral witness testimony regarding the contents of an admissible document is irrelevant and can therefore be avoided. Therefore, such statements could not harm or benefit the party to the claim or its intakers. However, it is a simple fact that much of this evidence is presented before the courts, which wastes the courts` time and space. The reign of hearsay has its roots in prehistory. Hearsay refers to statements or assertions made using information received from the third party. She may be present in court; However, it is not reliable every time. There are some exceptions to this, and these statements can be used in Achutananada Baidya v. Prafulla Kumar Gyan[10] Mr.

Battacharyya can say that as a witness in this case, he says that although there was a discussion between the two sides, he did not hear what they were discussing. Thus, the court considered that the order of the witness questioned by the applicants could not be relied on to prove the existence of the oral agreement. Therefore, the oral statement is the one that comes from the person`s knowledge of what they have perceived and seen with their own eyes, but hearsay is what they have learned here or there, so it is possible that the evidence is not original, as it could be if they had recorded it. However, in modern times, many other alternative things have been discovered in research that not only make the presentation of evidence successful in court, but on the other hand, could mislead or unfairly convince them by making it so complex that the idea behind the presentation of that evidence could be destroyed. Therefore, one must be focused when presenting oral evidence. If, in the opinion of the court, it appears that the oral statement could, in certain cases, relate to a substantive thing or document, the court may require that the production of such a thing or substantive document be submitted to the court for use in the further proceedings.[8] The rule that the best available evidence must be presented is set out in the following cases: Murugesam Pillai v. Gnana Sambandha Pandara Sannadhi, AIR 1917 PC 6; Hiralal v. Badkulal, AIR 1953 SC 225; A.

Raghavamma v. A. Chenchamma, AIR 1964 SC 136; Union of India v. Mahadeolal Prabhu Dayal, AIR 1965 SC 1755; Gopal Krishnaji Ketkar v. Mohamed Haji Latif, AIR 1968 SC 1413; M/s. Bharat Heavy Electrical Ltd. v. State of the U.P., AIR 2003 SC 3024; Khatri Hotels Pvt. Ltd.

v. Union of India, (2011) 9 SCC 126. In Jitendra v. State of M.P (2003), our Supreme Court found that Charas and Ganja seized by the defendant constituted the best evidence in this case and that the court had seriously noted that it had not been produced in court, and that this mere oral testimony on this subject was inadequate. (See also: Mohd. Aman, Babu Khan v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1997 SC 2960.) Accordingly, paragraph 22 prohibits the author and his subordinates from testifying orally on the contents of the document if it is available. Paragraphs (a) to (g) of section 65 describe the circumstances in which secondary evidence may be presented in relation to documents. Today, the majority of states no longer apply the parol rule of evidence, which means that courts in those states allow parties to present evidence of pardon in court. More recently, in Riverisland Cold Storage v. Fresno-Madera Production Credit Ass`n (2013), the California Supreme Court held that parol evidence is admissible when used to “argue that [a contract] should be declared invalid because [the party or parties] were induced by fraud.” Relying on the best standard of evidence, the Supreme Court in Musauddin Ahmed v.

State of Assam, (2009) 14 SCC 541, is as follows: An oral hearing generally serves two purposes, one being the presentation of oral evidence and the other for the hearing. [2] In the case of Bexy Michael and Anrs and A.J. Michael,[3] it was decided that oral testimony is so important that it can only be the reason for conviction. According to the court, regardless of whether the evidence is oral or documented, what matters to them is that the evidence is the best evidence that can be presented for each case. Section 63 governs the type of secondary evidence permitted by law. It reads: Will erroneous or misguided oral evidence about the content of a document harm its author? No. Because such evidence is “irrelevant.” The oral statement must be direct; Hearsay evidence, inadmissible Sections 91 and 92 are based on the “best evidence rule.” (Roop Kumar v. Mohan Thadani AIR 2003 SC.

2418: 2003-6 SCC 595; S. Saktivel v. M. Venugopal Pillai 2007-7 SCC 104; Mumbai International Airport v. Golden Chariot Airport, (2012) 10 SCC 422; Tulsi v. Chandrika Prasad, AIR 2006 SC 3359). The Best Evidence Rule Emphasizes High Probative Evidence For more information on parol evidence, see this article from the University of Richmond School of Law Scholarship Framework and this article from the University of Chicago School of Law Journal. Article 22 clarifies that oral confessions about the content of documents are relevant if the party seeking to prove them proves that he has the right to prove the contents of those documents on a secondary basis. As already mentioned, para. 64 provides that, except in the cases referred to in Article 65, documents must be proved by primary evidence. Paragraphs (a) to (g) of section 65 describe the circumstances in which secondary evidence may be presented in relation to documents. They read as follows: Secondary evidence is admissible only if it is admissible under section 65(2) [all documents, including electronic records, prepared for inspection by the court;] these documents are referred to as documentary evidence[1].

www.latestlaws.com/bare-acts/central-acts-rules/indian-evidence-act-section-60-oral-evidence-must-be-direct/ testimony of witnesses as an explanation of the admitted document is also excluded. As already shown, the oral testimony of witnesses on the contents of an admissible document is irrelevant; And so they can be prevented. In addition, §§ 93 and 94 speak of the exclusion of evidence (i) which is intended to “clarify or amend ambiguous documents” and (ii) which “excludes the application of the document to existing facts”. In the case of State of Maharashtra v. Dr. Praful B. Therefore[7], when interpreting Article 273 of the Code of Criminal Procedure from the point of view of technological progress, it was decided that if the evidence is recorded by videoconference, considering that this is a relevant fact in the oral testimony, this evidence would be legally accepted evidence for the case. Oral evidence must be presented to the court either by word or by gestures representing anything. The above article highlighted how oral testimony in court is presented as evidence in each case.

Although documents have more priority than oral testimony, this evidence may be the only reason to draw a conclusion in one of the cases. 1. any evidence which the Court admits or causes to be required of witnesses before it in relation to the facts under consideration; These statements are called oral evidence; Second. Section 61 of the Evidence Act provides that the content of documents may be proved either by primary or secondary evidence. Section 62 states that primary evidence means the document itself submitted for inspection by the court. These sections of the Evidence Act set out the “best evidence rule” and stipulate that the contents of the document must be proved by the original document itself, unless secondary evidence is provided in accordance with s.