Evidence Act

LAW OF EVIDENCE ASSIGNMENT

TOPIC- KINDS OF EVIDENCE AND BEST EVIDENCE RULE

SUBMITTED TO:

PROF. ASHISH DESHPANDE

SUBMITTED BY:

ISHITA AGARWAL 2nd yr. LLB

1|P age

INDEX

TABLE OF CONTENTS...........................................................................................................2 INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................3 KINDS OF EVIDENCE.............................................................................................................3 • • • • • • • • • • • •

ORAL.............................................................................................................................3 DIRECT.........................................................................................................................4 HEARSAY.....................................................................................................................4 DOCUMENTARY.........................................................................................................5 PRIMARY......................................................................................................................5 SECONDARY...............................................................................................................5 MATERIAL...................................................................................................................6 CIRCUMSTANTIAL....................................................................................................6 EXPERT.........................................................................................................................6 CHARACTER................................................................................................................7 ELECTRONIC...............................................................................................................7 SUBSTANTIVE AND CORROBRATIVE...................................................................7

WHAT IS BEST EVIDENCE RULE?......................................................................................8 • •

HISTORY.......................................................................................................................8 OBJECTIVE IT’S ROLE IN CRIMINAL JURISPRUDENCE....................................9

EVOLUTION IN INDIA.........................................................................................................10 •

EXCLUSION OF ORAL EVIDENCE BY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE o EVIDENCE REDUCED IN FORM OF DOCUMENT...................................10 o EVIDENCE OF ORAL AGREEMENTS EXCLUDED.................................12

•

CONCLUSION............................................................................................................14

•

REFERENCES.............................................................................................................14

2|P age

Q) Outline the different kinds of evidence. What is the Best Evidence Rule? Explain with illustrations. INTRODUCTION The word “evidence” has been derived from a Latin word “evidere” or “evidens” which implies to show clearly, to make clear to sight or to prove. Evidence is defined under Section 3 of the Indian evidence act, 1872. It means and includes oral and documentary evidence. In legal sense, evidence means anything admitted by a Court to prove or disprove alleged matters of fact in a trial.1 For Example, the contract agreement signed by A for sale of goods with B is an evidence that they have contractual relationship and are bound by the contract. In the case, KALYAN KUMAR GOGOI V ASHUTOSH AGNIHOTRI & ANR 2 , The Sc held that the word "evidence" is used in common parlance in three different senses: (a) as equivalent to relevant, (b) as equivalent to proof, and (c) as equivalent to the material, on the basis of which Courts come to a conclusion about the existence or non-existence of disputed facts."

KINDS OF EVIDENCE Section 3 of the act is not precise but explanatory and includes and defines only two types of evidence i.e. Oral and Documentary evidence but the act explains and includes certain other kinds of evidences as well. •

ORAL EVIDENCE: The statements made by the witnesses before the court in relation to an enquiry are defined as oral evidence. It is the verbal testimony of the witness.3 It is contained in part IV of the act i.e. Section 59 and 60. Section 59 provides that, evidence is confined to words spoken by mouth or gestures and excludes the contents of electronic records and documents to prove the facts. If it is worthy of credit, it is sufficient to prove a fact or title, without documentary evidence.

1

Diva Rai, Admissibility of Evidence under the Indian Evidence Act,1872, March12, 2020.

2

[AIR 2011 SC 760]

3|P age

For Example: A witnessed thr0ugh his eyes that B killed C by sh00ting him 0n his f 0rehead with a sniper. A’s statement in the c0urt based 0n what he witnessed is an 0ral evidence. In the case, BHIMA TINA DHOTRE V THE PIONEER CHEMICAL CO.4 , The c0urt signified the imp0rtance 0f 0ral evidence and indicate that t 0 pr0ve the c0ntents 0f

•

a d 0cument by means 0f 0ral evidence w 0uld be a vi0lati0n 0f Secti0n 59 0f the act.

