Introduction :

The term Law is used in different senses. Without going into the details of jurisprudential
definition of law, in the plain sense it means any rule, regulation or a canon, a dogma or a norm to which
the human actions are required to conform. . Holland defines law as a general rule of external human action
enforced by a sovereign political authority. The object of law is the creation of legal rights. Holland defines
a legal right as the capacity residing in one person of controlling with the assent and assistance of the state
the action of others.
The entire corpus juris (body of laws) is broadly classified into two categories, namely, (1) substantive
laws, and (2) adjective laws. Substantive laws are those, which define the rights, duties and liabilities, the
ascertainment of which is the purpose of every judicial enquiry. Adjective laws are those, which define the
pleading and procedure by which substantive laws are applied in practice
The rules regarding evidence in the administration of justice are of high importance. No substantive law
can be enforced without the help of rules of law of evidence. The law of evidence can be stated to be the
foundation on which the entire structure of judiciary is based. If the foundation is weak the structure is
bound to collapse. Similarly, if the rules of law of evidence are not sound the administration of justice is
bound to go astray.
The evidence which is given must be through prescribed ways as per the Act. This comparative study is
about those two of the kinds, Oral Evidence and Documentary Evidence. Both play very important role
and have equal importance as in a case of a murder an eyewitness can give a oral evidence by what he has
seen on the place where the incident occurred. And the same is with documentary evidence, but as what has
been seen through the deep study is that documentary evidence play and more important role than oral
evidence. As at many places and in most we need documents to prove and to be something in written.
Oral evidence plays a part in some of the conflicts but Documentary are valid and applicable and used in
every kind of laws. For e.g. in case of breach of contract, a person is expected to have a deed as evidence
and that is a document. So this shows the importance of documentary evidence.
A fact may be proved either by oral of the fact or by documentary evidence,if any.This means that there are
two methods of proving a fact.One is by producing witnesses of fact,which is called oral evidence and the
other, by producing a document which records the fact in question and this is called documentary evidence.

Definition and Meaning :

A.Oral Evidence- The meaning of the expression oral evidence is given along with the definition of the
term evidence in section 3. .

It enacts two broad rules regard to oral evidence: firstly, that all

facts except contents of documents may be proved by oral evidence, and secondly, that
oral evidence in all cases must be direct and not hearsay. The first part of the provision which
defines evidence deals with oral evidence. It say :
All statements which the court permits or requires to be made before it by witnesses in relation to the
matters of fact under inquiry ; such statements are called oral evidence.
Hence Oral Evidence includes the statements of witnesses before the court which the court either permits or
requires them to make.The statement may be made by any method by which the witness is capable of
making it. A witness who cannot speak may communicate his knowledge of the facts to the court by signs
or by writing and in either case it will be regarded as oral evidence.
B.Document- Any matter expressed or described upon any substance by means of letters , figures or
marks , or by more than one of those means, intended to be used, or which may be used , for the purpose of
recording that matter.

It has been said that the word document as used in the law of

evidence should not be construed restrictively.

C.Documentary Evidence - The expression Documentary Evidence as it is defined in section 3, means :
All documents produced for the inspection of the court ; such documents are called Documentary
Evidence
Etymologically the word document means something which shows or teaches and is evidential or
informative in its character.Where

the statement of parties containing the terms of a

compromise were recorded by a court and duly signed, it was to be held to be a document
with regard to recorded tape, it was said that there is no reason in principle why the
recording in recording in some permanent or semi-permanent manner of human voice(or
other sounds) which are relevant to the issue to the determined, provided that it furnishes
information, cannot be a document.
The superiority of a written proof over the verbal proof has been recognized from the ancient times.One of
the maxim that can be referred to in this regard is :VOX AUDITA PERIT, LITERA SCRIPTA MANET

ie.A heard voice perishes, but the written document or letter remains .

INDIAN PERPECTIVE :
A. Oral Evidence :
EVIDENTIARY VALUE-: Oral evidence is a much less satisfactory medium of
proof than documentary proof. But justice can never be administered in the most
important cases without resorting to it. In all civilized systems of jurisprudence there is a
presumption against perjury. The correct rule is to judge the oral evidence with reference
to the conduct of the parties, and the presumptions and probabilities legitimately arising
in the case.Another test is to see whether the evidence is consistent with the common
experience of mankind, with the usual course of nature and of human conduct, and with
well-known principles of human action.
FALUS IN UNO FALUS OMNIBUS-: The maxim means false in one particular, false
in all. This principle is a somewhat dangerous maxim. There is always a fringe of
embroidery to a story, however true in the main and so where the falsehood in merely an
embroidery, that would not be enough to discredit the whole of the witnesss evidence;
where , on the other hand the falsehood relates to a major or material point that is enough
to discredit the witness.
APPRECIATION-: oral evidence should be approached with caution. The court must
shift the evidence, separate the grain from the chaff and accept what it finds to be true and
reject the rest. The credibility of the witness should be decided on the following
important points:
(a)

Whether the witness have the means of gaining correct information,

(b) Whether they have any interest in concealing the truth,

(c)

Whether they agree in their testimony.

