Saturday, 2 November 2024

Supreme Court: Prosecution Documents admitted As Genuine U/S 294 of CRPC By defence can be read as substantive evidence to prove the correctness of its contents without examining its author

 Also, this Court in the case of Akhtar vs.

State of Uttaranchal (2009) 13 SCC 722 has held in para 21 as

under:

“21. It has been argued that nonexamination of the

 concerned medical

officers is fatal for the prosecution. However,

there is no denial of the fact that the defence

admitted the genuineness of the injury

reports and the poot-mortem examination

reports before the trial court. So the

genuineness and authenticity of the

documents stands proved and shall be

treated as valid evidence under Section 294

of the CrPC. It is settled position of law that

if the genuineness of any document filed by

a party is not disputed by the opposite party

it can be read as substantive evidence under

sub-section (3) of Section 294 CrPC.

Accordingly, the post-mortem report, if its

genuineness is not disputed by the opposite

party, the said post-mortem report can be

read as substantive evidence to prove the

correctness of its contents without the doctor

concerned being examined.”{Para 20}

Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. OF 2024

SHYAM NARAYAN RAM Vs STATE OF U.P. & ANR.

Author: VIKRAM NATH, J.

Citation: 2024 INSC 800.

1. Leave granted.

2. By means of these appeals, the informantappellant has assailed the correctness of the

judgment and order dated 01.11.2023 passed by

the Allahabad High Court in Criminal Appeal

Nos.4982/2019, 5346/2019 and 5347/2019

whereby the High Court allowed the appeals, set

aside the order of conviction passed by the Trial

Court dated 15/16th July, 2019 and had

remanded the matter to the Trial Court to decide

the same afresh and that the matter be retried

from the stage of testimony of PW 2 onwards.

Further a direction was issued that the authors

of the exhibited documents liable to establish the

authenticity of the same would be crossexamined by the defence, and that the trial would

proceed on day to day basis and shall conclude

on or before 31st May, 2024. Further, the

appellants before the High Court were to be

released on bail on furnishing personal bonds

and two heavy sureties each of the like amount

to the satisfaction of the court concerned. They

were further liable to give additional affidavit to

the Trial Court concerned, that they would

remain present on every day or as and when

required by the Trial Court. It was further

directed that the fine amount imposed by the

Trial Court would remain stayed during the

period of trial and would remain subject to final

verdict to be pronounced by the Trial Court.

3. Brief facts giving rise to the present appeals are:

3.1 First Information Report1 was lodged on

22.04.1998 at 05.30 am by the appellant which

was registered as FIR bearing No.27/1998, Police

Station Dhanapur, District Chandauli,

U.P.under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal

Code, 18602 and 3(1)(v) of the SC/ST Act.

According to the prosecution story, on the

intervening night of 21/22.04.1998 the appellant

(PW 1), Ram Dular (PW2) who were harvesting

crops in the fields, on hearing gunshots, rushed

to the pumping set from where the shots were

being fired and saw that the four accused namely

Radhey Shyam Lal A-1, Pratap A-2, Rajesh

Kumar @ Pappu A-3 and Jagannath A-4 were

assaulting the parents of the appellant namely

Bodha Devi and Mohan Ram who belonged to

Scheduled Caste. After brutally assaulting the

two deceased, they threw their bodies into the

well.

3.2 Upon registration of the FIR, the police came to

the site and with the help of the villagers, pulled

out the two dead bodies of parents of the

1 FIR

2

IPC


appellant from the well. An inquest was prepared

and their bodies were thereafter sent for postmortem. The deceased Bodha Devi had suffered

seven injuries all over her body including a fatal

wound on the back of the chest extending upto

the neck measuring 48 cm x 28 cm. The cause of

death was recorded as due to the fracture in the

vertebra and injury to the spinal cord. The postmortem of the deceased Mohan Ram disclosed as

many as sixteen injuries which included eleven

lacerated wounds and the cause of death was

reported as death due to injuries to spine and

spinal cord.