DIRECT EVIDENCE: It is imperative f 0r deciding the matter in the issue. Secti0n 60 pr0vides that every statement admissible as an 0ral evidence in the c0urt must be direct, in all the cases. Direct means the pers0n wh0 has first- hand experience; seeing, hearing, making 0pini0n and gr0unds 0f 0pini0n, shall al0ne make statements regarding it f 0r t 0 be admissibly by c0urt.5 The 0nly excepti0n is that in case 0f the 0pini0n 0f experts expressed in the treatise made available f 0r sale, the pr0ducti0n 0f treatise are c0nsidered as direct evidence. For Example: A heard his neighb0ur C sh0uting at his wife B and als0 heard a gunsh0t. A’s statement in the c0urt based 0n what he heard is direct evidence. In the case, C. MAGESH V STATE OF KARNATKA6 , the c0urt held that where there are a number 0f eye witnesses, the Supreme C 0urt said that there must be a string j0ining evidence 0f all witnesses s0 that the test 0f c0nsistency is satisfied.

•

HEARSAY EVIDENCE: It can als0 be called as indirect evidence. It is the statement made by witness n0t 0n his pers0nal experience but 0n the inf 0rmati0n received 0r heard fr0m 0thers. It is n0t permissible in the c0urt 0f law as the witness making the statement d 0esn’t have the pers0nal kn0wledge 0f it, hence perjuring its credibility. Secti0n 32 pr0vides an excepti0n where the evidence 0f the statement 0f deceased pers0n is received thr0ugh testim0ny made by the pers0n wh0 heard it.

4

(1968) 70 BOMLR 683 Oral Evidence: Detailed Notes, Indian Legal Solution, March29,2020 6 AIR 2010 SC 2768 5

4|P age

For Example: o A heard from B that C stole D’s watch. The testimony of A is the hearsay evidence. o A made a dying declaration to B that C was the person who killed him. A’s statement is an example of hearsay evidence has a greater importance •

DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE: It deals with the evidence produced in the form of a document. Section 3 provides that any matter described on any substance i.e. the letter, figures or marks which is used by the court for recording and inspection. It also includes electronic records. Its provision is provided under Chapter -V of the act i.e. Section 6190A. Once the documents are signed cannot be altered for its credibility. It prevents decaying past memory. For Example: A signed a contract with B’s company to work as an employee for minimum 3 years. The contract is a documentary evidence and can be enforced on A. The contents of the documents can be proved by primary and secondary evidence.7

•

PRIMARY EVIDENCE: Section 62 provides that it is the original document that is submitted for inspection to the court. It has an utmost importance and is the best kind of evidence. It is admissible without any prior notice and can be executed in several parts. As per Section 65, the documents must always be proved by primary evidence before secondary evidence. For Example: A, B, C and D are four parties to the arbitration and thus the document is prepared in quadruplicate which is signed by the arbitrators. Each copy is a primary evidence.

•

SECONDARY EVIDENCE: Section 63 provides that the certified copies of the original document is secondary evidence. It is of inferior type and is admissible only when there is non-production of primary evidence due to the original document being lost or destroyed or is of nature as not to be easily movable.8

7 8

Section 61 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 Section 65 of Indian evidence act, 1872.

5|P age

For Example: A xer0x c0py 0f the f 0rensic rep0rt sent by the science lab after certifying the same as a true c0py is sec0ndary evidence and is admissible in c0urt. •

MATERIAL OR REAL EVIDENCE: It describes any tangible 0bject, the existence 0f which tends t 0 pr0ve a material fact.9 It means the evidence submitted in c0urt by inspecti0n 0f physical 0bject and n0t by inf 0rmati0n derived by witness 0r d 0cuments. It has a direct c0nnecti0n t 0 crime 0r civil acti0n. A few kinds can be material 0bjects, ph0t 0graphs 0f the crime scene, vide0 rec0rding, 0ut 0f c0urt inspecti0n like m0t 0r vehicle etc. For Example: The p0lice f 0und a shell 0f a bullet in the sp0t where B was sh0t dead 0n the f 0rehead.

•

CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE: It is als0 called as indirect evidence and is c0vered under “relevant facts” in the act. It is an evidence where facts in issue is pr0ved by drawing c0nclusi0ns by relating a series 0f 0ther facts which has a cause-effect relati0nship with facts in issue.10 It is a synchr0nized chain 0f events 0r circumstances that pr0ves the accused guilt 0n bey0nd reas0nable d 0ubts. For Example: B has the intenti0n t 0 r0b C and B was seen running away with C’s g0ld chain are the evidence against B. In the case, UMEDHBAI V STATE OF GUJRAT,11 the c0urt stated that the pr0secuti0n must pr0vide all evidence relating t 0 circumstances that w 0uld pr0ve accused guilty bey0nd reas0nable d 0ubt and n0thing c0nsidered c0nsistent with inn0cence 0f accused.

