LEGAL PRINCIPLE: EVIDENCE LAW – Secondary Evidence – Requirement to Account for Non-Production of Original Document

This principle establishes the foundational requirement for admitting secondary evidence under the best evidence rule. Secondary evidence is not automatically admissible simply because a party chooses not to produce the original; there must be a satisfactory explanation for the original’s non-production. The party seeking to rely on secondary evidence must account for the original’s absence through evidence showing: (1) the original has been lost or destroyed (with evidence of circumstances); (2) the original is in possession of the opposing party who refuses to produce it after notice; (3) the original is in possession of a third party beyond the reach of court process; or (4) other legitimate reasons why production is impossible or impracticable. The requirement is particularly stringent where the original should be in the possession of the party seeking to use secondary evidence. In this case, the letter was written to the plaintiff himself—he should have retained it. Without explanation for its non-production (Was it lost? When? How? What efforts were made to locate it?), secondary evidence is inadmissible. This rule prevents parties from avoiding scrutiny of original documents by substituting potentially inaccurate or selective secondary evidence. It ensures that the best available evidence is presented and prevents manipulation of evidence. The burden of accounting for non-production rests on the party seeking to tender secondary evidence, and the explanation must be supported by evidence, not mere assertion. Courts apply this rule strictly to maintain evidentiary integrity and prevent abuse.