Question: Can improper admission or rejection of evidence be a basis for a new trial or reversal of any decision in any case? [H.R. 2006] Find the answer to the mains question only on Legal Bites. [Can improper admission or rejection of evidence be a basis for a new trial or reversal of any decision in any case?]… Read More »

Question: Can improper admission or rejection of evidence be a basis for a new trial or reversal of any decision in any case? [H.R. 2006] Find the answer to the mains question only on Legal Bites. [Can improper admission or rejection of evidence be a basis for a new trial or reversal of any decision in any case?] Answer Section 167 of the Indian Evidence Act lays down the provision that governs regarding No new trial for improper admission or rejection of evidence. It states, “The...

Question: Can improper admission or rejection of evidence be a basis for a new trial or reversal of any decision in any case? [H.R. 2006]

Find the answer to the mains question only on Legal Bites. [Can improper admission or rejection of evidence be a basis for a new trial or reversal of any decision in any case?]

Answer

Section 167 of the Indian Evidence Act lays down the provision that governs regarding No new trial for improper admission or rejection of evidence.

It states, “The improper admission or rejection of evidence shall not be ground of itself for a new trial or reversal of any decision in any case, if it shall appear to the Court before which such objection is raised that, independently of the evidence objected to and admitted, there was sufficient evidence to justify the decision, or that, if the rejected evidence had been received, it ought not to have varied the decision.”

This section lays down that the improper admission or rejection of evidence is not a ground for reversal of judgment or for a new trial of the case, if the Court considers that independently of the evidence improperly admitted, there was evidence enough to justify the decision or that if the rejected evidence had been admitted it ought not to have varied the decision.

When, therefore, an appeal is grounded on the improper exclusion or admission of evidence, the appellant must be prepared to show, not only that there has been an improper admission or exclusion but that a mockery of justice has been thereby caused.

Section 167 of the act applies to both civil and criminal cases. Let’s understand the separate effects of improper admission or rejection in both civil and criminal cases.

In civil cases: The improper admission or rejection of evidence is not ipso facto ground for a new trial, where there is ample evidence to justify decision irrespective of the admission or the rejection of the evidence.

But as held in State of Mysore v. Sampanyiramiah, AIR 1953 Mys. 80, it should be borne in mind that the reception of inadmissible evidence is less injurious than the rejection of admissible evidence because in the former case in arriving at a decision the evidence wrongly admitted can well be excluded from consideration whereas in the latter case the evidence wrongly rejected can only be brought on record by having recourse to further proceeding.

In criminal cases: The section applies to criminal cases also. As the court has clarified in the case of Madan Lal v. Principal, H.B.T. Institute, AIR 1962 All. 166, it is only when the High Court feels doubt that if one fact were not there whether the opinion or decision of a certain authority would have been the same, that the High Court interferes but where it is patently clear that there would have been no other decision, in that event the extraneous circumstances above would not vitiate the order.

As regards the rejection of an important document or refusal of permission for examination of a material, witness may justify the reversal of the decision [Devidas Jagjivan v. Pirjada Begam (1984) 8 Bom. 377]. As regards ‘rejected’ evidence, the question under Sec. 167 is not so much whether the evidence rejected would not have been accepted against the other testimony on the record as to whether the evidence “ought not to have varied the decision” [Narayan v. State of Punjab AIR 1959 SC 484]


Important Mains Questions Series for Judiciary, APO & University Exams

  1. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-I
  2. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-II
  3. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-III
  4. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-IV
  5. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-V
  6. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-VI
  7. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-VII
  8. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-VIII
  9. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-IX
  10. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-X
Updated On 2021-11-15T12:00:32+05:30
Admin LB

Admin LB

Next Story