The improper admission or rejection of evidence shall not be a ground for reversal of judgment or for a new trial… Discuss

Question: The improper admission or rejection of evidence shall not be 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 is ought not to have varied the decision. Discuss [U.P.P.C.S.J. 1982]

Find the answer to the mains question only on Legal Bites. [The improper admission or rejection of evidence shall not be a ground for reversal of judgment or for a new trial… Discuss]

Answer

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

It states that:

“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.”

The object of the section is that the court of appeal or revision should not disturb a decision on the ground of improper admission or rejection of evidence if, in spite of such evidence, there are sufficient materials in the case to justify the decision. In other words, technical objections will not be allowed to prevail, where substantial justice appears to have been done.

The improper (a) admission or (b) rejection of evidence is no ground for a new trial or reversal of any decision, if—

1. in the case of improper admission— there is sufficient evidence to justify the decision independently of the evidence objected to and admitted; or
2. in the case of improper rejection— the decision could not be varied if the rejected evidence had been received.

The provisions of this section are made applicable by the clearest possible words to all judicial proceedings in or before any Court. The section applies to civil cases and to criminal cases whether or not the trial has been had before a jury.

The legal position about appreciation of evidence in trial Court has been succinctly summed up by Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Islam, (2011) 6 SCC 343, at p 348 as follows:

The golden thread which runs through the administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to the innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. The paramount consideration of the court is to ensure that miscarriage of justice is prevented.

A miscarriage of justice that may arise from the acquittal of the guilty is no less than from a conviction of an innocent.

The principle to be followed by the appellate court considering an appeal against an order of acquittal is to interfere only when there are compelling and substantial reasons to do so. Thus, in such cases, this court would usually not interfere unless:

1. The finding is vitiated by some glaring infirmity in the appraisal of evidence.
2. The finding is perverse.
3. The order suffers from substantial errors of law and fact.
4. The order is based on a misconception of law or erroneous appreciation of evidence.
5. The High Court has adopted an erroneous approach resulting in miscarriage of justice.
6. Acquittal is based on irrelevant grounds.
7. The High Court has completely misdirected itself in reversing the order of conviction by the trial court.
8. The judgment is tainted with serious legal infirmities.

In reversing an acquittal, this Court keeps in mind that presumption of innocence in favour of the accused is fortified by an order of acquittal and if the view of the High Court is reasonable and founded on materials on record, this Court should not interfere.

However, if this Court is of the opinion that the acquittal is not based on a reasonable view, then it may review the entire material and there will be no limitation on this Court’s jurisdiction under Article 136 to come to a just decision quashing the acquittal.

---

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