​Indian Evidence Law – Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023Presumption as to Books, Maps, and Charts-[Section 89]
​
Section 89 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 lays down the rule regarding presumptions connected with books, maps, and charts that are produced before the Court. This provision recognises the practical necessity of relying on published materials dealing with matters of public or general interest.

Statutory Provision
Under Section 89, the Court may presume that:

• Any book referred to by the Court for information on matters of public or general interest, and
• Any published map or chart, the statements of which are relevant facts and which is produced for the Court’s inspection,

was written or published by the person, and at the time and place, by whom or at which it purports to have been written or published.

Nature of the Presumption

• The presumption under this section is discretionary, as indicated by the expression “may presume”.
• The Court is not bound to draw this presumption and may refuse to do so if circumstances raise doubt about the authenticity of the material.
• The presumption relates only to authorship, publication, time, and place, and not to the correctness or truth of the contents.

Relationship with Other Provisions
Section 89 must be read along with:

• Section 30, which deals with the relevancy of books, maps, and charts relating to matters of public or general interest; and
• Section 82, which specifically provides that the Court shall presume the accuracy of maps or plans made under the authority of the Government.

Unlike Section 82, Section 89 does not raise any presumption regarding accuracy. It merely assists the Court in assuming that the document is what it claims to be, without certifying that its contents are factually correct.

Scope and Rationale
The provision is based on convenience and judicial efficiency. Requiring strict proof of authorship and publication details for every book, map, or chart would be impractical, especially when such materials are widely accepted and used for reference on public matters. At the same time, by making the presumption discretionary, the law ensures that doubtful or suspicious documents are not blindly relied upon.

Conclusion
Section 89 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 enables courts to rely on books, maps, and charts of public or general interest by presuming their authorship and publication details. However, this presumption is not mandatory and does not extend to the accuracy of the contents, thereby maintaining a careful balance between judicial convenience and evidentiary caution.

Indian Evidence Law – Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam  2023 -Presumption as to Certified Copies of Foreign Judicial Records [Section 88]
​
​Section 88 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 deals with the presumption relating to certified copies of judicial records of foreign countries. This provision facilitates the proof of foreign judicial documents by reducing the difficulty involved in formally proving records originating outside India.

Statutory ProvisionSection 88(1): Presumption of Genuineness and AccuracyUnder Section 88(1), the Court may presume that a document purporting to be a certified copy of a judicial record of any country outside India is genuine and accurate, provided that:

• The document appears to be certified, and
• The certification is made in a manner which is certified by a representative of the Central Government in or for that country as being the manner commonly used there for certifying copies of judicial records.

Thus, if the mode of certification conforms to the practice prevalent in the foreign country and is endorsed by an authorised Indian representative, the Court may rely upon the document without requiring strict proof of its authenticity.

Section 88(2): Presumption as to Representative of the Central GovernmentSection 88(2) clarifies who may be treated as a representative of the Central Government for the purpose of certification. It provides that:

• An officer of any territory or place outside India who is a Political Agent, as defined under Section 3(43) of the General Clauses Act, 1897,
• Shall be deemed to be a representative of the Central Government in and for the country comprising that territory or place.

This deeming provision ensures certainty and avoids disputes regarding the authority of officials certifying foreign judicial records.

Scope and Nature of the Presumption

• The presumption under Section 88 is discretionary, as indicated by the words “may presume”.
• It extends only to the genuineness and accuracy of the certified copy, and not to the correctness of the judicial findings recorded therein.
• The section does not exclude other modes of proof. A party may still prove a foreign judicial record by other legally recognised methods if certification under Section 88 is not available.

Geographical ScopeSection 88 applies broadly to judicial records of any country beyond India, without limiting its application to specific jurisdictions. This marks a departure from the narrower wording of the corresponding provision in the earlier law, thereby expanding its applicability to judicial records from all foreign countries.

Illustrative PositionIf a party seeks to produce certified copies of court records from a foreign jurisdiction, the Court should not reject such an application merely because certification has not yet been obtained. The party must first be given a reasonable opportunity to:

• Have the documents certified by a recognised representative of the Central Government, or
• Prove them through any other admissible mode of proof.