3.3 The Investigating Officer recovered blood soaked

gamcha (scarf) belonging to accused Pratap (A-2),

licensed SBBL gun with two live cartridges. From

the place of occurrence, the Investigating Officer

also recovered three empty-shell-casings of 12

bore, 1 live 12 bore cartridge, cardboard and

plastic rods, tikli and other remnants of spent

cartridges, apart from other standard recoveries.

The recovered articles were sent to the forensic

laboratory and as per the report one out of the

three cartridges has been found to have been

fired from the seized licensed SBBL gun. The FSL

report further confirmed that in the barrel of the

seized SBBL gun, there was residue of firing.

Further, the presence of lead and nitrate clearly

indicated that the gun had been recently used.

4. After completing the investigation charge-sheet

was submitted. The Magistrate concerned took

cognizance and thereafter committed the case to

the Sessions Court for trial. The charges were

read out to the four accused who denied the same

and claimed to be tried.

5. The prosecution examined the informantappellant as PW 1 and the other eye-witness Ram

Dular as PW 2 and also filed the relevant

documents. Counsel for the defence on

28.04.2005 admitted the genuineness of the

prosecution documents and dispensed with its

formal proof. The Public Prosecutor had filed an

application under section 311 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 19733 for summoning the

formal witnesses which was opposed by the

defence. The Trial Court, after recording the

3 CrPC


submissions and the admission of the

prosecution documents by the defence counsel,

exhibited the prosecution papers which had not

been exhibited. Further, the Trial Court closed

the prosecution evidence and fixed 4th May, 2005

for recording the statement of the accused under

section 313 CrPC. The statements of all the

accused were recorded under section 313 CrPC

on 4th May, 2005 and later on because of a few

incriminating circumstances which were not put

to the accused, a supplementary statement was

also recorded under section 313 CrPC. Despite

the statement under section 313 CrPC was

recorded as far back as May, 2005, the trial could

not proceed further, apparently as the same was

stayed by the High Court. The trial, however,

further commenced in 2019.

6. At this stage also the Public Prosecutor pressed

upon the court for consideration of their

applications 29 kha and 30 kha for summoning

Dr.S.K.Srivastava, who had conducted the

autopsy on the dead bodies of the two deceased,

and the Investigating Officer to prove the


recovery memos etc. These applications were

also seriously objected to by the defence.

7. The Trial Court, vide judgment and order dated

15/16th July, 2019 convicted all the four accused

and sentenced them to life imprisonment under

section 302 IPC and other ancillary sentences for

the rest of the offences and all of them to run

concurrently. The accused were taken into

custody on the date of the judgment.

8. Aggrieved by their conviction and sentence, the

four accused preferred three separate appeals

before the High Court. Appeal No.4982/2019

was preferred by Rajesh Kumar @ Pappu,

5346/2019 was preferred by Radhey Shyam Lal

and 5347/2019 was preferred by Pratap and

Jagannath. The High Court, by the impugned

judgment and order dated 1st November, 2023

recorded that the accused did not get a fair trial

as their counsel had admitted the documents of

the prosecution and had dispensed with its

formal proof. This resulted into a serious and

fatal illegality and as such in order to extend to

the accused a fair trial, it was expedient to remit

the matter back to the Trial Court for further trial

from the stage of recording of evidence of PW 2

(he had not been cross-examined by the defence),

after affording liberty to cross-examine PW 2. The

prosecution would produce its formal witnesses

and the defence would have liberty to crossexamine them also and only thereafter the trial

may be concluded and decided.

9. Aggrieved by the said order of remand, the

informant has preferred the present appeals.

10. The submission advanced on behalf of the

appellant is to the effect that the High Court fell

in error in remanding the matter and giving

liberty to the accused to first cross-examine PW

2 and thereafter allow the prosecution to lead

further evidence in the form of formal witnesses

to prove the police papers and only thereafter

proceed further with the trial, maybe by

recording a further statement under section 313

CrPC.

