Exclusion of Oral Evidence under the Rule of Documentary Evidence The rule of documentary evidence states that a party cannot introduce evidence of a fact t...
Exclusion of Oral Evidence under the Rule of Documentary Evidence
The rule of documentary evidence states that a party cannot introduce evidence of a fact that is not admitted in the case. This means that a party cannot introduce evidence of a fact that was not explicitly stated or admitted by a witness or expert witness at trial.
The exception to this rule is when the documentary evidence is cumulative. Cumulative evidence is evidence that is presented in addition to the original evidence that was presented at trial. This means that the documentary evidence can be admitted even if it was not explicitly stated or admitted by a witness or expert witness at trial.
For example, if a witness testifies that a particular fact occurred, but a medical expert testifies that the fact did not occur, the medical expert's testimony would be excluded under the rule of documentary evidence.
Implications of the Rule
The rule of documentary evidence has a significant impact on the admissibility of evidence in a case. This means that a party must carefully consider whether to admit documentary evidence before presenting it in court. If a party introduces documentary evidence that is not relevant or admissible, it could result in the exclusion of the evidence at trial.
Real-World Example
In the case of a murder trial, the prosecution may introduce medical records as documentary evidence. However, these records could be excluded if they were not admitted into evidence at trial. This is because the medical records are not relevant to the question of whether the defendant committed the murder.
Conclusion
The rule of documentary evidence is an important consideration in legal proceedings. This rule helps to ensure that only admissible evidence is admitted into evidence at trial