Best Evidence Rule

Table of Contents

Exclusion of Oral Evidence from Documentary evidence

In India, the “Best Evidence Rule” has been regarded as a fundamental principle on which evidence law depends, although it is not specifically mentioned anywhere it’s the basis of sections 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872.

Section 91

The provision of S 91 states that when evidence is reduced to a document, then no evidence is required to be given for proof of those matters except the document itself.
Here are documents such as contract, or of a grant, or any other disposition of property, and in all cases in which any matter is required by law to be reduced to the form of a document.
There are two exceptions to these provisions:
(1) When a public officer is required by law to be appointed in writing; and any officer has acted as such, the writing need not be proved;
(2) Will admitted to probate in India may be proved by the probate.

Section 92

The provision of S 92 states that “When the terms of any such contract, grant, etc required by law to be reduced to a document have been proved accordingly as per section 91, no evidence of any oral agreement or statement shall be admitted, as between the parties to any such instrument or their representatives in interest, to contradict, vary, adding to, or subtracting such instrument.

There are six provisos to this Section, namely:

Proviso (1): The facts which invalidate the document.
Proviso (2): Separate oral arguments.
Proviso (3): Separate oral arguments as a condition precedent.
Proviso (4): Distinct oral agreements made subsequently to renew or modify the contract.
Proviso (5): Any usage or customs by which incidents not mentioned in any contract are usually annexed to the contract.
Proviso (6): Extrinsic evidence of surrounding circumstances.