Section 94: Exclusion of Oral Evidence by Documentary Evidence

Overview

Section 94 of the Bhartiya Sakshya Bill, 2023, establishes a fundamental rule: when an agreement (like a contract), a transfer of property (like a gift deed), or any similar arrangement is written down in a document, you generally can’t use spoken words or verbal promises to change what the document says. The written document is considered the final and complete expression of the agreement. This is often called the 'Parol Evidence Rule'.

Key Principles / Ingredients

• Type of Evidence: This section primarily concerns the contrast between oral evidence (testimony, spoken statements) and documentary evidence (written contracts, deeds, letters, emails – anything in a tangible written form). Electronic records are treated as documents under this Bill.
• Conditions for Admissibility/Relevancy: Oral evidence is inadmissible to contradict, change, add to, or take away from the terms of a written document. The document must be the final expression of the parties’ agreement. If the document is incomplete or ambiguous, exceptions (covered in later sections) may allow some oral evidence.
• Burden of Proof Implications: The party presenting the document generally doesn’t need to prove its terms with oral evidence. The document itself is strong evidence. The burden shifts to the party trying to introduce oral evidence to show why it should be allowed (e.g., fraud, mistake, or ambiguity).

How Courts Use this Provision

Judges apply Section 94 to ensure the integrity of written agreements. If a dispute arises, the court will first look at the written document. Unless a specific exception applies, the court will not consider any prior or contemporaneous oral agreements that contradict the document’s terms. The court focuses on what is *written*, not what was *said* before or during the signing of the document.

Illustrations and Examples

• Example 1: Ramesh rents a shop to Suresh for ₹10,000 per month, as stated in a written lease agreement. Suresh claims Ramesh verbally promised a rent-free period of one month. Section 94 would likely prevent Suresh from introducing this oral promise in court, as the written lease is the governing document.
• Example 2: Priya sells her car to Vijay, and they sign a sale agreement stating the price is ₹5 lakhs. Vijay later claims Priya orally assured him the car’s engine was recently serviced. If the sale agreement is silent on the engine’s condition, a court might allow oral evidence regarding the engine service, as it doesn’t directly contradict the written terms, but relates to a separate aspect not covered in the document.

Important Provisos / Explanations

Section 94 itself doesn’t have any attached provisos or explanations. However, it explicitly states that its application is subject to the provisions of subsequent sections of the Bill. These later sections outline exceptions to the rule, such as cases involving fraud, mistake, or when the document is incomplete due to a mutual error.

Difference from Old Evidence Act (if applicable)

The Bhartiya Sakshya Bill, 2023, largely retains the core principle of Section 94 as it existed in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. However, the new Bill aims for greater clarity and conciseness in its language, and integrates provisions relating to electronic records more explicitly. The overall structure and intent remain consistent.

Key Takeaways

• Written documents generally ‘speak for themselves’.
• Oral evidence cannot be used to change a clear written agreement.
• Exceptions exist (fraud, mistake, ambiguity) – look to subsequent sections.
• Electronic records are treated as documents under this section.