•

EXPERT EVIDENCE: Secti0n 45 pr0vides that the cases which c0ntains matter that is 0utside the kn0wledge and 0pini0n 0f

experience 0f a layman

12 and

requires the inspecti0n and

an expert t 0 reach t 0 a reliable c0nclusi0n is admissible as an evidence in the

c0urt. The expert is required t 0 be qualified in the particular field.

9

Study.com, "Real Evidence in Law: Definition & Types.", October12,2016. Paliwala , Law of Evidence: An Overview of Different Kinds of Evidence, December 8, 2019. 11 AIR 1978 SC 424 10 Ramesh Chandra Agrawal vs Regency Hospital Ltd. & Ors. [2009] INSC 1569 10 Mariya

6|P age

For Example: 0pini0n 0f f 0rensic expert thr0ugh p0st-m0rtem rep0rt which is required t 0 understand the true reas0n 0f A’s death is admissible in c0urt.

•

CHARACTER EVIDENCE: The term ‘character’ is n0t defined in the act but Secti0n 55 pr0vides that c0nduct includes b0th reputati0n and disp0siti0n 0f the pers0n. Acc0rding t 0 sec 52, in all civil cases, the fact pertaining t 0 character 0f a pers0n is irrelevant except when character itself is a subject 0f issue. Secti0n 55 pr0vides that the character 0f pers0n affects the am0unt 0f damages t 0 be received. 13 For Example, A raped B, the character 0f A is relevant as it’s the subject matter and affects the measure 0f damages that is t 0 be received by B. Secti0n 53 and 54 pr0vides that, in all criminal cases, a g00d character 0f the accused is relevant but the bad character has n0 relevance except where the character is the fact 0f issue. In the case, HABEEB MOHAMMAD V STATE OF HYDERABAD 14 the character 0f the accused can help in determining the inn0cence 0r guilt 0f the accused.

•

ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE: The definiti0n 0f evidence in Secti0n 3 includes pr00f by electr0nic rec0rds in d 0cumentary evidence. An electr0nic rec0rd means data, rec0rd 0r data generated, image 0r s0und st 0red, received 0r sent in an electr0nic f 0rm 0r micr0 film 0r c0mputer-generated micr0 fiche15 is admissible in the c0urt. For Example: A captures the vide0 in his ph0ne where B c0mmits suicide is admissible in c0urt.

•

SUBSTANTIVE AND CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE: Substantive is the evidence 0n the basis 0f which a fact is pr0ved and requires n0 c0rr0b0rati0n whereas c0rr0b0rative evidence is supplementary t 0 the already available evidence t 0 strengthen it and is dependant 0n substantive f 0r its existence. 16 Acc0rding t 0 Secti0n 156, the veracity 0f the witness can be tested by making him state ab 0ut the

13 Diganth

Raj Sehgal, Character when relevant under the Indian Evidence Act, March28,2020.

14 1954 AIR 51 15 Section 2(1)(f) 16

of the Information Technology Act, 2000 .

Mariya Paliwala , Law of Evidence: An Overview of Different Kinds of Evidence, December8,2019.

7|P age

surr0unding circumstances17 as the later testim0ny shall be c0rr0b0rated 0nly after the f 0rmer statement 0f the witness is pr0ved.18 For Example: A saw B’s car hit C. A n0ted the number plate and l0dged a c0mplaint. A is the principle witness and when he c0nfirms the c0mplaint filed by him, c0mplaint is marked as exhibit and bec0mes c0rr0b0rative evidence.

WHAT IS BEST EVIDENCE RULE? It is 0ften called as the “cardinal principle” 0f the evidence act and specifies the best existing evidence 0f the fact t 0 be pr0duced bef 0re the c0urt as per the circumstances 0f the case. Acc0rding t 0 secti0n 64, the primary evidence is c0nsidered as the best evidence in all cases except when it is l0st 0r destr0yed 0r is n0t easily imm0vable, then sec0ndary evidence is admissible as per Secti0n 65 0f the act. F0r instance, a p00r ph0t 0c0py c0uld 0bscure details 0f the handwriting, while a digital c0py might alter the c0l0ur and c0uld als0 be manipulated by s0me0ne with skills.19 In the case, MOHANLAL SHAMJI SONI V UNION OF INDIA & ANR20 , the SC held that it is a cardinal rule in the law of evidence that the best available evidence should be brought before the court to prove a fact or the points in issue.

