Supreme Court explains Principles for Admissibility Of Secondary Evidence

 After perusing various judgments of this Court, we can

deduce the following principles relevant for examining the

admissibility of secondary evidence:{Para 33}

33.1 Law requires the best evidence to be given first, that is,

primary evidence. {Neeraj Dutta v. State (NCT of Delhi) (5-Judge Bench) (2023) 4 SCC 731; Yashoda v. K.

Shobha Rani (2-Judge Bench) (2007) 5 SCC 730}

33.2 Section 63 of the Evidence Act provides a list of the

kinds of documents that can be produced as secondary

evidence, which is admissible only in the absence of

primary evidence.{ Yashoda (supra)}

33.3 If the original document is available, it has to be

produced and proved in the manner prescribed for

primary evidence. So long as the best evidence is within

the possession or can be produced or can be reached,

no inferior proof could be given.{ Yashoda (supra)}

33.4 A party must endeavor to adduce primary evidence of

the contents, and only in exceptional cases will

secondary evidence be admissible. The exceptions are

designed to provide relief when a party is genuinely

unable to produce the original through no fault of that

party.{ M. Chandra v. M. Thangamuthu (2-Judges Bench) (2010) 9 SCC 712}

33.5 When the non-availability of a document is sufficiently

and properly explained, then the secondary evidence

can be allowed.{ Neeraj Dutta (supra)}

33.6 Secondary evidence could be given when the party

cannot produce the original document for any reason

not arising from his default or neglect.{ Surendra Krishna Roy v. Muhammad Syed Ali Matwali Mirza 1935 SCC OnLine PC 56}

33.7 When the copies are produced in the absence of the

original document, they become good secondary

evidence. Still, there must be foundational evidence that

the alleged copy is a true copy of the original. {H. Siddiqui v. A. Ramalingam, (2-Judge Bench) (2011) 4 SCC 240}

33.8 Before producing secondary evidence of the contents of

a document, the non-production of the original must be

accounted for in a manner that can bring it within one

or other of the cases provided for in the section.{ H. Siddiqui v. A. Ramalingam (2-Judges Bench) (2011) 4 SCC 240}.

33.9 Mere production and marking of a document as an

exhibit by the Court cannot be held to be due proof of

its contents.{ Neeraj Dutta (supra)}. It has to be proved in accordance with the law.{H. Siddiqui (supra)}.

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4910 OF 2023

VIJAY Vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 

Author: SANJAY KAROL J.

 Citation: 2023 INSC 1030.

Read full Judgment here: Click here

Print Page