Though a chance witness is not necessarily being a false witness, it proverbially
rash to rely upon such evidence.The real tests for accepting or rejecting evidence
are; how consistent is the story in itself, how does it stands of cross-examination
and how far does it fit it with the rest of the evidence and circumstances of the
case. Non-consideration of oral evidence by the lower appellate court, it is a non
observance of the mandatory provision of Order 41, Rule 31 which brings in the

sessions infirmity in the judgment. The judgment in such a cases stands vitiated
and is not binding on the high court in the second appeal.

ELECTRONIC RECORDS-:
The section was amended by the Information
Technology Act, 2000 so as to include within the meaning of the term document,
electronic records also. Hence, every other fact, except contents of an electronic record or
of any document, can be proved by oral evidence.

DIRECT ORAL EVIDENCE:

Oral evidence must be direct.This means that a witness can tell the court of only a fact of which
he has the first hand personal knowledge in the sense that he perceived the fact by any of the five senses.
For example, The question is whether a particular statement was made was made ,a person who heard the
making of the statement may appear in the court to tell the court of the fact that the statement was made in
his presence . This will be direct oral evidence.It was observed in a case :No one ever conceived that an
agreement could be proved by a witness swearing that he heard another say that such an agreement was
made. That is why section 60 requires that oral evidence must be direct , and then gives the meaning of
direct oral evidence.Section 60 is regarded as the best evidence rule.

Best Bakery Case & Law of Evidence

Hearsay evidence in the Law of Evidence has been introduced in sec.60 which gives the direction that oral
evidence should be direct. Any evidence coming from a second or third person is said to be hearsay. It is
secondary evidence which is admissible in court only in certain circumstances.
Section .60 of the Indian Evidence Act lays down that the oral evidence must be direct, if it refers to a fact
evidence must be direct. if it refers to a fact which could be heard, it must be the evidence of a witness who
says he heard it. The evidence before the court can be divided into original and unoriginal. The original is
that which a witness reports himself to have seen or heard through the medium of his own senses.
Unoriginal , also called derivative, transmitted, secondary or hearsay, is that which a witness is merely
reporting and not himself heard or seen.
In this case it is important because except for two main witnesses all the persons provided hearsay
evidence. Many of the witnesses turned hostile and the remaining were not found to be that credible. Also
in the end when the main witness changed her statements many times the court amassed a fine on her in
lieu of giving misleading statements many times .
Facts of the case:The given case also famously known as the BEST BAKERY CASE :-

March 1, 2002: Vadodra (erstwhile Barodra), Gujarat, the ignominious Best Bakery massacre took place as
nearly 1000 rioters swooped on the bakery-cum-residence owned by late Habibullah Sheikh at 2100 hours
IST and within a matter of hours eleven members of the Sheikh family and three bakery employees were
either charred to death or hacked to pieces.
The defence had argued that only the FIR of March 1, 2002 (of one Raizkhan Amin Mohammed Pathan) is
admissible in the Best Bakery case, while the FIR of March 4, 2002 (of the star witness Zaheera Sheikh)
was manipulated by the police.

JUDGEMENT :
The Supreme Court of India, on 8th of March, 2006 sentenced Zaheera Sheikh, a witness, cum
complainant cum aggrieved, cum turned hostile, for giving, a flip flop and contrary, evidence on different
occasions, to a one year simple imprisonment term. She was also fined Rs 50,000 on charges of perjury. It
was done on the basis of a report, submitted by a high powered committee headed by Registrar-General of
the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court had on January 10,2005 ordered the committee to inquire into the
whole issue The committee in its report called Zahira Sheikh a self-condemned liar. The Court also
observed that this is a classic example of a case where evidences were tampered with and witnesses won
over. The Bench also added that; We find, that people have started feeling criminal trials are like cobweb
where small flies are getting caught and big people are dashing through.
In a severe indictment of Zaheera, whose conduct was disapproved by the court, the Bench also directed,
the income tax authorities, to forthwith; attach her property and bank accounts. In the event Zaheera fails,
to deposit the fine, the court directed a one year prison term in default.
The case above presents a classic example of oral evidence should be direct and whether the statements
given outside the court can be taken in consideration or not. In this case the court having taken in account
the statements by Zaheera Seikh outside the statements has taken a decisive action. Well now, this stands as
in direct contradiction in the rule of the courts to consider anything which is said in the court by a witness
as evidence and nothing beyond it. It also takes in view hearsay evidence and its impact on the trial.