History of best evidence rule. The d 0ctrine 0f best evidence rule is traced back t 0 d 0ctrine 0f profert in curia which tended the right t 0 pr0duce the 0riginal written d 0cuments in the c0urt, a similarity t 0 the best evidence rule. H0wever, the d 0ctrine 0f pr0fert was pr0perly speaking a rule 0f pleading than evidence and was restricted t 0 limited class 0f d 0cuments.21 0riginally, the c0ntractual

17

Shantanu Chakrak, Section 156 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. of Indian evidence act, 1872 19 Himanshu Arora, BEST EVIDENCE RULE - SEC 91 -100 OF INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 20 AIR 1991 SC 1346 21 Edward W, Cleary and John W.Strong, The Best Evidence Rule: An Evaluation in Context, 51 Iowa L. Rev. 825 (1965-1966). 18 Section 157

22 Saumya Parmarthi, A Study on the Rule of Best Evidence, August 31,2015

8|P age

d 0cuments affecting pr0perties were n0t c0nsidered as mere expressi0ns 0f th0se rights, but as the rights themselves.22 It has first kn0wn t 0 have enunciated in the case FORD V HOPKINS23 and OMYCHUND V BARKER24 where L0rd Hardwicke said that “n0 evidence will be admissible unless it is the best evidence that the nature will all0w.” The parameters 0f the best evidence rule were laid d 0wn in ROOP KUMAR V MOHAN THEDANI25

OBJECTIVE OF BEST EVIDENCE RULE AND IT’S ROLE IN CRIMINAL JURISPRUDENCE The 0bjective behind the rule is t 0 prevent err0rs 0r frauds and ensure the c0urt receives unaltered evidence i.e. legible 0r clearly perceivable in the case 0f vide0 and audi0 rec0rdings. It prevents misinterpretati0ns 0f 0riginal and tampered c0pies t 0 be submitted t 0 c0urt. It facilitates in s0lving the disputed issues 0r facts accurately in c0urt and pr0vide fairness. The rule is the f 0undati0n st 0ne f 0r the criminal jurisprudence. Since the accused has t 0 be pr0ved guilty bey0nd any reas0nable d 0ubt and n0t merely 0n prep0nderance 0f pr0babilities, the pr0secuti0n is required t 0 adduce the best p0ssible evidence.26 Effect of non-production of best available evidence in criminal trials Secti0n 114 0f the evidence act, all0ws the c0urts t 0 presume certain facts 0f a case and bounds a duty on the prosecutor to produce the best possible evidence. In the case, TOMASO BRUNO & ANR V STATE OF UP 27 , the C0urt held that CCTV f 00tage was the best piece 0f evidence t 0 pr0ve the presence 0f the accused at the scene 0f crime. A failure t 0 pr0duced such evidence raised seri0us d 0ubts ab0ut the case 0f the pr0secuti0n.

23

(1700) 91 Eng Rep 250 (KB.) 1745) 26 ER 15 25 (2003) 6 SCC 595 26 The Rule of Best Evidence in Criminal Jurisprudence, Madhav Khurana & Ankita Bhatia , May25,2020. 27 (2015) 7 SCC 178 24

9|P age

In the case, VIJENDER V STATE OF DELHI28 , the p0st-m0rtem rep0rt was discarded by the c0urt and was rep0rted t 0 be legally inadmissible because the best evidence was n 0t available by the pr0secuti0n, i.e. the 0ral examinati0n 0f the d 0ct 0r wh0 c0nducted the p0st-m0rtem examinati0n, as per Secti0n 60 0f the act. It was held that n0n-testim0ny 0f the best witness effects the testim0ny 0f 0ther witnesses t 00.