ConclusionSection 88 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 simplifies the process of proving foreign judicial records by allowing courts to presume the genuineness and accuracy of properly certified copies. By recognising authorised representatives of the Central Government and preserving alternative methods of proof, the provision balances procedural convenience with evidentiary fairness.

Indian Evidence Law – Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023-Presumption of the Authenticity of Secure Electronic Records and Secure Electronic Signatures [Section 86]

Section 86 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 deals with the presumption relating to the authenticity and integrity of secure electronic records and secure electronic signatures. This provision is closely aligned with the scheme of the Information Technology Act, 2000, as amended in 2008, which accords legal recognition to electronic records and electronic signatures.

Legal Recognition of Electronic Records and Signatures
The Information Technology Act, 2000 recognises electronic records and electronic signatures as legally valid. Building upon this recognition, Section 86 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam lays down specific rules of presumption to facilitate proof and reliability of such electronic evidence in judicial proceedings.

Presumption Regarding Secure Electronic Records
Under Section 86(1), when a proceeding involves a secure electronic record, the Court is required to presume, unless the contrary is proved, that:

• The secure electronic record has not been altered since the point of time to which its secure status relates.

This presumption safeguards the integrity of secure electronic records and relieves the party relying on such records from proving that the record remained untampered.

Presumption Regarding Secure Electronic Signatures
Section 86 further provides a presumption with respect to secure electronic signatures. It states that:

• In any proceeding involving a secure electronic signature, the Court shall presume, unless the contrary is proved, that the signature was affixed by the subscriber, and
• That it was affixed with the intention of signing or approving the electronic record.

This presumption establishes both the authorship and intent behind the use of a secure electronic signature.

Exclusion of Presumption for Unsecured Records
Section 86(2)(b) clearly limits the scope of these presumptions. It provides that:

• No presumption shall be made regarding the authenticity or integrity of an unsecured electronic record, or
• An unsecured electronic signature.

Thus, the benefit of presumption is confined strictly to secure electronic records and secure electronic signatures, as defined under the Information Technology Act.

Nature and Scope of Presumption

• The presumptions under Section 86 are rebuttable presumptions of law.
• The opposing party may disprove the integrity, authenticity, or authorship of the electronic record or signature by leading appropriate evidence.
• Until such rebuttal is made, the Court is bound to presume authenticity in favour of secure electronic records and signatures.

Conclusion
Section 86 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 plays a crucial role in strengthening the evidentiary value of electronic records by drawing a clear distinction between secure and unsecured electronic evidence. By mandating presumptions in favour of secure electronic records and signatures, the provision promotes trust, certainty, and efficiency in the adjudication of disputes arising in the digital environment, while ensuring that such presumptions remain open to challenge through proof to the contrary

​Indian Evidence Law – Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023-Presumption as to Electronic Signature Certificates (ESC) [Section 87]

Section 87 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 deals with the presumption relating to Electronic Signature Certificates (ESCs). This provision operates in conjunction with the framework laid down under the Information Technology Act, 2000, as amended in 2008, which regulates the issuance and use of electronic and digital signatures.

Statutory Basis and Meaning
​Electronic Signature Certificates are issued by a Certifying Authority (CA) to a subscriber after following a prescribed statutory procedure. These certificates contain specific information relating to the identity of the subscriber and the electronic signature.
Section 87 provides that:

• Unless the contrary is proved, the Court shall presume that the information contained in an Electronic Signature Certificate is correct,
• Provided that the certificate has been accepted by the subscriber.

Thus, once acceptance by the subscriber is established, the law raises a mandatory presumption in favour of the correctness of the information recorded in the certificate.

Extent of the Presumption
The presumption under this section applies only to information that has been verified in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Information Technology Act and the relevant rules.
Importantly:

• No presumption is made with respect to any information mentioned in the certificate that is identified as subscriber information which has not been verified.
• Such unverified details must be independently proved by the party relying upon them.

Nature of Presumption

• The presumption under Section 87 is a rebuttable presumption of law.
• The opposing party is entitled to disprove the correctness of the information contained in the Electronic Signature Certificate by leading contrary evidence.
• Until such rebuttal is successfully made, the Court is bound to presume the correctness of verified particulars in the certificate.

