Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

- 18 -

NC: 2025:KHC:46005 HC-KAR admitted that he along with the defendant are accused persons in Cr.No.373/2004. The Defendant cannot place reliance on the evidence of the DW2 Venkatappa, for the prove of lease transaction between the plaintiff and defendant as he admittedly has not stated anything regarding the contents of the alleged lease deed in his chief examination and his evidence affidavit is confined to lending money of Rs.4,00,000/- to the defendant for the payment of lease amount to the plaintiff and therefore his evidence is limited for the appreciating it under Section 7 and 8 of the Indian Evidence Act. No doubt, the defendant is claiming to be in possession based on the lease deeds, but nothing prevented him to produce the certified copy of the lease agreements in order to justify his claim and there is absolutely no material to demonstrate the efforts made by the defendant to procure the documents from the court custody as an accused to the proceedings arising Out of Crime NO.373/2014 he was very much entitled to procure the documents which are the part of the charge sheet. Further, foundation laid in the evidence of DW.1 in order to lead secondary evidence is not satisfactory and in compliance of the Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act so also to enable him to give oral accounts of the contents of a document. DW1 has only stated in his chief examination that the original lease agreement is in police station. The oral evidence of DW.1 and 2 do not establish the contents of the alleged lease agreement or the genuineness of the alleged documents relied upon by the defendant. DW.2