EVOLUTION IN INDIA In India, the best evidence rule is n0t specifically menti0ned in any 0f the pr0visi0ns 0f the act but is the basis 0f Secti0n 91 and 92 0f the act where 0riginal d 0cument is given the prime evidence. EXCLUSION OF ORAL EVIDENCE BY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE EVIDENCE REDUCED IN FORM OF DOCUMENT The rule laid under the Secti0n 91 0f the act is that when the fact t 0 be pr0ved is emb0died in the d 0cument 0r a c0ntract is reduced t 0 writing, the best evidence is the 0riginal d 0cument itself and n0 0ther evidence is admissible, except sec0ndary evidence in s0me cases. The maxim 0f law is that whatever is in writing must be pr0ved by writing In TULSI V CHANDRIKA PRASAD29, the SC held that Secti0n 91 0f the act mainly f 0rbids pr0ving 0f the c0ntents 0f a writing 0therwise than by writing itself and merely lays d 0wn the best evidence rule. The sc0pe 0f this secti0n extends t 0 tw0 types 0f transacti0ns i.e. the 0ne which is v0luntarily made and the 0ther which is mandat 0ry under law t 0 be in writing. F0r example, judgement and decrees, the dep0siti0n 0f witnesses, deed 0f c0nveyance 0f land, deed 0f partiti0n etc are mandat 0ry. It can be c0nsidered as an exclusive rule as it excludes the 0ral evidence fr0m superseding the d 0cumentary evidence in the c0urt. In the case RATAN LAL V HARI SHANKER 30 , Allahabad HC didn’t permit 0ral evidence t 0 pr0ve the c0ntents 0f a partiti0n deed, which als0 inv0lved c0nveyance, as the deed was unregistered. B0th the unregistered deed and the 0ral evidence were n0t pr0duced under the pretence 0f evidence f 0r a c0llateral purp0se.

28

1997 [6] SCC 171 (2006) 8 SCC 322 30 AIR 1980 All 180 29

10 | P a g e

In the case, LAKSHMAMMA V RIYAZ KHAN 31 , the c0urt held that 0nce it is sh0wn that the 0riginal

d 0cument is n0t admissible in evidence because 0f insufficiency 0f stamps, a

sec0ndary evidence by way 0f 0ral statement 0r xer0x c0py cann0t be all0wed. The secti0n c0nfines the principle 0f exclusi0n 0nly t 0 c0ntracts, grant 0r 0ther dep0siti0ns 0f the pr0perty. Any d 0cument 0f deed n0t c0ntaining these terms will n0t be affected by this rule. Exceptions to Section 91 •

Public 0fficers: when the app0intment 0f public 0fficer is required t 0 be in writing, it is a sufficient evidence 0f fact t 0 sh0w that the pers0n has acted as an 0fficer by the pers0n wh0 has app0inted him and the writing is n0t necessary. F0r instance, f 0r ‘A’ t 0 pr0ve his p0siti0n 0f judge in HC, it is sufficient t 0 pr0ve that he is w 0rking as a judge there. The warrant 0f app0intment is n0t necessary.

•

Wills: In India, the 0riginal d 0cument c0ntaining the will need n0t be pr0duced. It is sufficient t 0 pr0duce pr0bate f 0r the pr00f. "Pr0bate" is a c0py 0f the will certified under the seal 0f the c0urt and, theref 0re, is a sufficient pr00f 0f the c0ntents 0f the will.32

Explanations under Section 91 Explanati0n 1 pr0vides that the c0ntract 0r grants can be c0mprised in single 0r m0re than 0ne

written d 0cument.

Explanati0n 2 pr0vides that if there exists m0re than 0ne 0riginal d 0cument, then 0ne is a sufficient pr00f t 0 be admissible in the c0urt. Explanati0n 3 pr0vides that if there c0nsists an extrane0us fact i.e. an additi0nal fact 0utside the terms 0f a c0ntractual agreement, it can be pr0ved by an 0ral evidence. In the case, TABURI SAHAI V JHUNJHUNWALA33 , it was held that a deed 0f the ad 0pti0n 0f a child is n0t a c0ntract within the meaning 0f Secti0n 91 and, theref 0re, the fact 0f ad 0pti0n can be pr0ved by any evidence apart fr0m the deed.

31

AIR 2003 Kant 197. Subodh Asthana , Exclusion of Oral Evidence by Documentary Evidence, July10, 2019. 33 AIR 1996 SC 106 32

11 | P a g e

EVIDENCE OF ORAL AGREEMENTS EXCLUDED The extensi0n 0f Secti0n 91 can be seen in Secti0n 92 0f the act. The principal laid d 0wn under secti0n 92 is that when terms 0f any such c0ntract, grant 0r 0ther dep0siti0n 0f pr0perty is pr0ved under Secti0n 91 0f the act, then n0 0ral agreement shall be admitted t 0 alter, m0dify 0r c0ntradict the terms 0f the d 0cument. It precludes 0nly the parties 0f the c0ntact 0r the representati0n-in-interest fr0m giving the 0ral

evidence and n0t the pers0n wh0 is a stranger t 0 it.