Purpose and Significance
The object of Section 87 is to promote certainty, reliability, and trust in electronic transactions. Since electronic signatures play a crucial role in modern digital communication and e-governance, this presumption reduces the evidentiary burden on parties relying on Electronic Signature Certificates and facilitates smoother adjudication of disputes involving electronic records.

Conclusion
Section 87 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 recognises the legal sanctity of Electronic Signature Certificates by mandating a presumption of correctness of verified information contained therein, subject to rebuttal. At the same time, it carefully excludes unverified subscriber information from such presumption, thereby maintaining a balance between technological convenience and evidentiary caution.

Indian Evidence Law – Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023-Presumption as to Due Execution, Attestation and Stamping of Documents Not Produced [Section 91]

Section 91 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 lays down an important rule of presumption against a party who withholds documentary evidence. It empowers the Court to draw an adverse presumption regarding the formal validity of a document when a party, despite due notice, fails to produce it.

Statutory Provision
Section 91 provides that:
When a document is called for by the Court and is not produced after due notice to produce, the Court shall presume that the document was duly executed, properly stamped, and validly attested in the manner required by law.
Thus, the law presumes compliance with legal formalities relating to execution, attestation, and stamping of the document that has been withheld.

Scope and Nature of the Presumption

• The presumption under Section 91 is mandatory in nature, as indicated by the expression “shall presume”.
• However, the scope of this presumption is limited. It extends only to:
  • due execution,
  • proper stamping, and
  • lawful attestation of the document.

Importantly, this presumption does not extend to the truth or correctness of the contents of the document. The contents still require proof, ordinarily through secondary evidence, in accordance with Section 60 of the Act.

Underlying Principle
The provision is based on the well-established legal maxim:
Nemo ex suo delicto meliorem suam conditionem facere potest
(No one can be allowed to take advantage of his own wrong).
If a party deliberately withholds a document that is in his possession after being lawfully called upon to produce it, the law presumes that the document would have gone against his interest.
This principle is also reflected in the general presumption under Section 119(g), which allows the Court to presume that evidence which could be produced and is not produced would, if produced, be unfavourable to the person withholding it.

Opportunity to Rebut the Presumption
Although the presumption under Section 91 is mandatory, it is rebuttable. The party against whom the presumption is raised may lead evidence to show that:

• the document was not duly executed, or
• it was not properly stamped, or
• it was not validly attested.

However, this right to rebut is subject to an important limitation.

Effect of Section 167
Section 167 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam places a restriction on a party who refuses to produce a document when called upon to do so. It provides that:

• A party who has a document in his possession and refuses to produce it at the hearing cannot later rely on that document as evidence, unless:
  • the opposing party consents, or
  • the Court permits its production.

Thus, while a party may attempt to rebut the presumption by other evidence, he cannot freely rely on the very document he wrongfully withheld, without satisfying the requirements of Section 167.

Condition for Raising the Presumption
For the presumption under Section 91 to arise, the following condition must be fulfilled:

• There must be evidence that the document was in the possession or power of the party against whom the presumption is sought to be raised.

If possession or control of the document is not established, the presumption cannot be invoked.

Conclusion
Section 91 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 serves as a deterrent against the suppression of documentary evidence. By compelling the Court to presume due execution, attestation, and stamping of a document that is deliberately withheld, the provision ensures fairness in judicial proceedings and prevents parties from benefiting from their own misconduct. At the same time, it carefully limits the presumption to formal validity, leaving the truth of the contents to be proved in accordance with established rules of evidence.

Indian Evidence Law – Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023-Difference between Oral Evidence and Documentary Evidence

Introduction
Under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023 (BSA), evidence is broadly classified into oral evidence and documentary evidence.
According to Section 2(e) of BSA, “evidence” includes:

1. Oral Evidence – all statements (including electronic statements) which the Court permits or requires to be made before it by witnesses in relation to matters of fact under inquiry.
2. Documentary Evidence – all documents, including electronic or digital records, produced for the inspection of the Court.

The fundamental principle governing proof is the Best Evidence Rule, which requires that the best available evidence must be produced before the Court. Where documentary evidence exists, it prevails over oral evidence. Chapter VI (Sections 94–103) of BSA specifically lays down circumstances where oral evidence is excluded by documentary evidence.

