Sections 166 and 167 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Jury Questions and Improper Admission or Rejection of Evidence
Sections 166 and 167 formed the concluding provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Section 166 dealt with questions put to witnesses by a jury or assessors, while Section 167 stated when an error in admitting or rejecting evidence would not, by itself, justify a new trial or reversal of a decision.
Section 166 - Power of jury or assessors to put questions
Meaning: In a case tried by a jury or with assessors, the jury or assessors could put questions to a witness through the Judge, or with the Judge's permission, provided the question was one that the Judge himself could properly ask and considered proper.
The provision placed judicial control over questions originating from the jury or assessors. It did not confer an unrestricted right to question a witness directly. The Judge remained responsible for deciding whether the proposed question was proper.
Essential elements of Section 166
- The provision applied to cases tried by jury or with assessors.
- A question could be put to a witness through the Judge or by leave of the Judge.
- The question had to be one which the Judge himself might lawfully put.
- The Judge had to consider the question proper.
Section 167 - No new trial for improper admission or rejection of evidence
Meaning: Improper admission or rejection of evidence was not, by itself, a sufficient ground for ordering a new trial or reversing a decision. The court considering the objection had to examine whether the decision was supportable independently of the wrongly admitted evidence, or whether receiving the wrongly rejected evidence would have changed the decision.
Section 167 therefore focused on the effect of an evidentiary error rather than the mere existence of the error. If sufficient independent evidence justified the decision, improper admission of other evidence would not alone require reversal. Likewise, improper rejection would not alone justify interference where the rejected evidence, even if received, ought not to have altered the result.
Two situations covered by Section 167
- Improper admission: the decision could stand if sufficient evidence remained after excluding the evidence wrongly admitted.
- Improper rejection: the decision could stand if admitting the rejected evidence ought not to have changed the decision.
Relationship between Sections 166 and 167
Although adjacent, the provisions addressed different stages of the evidentiary process. Section 166 concerned the manner in which questions could be put to witnesses in jury or assessor trials. Section 167 dealt with the consequence of an error in admitting or rejecting evidence when the validity of the resulting decision was challenged.
Quick summary
Section 166 regulated questions by juries or assessors under the supervision of the Judge. Section 167 embodied the principle that an evidentiary mistake should not automatically undo a decision where the mistake did not affect the result.
This page concerns the former Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and should be read in its historical statutory context.