11. According to the learned counsel for the

appellant, if the judgment of the High Court is

allowed to stand, it would render the provisions

of section 294 CrPC redundant and otiose. It was

also submitted that it is not for any error or

oversight of defence counsel that they had

admitted the genuineness of the police papers by

dispensing formal proof of the same, rather they

had repeatedly confirmed their stand of

admitting the genuineness of the documents and

had opposed the recall of witnesses by the Public

Prosecutor on two occasions, once in 2005 and

again in 2019. It was thus submitted that the

High Court ought to have decided the appeal on

merits on the basis of evidence led during the

trial and there was no justification for remanding

the matter.

12. On the other hand, learned counsel for the

respondent-State of U.P. has supported the case

of the appellant and submitted that despite the

Public Prosecutor having repeatedly requested

the Trial Court to allow them to produce the

formal witnesses but on account of strong

opposition by the counsel for defence, the Trial

Court had rejected the said request as such there

was no justification for remitting the matter back

to the Trial Court for a further trial from the stage

of recording of evidence of PW 2.


13. Learned counsel for the respondents accused in

the three appeals supported the judgment of the

High Court. There is no denial by the learned

counsel that the stand taken by the defence

counsel before the Trial Court was any different

from what has been submitted by the counsel for

the appellant. He only submitted that

considering the principles of fair trial, this Court

may not interfere with the impugned judgment

and order.

14. Section 294 of the CrPC reads as follows:

“Section 294 – No formal proof of certain

documents

1. Where any document is filed before any Court

by the prosecution or the accused, the

particulars of every such document shall be

included in a list and the prosecution or the

accused, as the case may be, or the pleader for

the prosecution or the accused, if any, shall be

called upon to admit or deny the genuineness

of each such document.

2. The list of documents shall be in such form as

may be prescribed by the State Government.

3. Where the genuineness of any document is not

disputed, such document may be read in

evidence in any inquiry trial or other

proceeding under this Code without proof of the

signature of the person to whom it purports to

be signed:

Provided that the Court may, in its discretion,

require such signature to be proved.”

15. A bare reading of the aforesaid provision,

in particular, sub-section (3) provides that

where the genuineness of any document is not

disputed, such document may be read in

evidence in any inquiry, trial or other

proceeding under this Code without proof of the

signature of the person to whom it purports to

be signed. That is to say that if the authors of

such documents does not enter the witness box

to prove their signatures, the said documents

could still be read in evidence. Further, under

the proviso the Court has the jurisdiction in its

discretion to require such signature to be

proved. In the present case, the documents filed

by the investigating agency were all public

documents duly signed by public servants in

their respective capacities either as

Investigating Officer or the doctor conducting

the autopsy or other police officials preparing

the memo of recoveries etc. As such the Trial

Court had rightly relied upon the same and

exhibited them in view of the specific repeated

stand taken by the defence in admitting the

genuineness of the said documents. In so far as

the police papers which had been signed by

private persons like the informant, the same

had been duly proved.

16. Thus the only job left for the Court was to

appreciate, analyse and test the creditworthiness of the evidence led by the

prosecution which was available on record and

if such evidence beyond reasonable doubt

established the charges, the conviction could be

recorded. However, if the evidence was not

credit-worthy and worthy of reliance, the

accused could be given benefit of doubt or clean

acquittal.

17. The Trial Court, after appreciating the

evidence, found that the evidence of PW 1 and

2, eye-witnesses to the account, to have fully

supported the prosecution story and during the

cross-examination, the defence could not elicit

anything which could discredit their testimony.