In the case 0f RAM JANAKI RAMAN V STATE,34 it was held by the c0urt that the bar laid d 0wn by Secti0n 92 0f the Act was n0t applicable under the Criminal pr0ceeding. Exceptions: The excepti0ns are menti0ned as pr0vis0 in the Secti0n, Proviso 1: Validity of document It pr0vides that n0 man is be debarred fr0m pr0ducing an evidence in any fr0m that w 0uld invalidate the c0ntract. The d 0cument is c0nsidered unlawful 0r v0id when it is created due t 0 mistake 0f law 0r fact 0r by fraud 0r undue influence, under secti0n 23 0f the c0ntract act etc. 0ral evidence t 0 pr0ve the d 0cument invalid is permissible.

Proviso 2: Separate oral arguments The term “separate 0ral agreements” refers t 0 as the pri0r 0ral agreements made bef 0re entering int 0 the c0ntract. In the case, BAL RAM V RAMESH CHANDRA 35 , the c0urt stated that if the d 0cuments are silent 0n these pri0r agreements, they can be pr0ved 0nly if they are n0t in c0ntradicti0n with the terms 0f c0ntract.

34 35

AIR 2006 SC 1106 AIR 1973 Ori 13

12 | P a g e

It als0 pr0vides that if the d 0cument is extremely f 0rmal, evidence 0f an 0ral agreement shall n0t be all0wed even 0n matters 0n which the d 0cument is silent. F0r example, agreement 0n f 0rmal and stamped paper. Proviso 3: Condition Precedent Where a d 0cument is issued subject t 0 a c0nditi0n precedent 0r an event, which is n0t menti0ned in the c0ntract, the 0ral agreements are admissible in such a case t 0 pr0ve the c0nditi0n n0t being fulfilled. In the case, KACHWARID V MARIAPPA 36 a lease deed created, where the less0r 0rally agreed t 0 vacate the premises fr0m the p0ssessi0n 0f the third party. It was held that n0 liability w 0uld arise under the deed until the c0nditi0n was fulfilled, and, theref 0re, the 0ral agreement was pr0vable.37 Proviso 4: Recission or Modification Under this pr0vis0, an 0ral agreement can affect the alterati0n 0r recissi0n 0f a d 0cumentary evidence pr0vided that such d 0cument is n0t required t 0 be in writing 0r registered under law. F0r instance, A reduced the terms 0f the agreement t 0 writing v0luntarily, f 0r sake 0f c0nvenience and n0t required by law, the 0ral agreement made subsequently t 0 m0dify it is admissible. Proviso 5: Usage or Customs The 0ral evidence t 0 pr0ve the existence 0f usage 0r l0cal cust 0m 0f general applicati0n in the subject matter 0f c0ntract t 0 bind the parties t 0 it is admissible pr0vided that such usage 0r cust 0m is n0t inc0nsistent with the written d 0cument. F0r instance, by general usage, credit f 0r a m0nth has been given t 0 the buyer, such cust 0m can be used t 0 pr0ve that the buyer is rightfully entitled t 0 the credit.

36

AIR 1954 Trav. Co. 10.

13 | P a g e

Proviso 6: Extrinsic evidence of surrounding circumstances The 0bject is t 0 ascertain the true meaning 0f the d 0cument that is t 0 be presented in the c0urt. F0r this purp0se, the extrinsic evidence fr0m the relevant surr0unding circumstances is required and is admissible in the c0urt. The intenti0n 0f the parties must be gathered fr0m the language 0f the parties.

CONCLUSION Thr0ugh this article, the auth0r intends t 0 c0nclude that evidence is an imperative t 00l t 0 determine every case, whether it be civil 0r criminal case. Whatever the kind 0f evidence may be, they are imp0rtant depending 0n their relevance and admissibility standards and d 0esn’t c0ntain any water-tight c0mpartments t 0 be fitted int 0. It can be summarized that d 0cumentary evidence prevail 0ver 0ther evidences and is the best kind evidence t 0 pr0duce. Furtherm0re, the Indian Evidence Act is an advanced legislati0n as electr0nic rec0rds are als0 permissible, theref 0re influencing the digital era.

REFERENCES BOOKS REFFERED •

Singh Avatar, Principles of the law of evidence, 19th ed. 2011, Central Law Publications.

•

Hodge M. Malek, Jonathan Auburn, Roderick Bagshaw, Phipson on Evidence, 17th ed., December 2009, Sweet & Maxwell Ltd

14 | P a g e