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
No comments:
Post a Comment