Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act: When 'Best Evidence' is Not So Cool
evidence judiciary beginner concept_confusionHonestly, I'm totally lost with Section 30. It says that if a person is called to give oral evidence, he can also rely on any other evidence which may be produced on his behalf, like a document or a statement. BUT, it also says that this secondary evidence can be used only if the primary evidence can't be found. Which, btw, sounds kinda like Anushka Sharma in "Sui Dhaaga" - when Varun Dhawan's character has no money but still has a big dream. But then, the Supreme Court in Daryao (2012) says that if the primary evidence is destroyed or lost, then secondary evidence can be used without proving its unavailability. Which means, in essence, it's not always the best evidence that prevails, but the one that's convenient to use. Can someone please explain this to me?
Hey fellow law learners, let's dive into Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act together. Agree, best evidence isn't always 'cool' – in fact, it can create more complexity! Sometimes, 'secondary evidence' (like documents) is just as good as 'original evidence'. Don't be afraid to dig deeper into the nuances. Keep exploring and stay curious!