Oral Evidence
Oral evidence consists of statements made by witnesses before the Court by speaking or through gestures.

• It is governed by Sections 54 and 55 of BSA, 2023.
• It represents the personal knowledge, perception, or observation of a witness.
• Oral evidence must always be direct in nature.
• It may become unreliable if it is inconsistent or contradicts previous statements.

Illustration:
If A commits the murder of X and B is present at the scene, whatever B hears, sees, or perceives and later states before the Court constitutes oral evidence.

Documentary Evidence
Documentary evidence consists of facts proved through written records or documents, including electronic and digital records.

• It is governed by Sections 56 to 103 of BSA, 2023.
• It is presented by producing a document before the Court for inspection.
• The contents of documentary evidence must be proved either by primary evidence or, where permitted, secondary evidence.
• Documentary evidence is generally considered more reliable because it reduces the chances of memory lapse or fabrication.

Illustration:
A photocopy of A’s date of birth certificate produced before the Court to establish his age is documentary evidence.

Key Points of Difference (in Note Form)

1. Nature
   • Oral evidence is conveyed through spoken words or gestures.
   • Documentary evidence is conveyed through written or recorded material.
2. Mode of Presentation
   • Oral evidence is given by a witness personally before the Court.
   • Documentary evidence is produced in the form of documents or records.
3. Reliability
   • Oral evidence is comparatively less reliable due to human error or inconsistency.
   • Documentary evidence is more reliable as it provides a permanent record.
4. Proof Requirement
   • Oral evidence must be direct and consistent.
   • Documentary evidence must be supported by primary or admissible secondary evidence.
5. Preference under Law
   • Oral evidence is accepted when documentary evidence is unavailable.
   • Documentary evidence prevails over oral evidence wherever documents exist.

Conclusion
Under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, both oral and documentary evidence play a vital role in judicial proceedings. However, the law clearly prefers documentary evidence over oral evidence in order to ensure accuracy, certainty, and reliability. This preference is rooted in the principle that what is recorded in writing must be proved by producing that record itself, thereby safeguarding the integrity of judicial findings.

Indian Evidence Law - Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2003- Conclusion of Chapter 5 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023

​Conclusion
In summary, Chapter 5  of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023 provides an extensive and systematic framework governing the law relating to documentary evidence. This chapter plays a crucial role in regulating how documents are introduced, evaluated, and relied upon during judicial proceedings, thereby strengthening the evidentiary process.

The chapter offers a clear explanation of what qualifies as a document, encompassing not only traditional written records but also electronic and digital documents, reflecting the contemporary needs of legal practice. It further clarifies the circumstances in which such documents may be tendered as evidence, as well as situations where their admissibility may be restricted or excluded in the interest of justice.

A central theme of this chapter is the distinction between primary evidence, which consists of original documents, and secondary evidence, which includes copies, certified reproductions, or other permissible substitutes. The law carefully prescribes the conditions under which secondary evidence may be accepted, ensuring that reliance on non-original documents does not compromise authenticity or accuracy.

In addition, the chapter elaborates on the modes of proof of documents, setting out the legal methods by which the genuineness, execution, and contents of a document may be established before the court. Considerable emphasis is placed on the admissibility of documentary evidence, with specific rules designed to prevent misuse, forgery, or misinterpretation.

The chapter also distinguishes between public documents and private documents, assigning different evidentiary values to each and laying down presumptions that assist courts in assessing their reliability. These statutory presumptions reduce unnecessary procedural burdens and promote judicial efficiency.

Overall, Chapter 5 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023 serves as a comprehensive code on documentary evidence. By providing detailed rules on classification, admissibility, proof, and presumptions relating to documents, it ensures clarity, consistency, and fairness in legal proceedings, while adapting the law of evidence to modern forms of documentation and record-keeping.

​Indian Evidence Law – Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023-Presumption Regarding the Authenticity of Documents Thirty Years Old [Section 92]
​
Section 92 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 embodies an important evidentiary principle relating to ancient documents, that is, documents which are thirty years old or more. This provision enables courts to presume the genuineness of such documents, thereby relieving parties of the often-impracticable burden of proving their execution after a long lapse of time.

