B e st E vi d e n c e

R ule
• Doctrine of profert in curia which meant if a
party could not present the original documents in
written form before the concerned court of law,
then he or she would have lost his or her rights that
were created by the documents,.
• Also familiar by the name of “original document
rule”.
• In India, the best evidence rule is embodied in
Sections 91 to 100 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
that aims towards deciding the genuineness of the
documents presented in the court.
Exclusion of oral evidence by the documentary
evidence

• Section 91 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 lays down the provision for
evidence of terms of contracts, grants, and other dispositions of
property reduced to the form of documents.
• The Supreme Court of India in the 2003 case of Roop Kumar v.
Mohan Thedani observed that Section 91 of the Indian Evidence Act,
1872 prohibits proof of the contents of any writing in any other mode
other than writing itself, embodying the best evidence rule declaring a
doctrine of substantive law.
 Section 92 and its underlying principle
• Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is the provision dealing with
the exclusion of evidence of oral agreement. It is said that Section 92 serves
as a supplement for Section 91.
• The former provides that once any contract, grant, or disposition is proved
by means of writing, then no evidence of oral agreement to contradict the
contents of the writing already given, can be provided. Thus the principle
that underlines Section 92 is that no oral evidence can be given in order to
qualify the terms of the document already presented.
• The Supreme Court of India observed that Section 92 precludes only the
parties and their representatives to provide oral evidence in support of the
contents of the document thereby leaving it open for the third parties to
give such evidence.
Both Section 91 and 92 recognize nine exceptions to the general
rule that they lay down. These exceptions, therefore, allow oral
evidence in concern with a document. The exceptions have been
presented hereunder;

• Validity of documents (Section 92 proviso 1)

• Matters on which document is silent (Section 92 proviso 2)
• Condition precedent (Section 92 proviso 3)
• Rescission or modification (Section 92 proviso 4)
• Usages or customs (Section 92 proviso 5)
• Relation of language to facts (Section 92 proviso 6)
• Appointment of a public officer (Section 91, exception 1)
• Wills (Section 91, exception 2)
• Extraneous facts (Section 91, explanation 1)
 CONTENTS

Ambiguous documents: Section 93 to 100

The meaning of the term ambiguous documents is that the

documents that are presented before the court are either not clear in
their language or when the same is applied to the facts, it creates
doubts. The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 recognizes two kinds of
ambiguity namely;

Patent ambiguity (Section 93 and 94); and

Latent Ambiguity (Sections 95-97).
 Patent ambiguity
A patent ambiguity symbolizes a defect in the document that
is apparent on the very face of the document which means
that any person going through the document with ordinary
intelligence can observe the defect. While Section 93 of the
Act covers exclusion of evidence to explain or amend
ambiguous documents, Section 94 of the Act deals with
exclusion of evidence against application of documents to
existing fact.
 LATENT AMBIGUITY
• Latent ambiguity refers to defects in a document that
are not apparent on its face but become visible when
applied to the facts. It is also known as a hidden defect.
• Sections 95 to 97 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872,
address latent ambiguity and provide guidelines for
handling it.
• Section 95 allows for evidence to clarify a document's
meaning when the language appears clear but becomes
meaningless when applied to existing facts.
• Section 96 deals with evidence regarding language that can
apply to only one of several persons, providing a framework for
resolving latent ambiguity in such cases.

• Section 97 allows evidence when the language of a document

partially applies to one party and partly to another, helping
determine which facts the document accurately pertains to.

• Section 98 addresses evidence to interpret illegible characters

in a document, allowing oral evidence to explain artistic words
and symbols used in the document.
 Landmark judgments
• Mohan Lal Shamlal Soni v. Unio n Of India And Another (1991)

- Empha sized the best evidence rule, requiring the presentation of

superior ev idence in court.

- Aim ed to ensure a just decision and prevent unfair advantages to the

opposing party.
• Musauddin Ahmed v. Stat e of Assam (2009)

- Noted Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, emphasizing the duty of
the prosecution to provide the best evidence.

- Failure to do so m a y cast doubt on the prosecution's case .

• Tomaso Bruno & Anr v. State of U.P (2015):

- CCTV footage considered the best evidence for proving the

presence of the accused at a crime scene.

- Prosecution's responsibility to produce this evidence; failure

raises doubts.

• Jitendra And Anr v. State Of M.P (2003):

- Highlighted the best evidence rule's importance in seizure-based

cases, such as those under the NDPS Act, 1985.

- Emphasized that seized goods serve as the best evidence, and

failure to present it may cast doubt on the prosecution's case.