Improper Admission & Rejection of Evidence S.167

Improper Admission & Rejection of Evidence

            S. 167 of Indian Evidence Act, lays down that the improper admission or rejection of evidence is not a ground for reversal of judgement or for new trial of the case, if the Court considers 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 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.

S.167- No new trial for improper admission or rejection of evidence -

            The improper admission or rejection of evidence shall not be ground of itself for a new trial or reversal of any decisions 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.

Scope- This section applies to civil and criminal cases .

Effect of improper admission or rejection in

civil cases -

The improper admission or rejection of evidence is not ipso facto ground for new trial, where there is ample evidence to justify decision irrespective of the admission or the rejection of the evidence.
 
          But 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 admitted can well be excluded from consideration whereas in the latter case the evidence rejected can only be brought on record by having recourse to further proceeding.

   

In criminal cases -

                  This section applies to criminal cases also. 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 other decision, in that event the extraneous circumstances above would not vitiate the order.