Statutory Rule
According to Section 92, where any document purporting or proved to be thirty years old is produced from a custody which the Court, in the given circumstances, considers to be proper, the Court may presume:

• that the signature and every other part of the document which appears to be in the handwriting of a particular person is indeed in that person’s handwriting; and
• that the document, if it purports to have been executed or attested, was duly executed and attested by the persons by whom it claims to have been so executed or attested.

The provision thus allows the Court to presume not only the handwriting and signature but also the due execution and attestation of such documents.

Meaning of Proper Custody
The Explanation to Section 92 clarifies the concept of proper custody. A document is said to be in proper custody if it is found in the place where it would naturally be kept and under the care of the person with whom it would ordinarily remain. However, custody is not considered improper merely because the document is produced from a different source, provided it is shown to have a legitimate origin or the circumstances reasonably explain how it came into such custody.
Illustrations of proper custody include:

• Title deeds produced by a person who has long been in possession of the land;
• Deeds produced by a mortgagee relating to mortgaged property;
• Documents deposited with a relative or acquaintance for safe custody.

In all such cases, the custody would be regarded as proper.
Scope and Rationale of the Section
The primary objective of Section 92 is to address the practical difficulty of proving documents executed decades earlier. With the passage of time, witnesses may die, handwriting experts may not be available, and direct evidence of execution may no longer exist. To avoid injustice and unnecessary hardship, the law permits a presumption of genuineness for documents that have survived for thirty years.
The provision is founded on necessity, convenience, and probability, as it is reasonable to assume that documents preserved for such a long period without dispute are likely to be genuine.

Nature of the Presumption
The presumption under Section 92 is discretionary, as indicated by the words “may presume”. The Court is not bound to draw the presumption in every case and must exercise its discretion judiciously. The presumption is confined strictly to:

• handwriting,
• signature,
• execution, and
• attestation.

It does not extend to the truth of the contents of the document or to collateral facts, which must still be proved independently.
Moreover, if a party has already attempted to prove the document by direct evidence and failed, it cannot later fall back upon this statutory presumption.

Essential Conditions for Raising the Presumption
For the presumption under Section 92 to operate, the following conditions must be satisfied:

1. The document must be at least thirty years old.
2. The thirty-year period is generally calculated from the date borne on the document, though extrinsic evidence may be used if no date is mentioned.
3. The document must be produced from proper custody, which is a question of fact in each case.
4. The presumption applies primarily to the original document, not to copies.
5. The document must have completed thirty years at the time it is tendered in evidence, not merely when it is filed in court.
6. The document must appear to be free from suspicion on its face.

Courts are cautioned to carefully examine the apparent age of documents, as a recently created document may falsely bear an old date.

Judicial InterpretationIn Om Prakash (Dead) through LRs v. Shanti Devi, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that the thirty-year period is to be reckoned from the date when the document is tendered in evidence and its genuineness becomes a matter of proof, not from the date of its mere filing. This principle traces its origin to the Privy Council decision in Surendra Krishna Roy v. Mirza Mahammad Syed Ali Mutawali.

Similarly, in Tushar Arun Gandhi v. State of Orissa, entries relating to the deposit of Mahatma Gandhi’s ashes, being over thirty years old, were presumed to be genuine under this provision.
Exception: No Presumption for WillsA significant limitation of Section 92 is that it does not apply to wills. Even if a will is thirty years old, its execution and attestation must be strictly proved in accordance with the requirements of the Indian Succession Act and the relevant provisions of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam. This position was firmly established by the Supreme Court in Bharpur Singh v. Shamsher Singh, where it was held that no presumption of genuineness arises in favour of ancient wills.

Conclusion
Section 92 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 provides a pragmatic mechanism for dealing with ancient documents by permitting courts to presume their authenticity under specified conditions. While the provision significantly eases the evidentiary burden, it simultaneously safeguards against misuse by making the presumption discretionary, limited in scope, and subject to careful judicial scrutiny.

Indian Evidence Law – Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023-Presumption Regarding the Authenticity of Electronic Records Five Years Old [Section 93]

Section 93 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 introduces a special rule concerning the evidentiary value of electronic records that are five years old. This provision reflects the legislative intent to adapt the law of evidence to technological advancements and the growing reliance on digital records in legal and commercial transactions.