18. Coming back to the applicability of section

294 CrPC, reference may be had to the following

judgments of this Court in the case of Sonu

alias Amar vs. State of Haryana4 wherein this

Court had held in para 30 as follows:

“30. Section 294 of the Cr.P.C. 1973 provides

a procedure for filing documents in a Court

by the prosecution or the accused. The

documents have to be included in a list and

the other side shall be given an opportunity

to admit or deny the genuineness of each

document. In case the genuineness is not

disputed, such document shall be read in

evidence without formal proof in accordance

with the Evidence Act.”

19. Further, in the case of Shamsher Singh

Verma vs. State of Haryana5

, this Court held

in para 14 as under:

“14….. It is not necessary for the court to

obtain admission or denial on a document

under sub-section (1) to Section 294 CrPC

personally from the accused or complainant

or the witness. The endorsement of

admission or denial made by the counsel for

defence, on the document filed by the

prosecution or on the application/ report

with which same is filed, is sufficient

compliance of Section 294 CrPC. Similarly

on a document filed by the defence,

endorsement of admission or denial by the

4

(2017) 8 SCC 570

5

(2016) 15 SCC 485


public prosecutor is sufficient and defence

will have to prove the document if not

admitted by the prosecution. In case it is

admitted, it need not be formally proved, and

can be read in evidence. In a complaint case

such an endorsement can be made by the

counsel for the complainant in respect of

document filed by the defence.”

20. Also, this Court in the case of Akhtar vs.

State of Uttaranchal (2009) 13 SCC 722 has held in para 21 as

under:

“21. It has been argued that nonexamination of the

 concerned medical

officers is fatal for the prosecution. However,

there is no denial of the fact that the defence

admitted the genuineness of the injury

reports and the poot-mortem examination

reports before the trial court. So the

genuineness and authenticity of the

documents stands proved and shall be

treated as valid evidence under Section 294

of the CrPC. It is settled position of law that

if the genuineness of any document filed by

a party is not disputed by the opposite party

it can be read as substantive evidence under

sub-section (3) of Section 294 CrPC.

Accordingly, the post-mortem report, if its

genuineness is not disputed by the opposite

party, the said post-mortem report can be

read as substantive evidence to prove the

correctness of its contents without the doctor

concerned being examined.”



21. On a plain reading of section 294 CrPC

and its interpretation by this Court in the above

judgments, we do not find any error in the

judgment of the Trial Court and particularly

considering the facts of the present case where

the defence repeatedly continued to admit the

genuineness of the prosecution documents

exempting them from formal proof.

22. In our opinion, the High Court fell in error.

Moreover, reliance by the High Court on the

case of Munna Pandey vs. State of Bihar7 was

misplaced, because in that case the issue was

of fair trial and not of the application of section

294 CrPC. In the case of Munna Pandey

(supra), prosecution witnesses were not

confronted with their statements under section

161 CrPC for purposes of contradiction and in

such a situation this Court had held that if the

same be put to witnesses under section 145 of

the Evidence Act, 1872 it would have a bearing

and, therefore, remitted the matter to the Trial

7

(2023) SCC OnLine SC 1103


Court for further examination/crossexamination of the prosecution witnesses.

23. For all the reasons recorded above, we

allow these appeals, set aside the impugned

judgment and order of the High Court and

restore the criminal appeals before the High

Court to be heard and decided afresh on merits

on the basis of material on record.

24. Considering the fact that the incident is

of 1998, we request the High Court to make an

endeavour to decide the appeals afresh on the

basis of the evidence led during the trial as early

as possible.

25. The private respondents in all the three

appeals who stand convicted under the order of

the Trial Court, would surrender within six

weeks before the Trial Court and it would be

open for them to apply for suspension of

sentence before the High Court on admissible

grounds in accordance to law, which application

would be considered on its own merits

uninfluenced by any observations made in this

order. We further make it clear that the evidence

has not been appreciated by us.

………………………………..……J

(VIKRAM NATH)

………………………………..……J

(PRASANNA B. VARALE)

NEW DELHI

OCTOBER 21, 2024

Print Page

No comments:

Post a Comment