Section 96: Evidence as to Application of Language Which Can Apply to One Only of Several Persons

Overview

Section 96 of the Bhartiya Sakshya Bill, 2023, addresses situations where a document uses language that *could* refer to multiple people or things. Essentially, it allows a court to consider evidence – usually oral testimony – to figure out *who* or *what* the document was actually meant to apply to. It’s about resolving ambiguity in written records.

Key Principles / Ingredients

• Type of Evidence: This section primarily deals with the interplay between documentary evidence (the written document itself) and oral evidence (testimony from witnesses). Electronic records are also covered as ‘documents’ under the Bill.
• Conditions for Admissibility/Relevancy: Oral evidence is admissible *only* when the documentary evidence is ambiguous – meaning it’s capable of applying to more than one person or thing. The ambiguity must be genuine; the court won’t allow evidence to contradict a clear document. The oral evidence must help clarify *which* of the possible interpretations was intended.
• Burden of Proof: The party seeking to introduce oral evidence to clarify the document bears the burden of proving that the document is indeed ambiguous and that the oral evidence is relevant to resolving that ambiguity. They must show the court *why* the document could reasonably be understood in multiple ways.

How Courts Use this Provision

Judges use Section 96 when a document’s wording is unclear about its subject. They’ll first examine the document itself. If it’s perfectly clear, the oral evidence won’t be considered. If it’s ambiguous, the judge will allow witnesses to testify about the surrounding circumstances, the intentions of the parties involved, or any other relevant information that helps determine the correct interpretation. The court will then weigh the documentary evidence alongside the oral evidence to reach a conclusion.

Illustrations and Examples

• Example 1: A will leaves a sum of money to “my driver.” The testator (person making the will) had two drivers at different times. Oral evidence from family members about which driver was more closely associated with the testator at the time the will was made would be admissible to determine who the will intended to benefit.
• Example 2: A contract refers to “the land.” The seller owns several plots of land. The contract doesn’t specify *which* plot. Evidence about negotiations between the parties, correspondence discussing a specific plot, or the location of the land mentioned in related documents could be presented to clarify which land was intended to be sold.

Important Provisos / Explanations

The Bhartiya Sakshya Bill, 2023 doesn’t include specific provisos or explanations attached to Section 96. The section operates on the general principles of evidence admissibility – relevance and the need to clarify ambiguity. The court retains discretion to determine the weight given to the oral evidence.

Difference from Old Evidence Act (if applicable)

Section 96 largely mirrors the principles of Section 96 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. There are no significant substantive changes in this provision under the new Bill. The focus remains on clarifying ambiguity in documents through admissible oral evidence.

Key Takeaways

• Section 96 allows oral evidence to clarify ambiguous language in documents.
• Ambiguity is key – clear documents don’t need clarification.
• The party offering the clarifying evidence bears the burden of proving ambiguity and relevance.
• The court considers both documentary and oral evidence to determine the intended meaning.