Under the traditional law of evidence, a presumption regarding the genuineness of physical documents arises when such documents are thirty years old. However, recognising the fragile, dynamic, and rapidly changing nature of electronic data, the legislature has prescribed a much shorter period for electronic records. Accordingly, Section 93 provides that when an electronic record purporting or proved to be five years old is produced before the Court, a presumption as to its authenticity may be drawn.

The Section states that where such an electronic record is produced from a custody which the Court considers to be proper, the Court may presume that the electronic signature appearing on the record was affixed by the person it purports to be associated with, or by someone duly authorised by that person. The use of the expression “may presume” makes it clear that this is a discretionary presumption, and not a mandatory one. The Court is free to evaluate the surrounding circumstances before deciding whether or not to raise such a presumption.

The concept of proper custody plays a crucial role in the application of this provision. An electronic record is said to be in proper custody if it is found in the place where such records are ordinarily expected to be kept, or if it is maintained by the person who would normally have control over it. Importantly, the law clarifies that custody shall not be considered improper merely because the electronic record has changed hands, provided it is shown that the record had a legitimate origin or that the circumstances of the case reasonably explain its existence in such custody.
​
This provision significantly eases the burden of proving the authenticity of older electronic records by allowing courts to rely on presumptions, thereby promoting efficiency in judicial proceedings. At the same time, the discretionary nature of the presumption ensures that safeguards remain in place against misuse, manipulation, or fabrication of electronic evidence.
In essence, Section 93 strikes a balance between technological convenience and evidentiary reliability, ensuring that electronic records receive appropriate legal recognition while preserving judicial scrutiny.

Indian Evidence Law – Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023-Exclusion of Evidence to Explain or Amend an Ambiguous Document [Section 96]

​Meaning and Object
Section 96 deals with cases where a document is ambiguous or defective on the face of it. Such ambiguity is known as patent ambiguity, i.e., an uncertainty that is apparent from the document itself without reference to external facts.
The object of this provision is to maintain the certainty and sanctity of written documents by preventing parties from using oral or extrinsic evidence to correct obvious defects or ambiguities.

Statutory Rule
When the language used in a document is ambiguous or defective on its face,
no evidence may be given of facts which would:

• Explain its meaning, or
• Supply or remove its defects.

Nature of Ambiguity

• The ambiguity must be visible from the document itself.
• It must not require external facts to discover the defect.
• Such ambiguity cannot be cured by oral or extrinsic evidence.

Illustrations

1. Uncertain Price
   • A agrees in writing to sell his cow to B for Rs. 1500 or Rs. 2000.
   • Evidence cannot be given to prove which price was intended.
2. Alternative Consideration
   • A agrees in writing to sell a horse to B for “one lakh rupees or one lakh fifty thousand rupees.”
   • Oral evidence is inadmissible to clarify the price.
3. Blanks in a Document
   • A deed contains blanks.
   • Evidence cannot be given to show how the blanks were intended to be filled.

Underlying Principle

• A document must speak for itself.
• Where the defect or ambiguity is apparent, the court cannot rely on external evidence to interpret or amend it.
• Allowing such evidence would amount to rewriting the contract, which is not permitted.

Use of Internal Evidence

• Although extrinsic evidence is barred,
• The court may interpret the document by:
  • Reading it as a whole, and
  • Using statements contained in one part of the document to clarify another part.
• This is permissible only when the clarification arises from the document itself.

Judicial Interpretation
In Pardeep Kumar v. Mahaveer Pershad, a lease deed contained blanks regarding the date of commencement. However, another clause stated that the first installment of rent was payable on a particular date. The High Court held that:

• The date of payment of the first installment could reasonably be treated as the date of commencement.
• This was allowed because the clarification was derived from the internal contents of the document, not from oral evidence.

Key Points

• Section 96 applies only to patent ambiguity.
• Oral or extrinsic evidence is not admissible.
• Essential defects cannot be cured from outside the document.
• Internal consistency of the document may be used for interpretation.

Conclusion
Section 96 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 excludes evidence to explain or amend documents that are ambiguous or defective on their face. The provision reinforces the principle that written instruments must be clear and complete, and courts cannot rely on external evidence to cure patent defects.