Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: section 294 CRPC in Pankaj Singh vs The State Of Haryana on 21 March, 2024Matching Fragments
7. The learned counsel appearing for the Prosecutrix relied upon the WhatsApp conversation between the Prosecutrix and the appellant-accused. He submitted that though the certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for short, “the Evidence Act”) was not produced about the WhatsApp conversation produced on record, as the appellant-accused had not objected to the production of the WhatsApp conversation, in view of Section 294 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, “the Cr. PC,”), the WhatsApp conversation is admissible in evidence. He relied upon the presumption under Section 114A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for short, ‘the Evidence Act’). He submitted that it would have to be presumed that the sexual intercourse was without the consent of the Prosecutrix. He submitted that, in this case, the offence is under clause (f) of sub-Section (2) of Section 376 of the IPC. He further submitted that as far as the Prosecutrix is concerned, the appellant-accused was in a position of trust and, therefore, clause (f) of sub-Section (2) of Section 376 of the IPC will apply and, consequently, the presumption under Section 114A of the Evidence Act ought to be invoked in this case. He also submitted that the appellant-accused had not adduced any evidence to prove his innocence. He submitted that no interference is called for considering the concurrent findings recorded by the Trial Court and the High Court.
19. The cumulative effect of the above discussion is that it is very unsafe to rely upon the testimony of the Prosecutrix in this case.
20. The submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the Prosecutrix based on Section 294 of the Cr.PC remains to be dealt with. Section 294 of the Cr.PC reads thus:
“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.
cross-examination. The essential ingredient of sub-Section (1) of Section 294 of the Cr.PC is that when any document is produced by the prosecution or the accused, the parties shall be called upon to admit or deny the genuineness of each such document. In this case, it is nobody’s case that the appellant-accused was called upon to admit or deny the genuineness of the WhatsApp chats. Moreover, sub-Section (3) of Section 294 of the Cr.PC indicates that even if a particular document is not disputed, the Court has the discretion to read or not to read the same in evidence without formal proof of the signature of the person to whom it purports to be signed. The Court always has the power to require the signature to be proved.
Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the Prosecutrix based on Section 294 of the Cr.PC has absolutely no merit. In any case, a certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act has not been produced.
22. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the prosecution has failed to prove the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Hence, the impugned orders cannot be sustained, and they are hereby quashed and set aside. The appellant-accused is acquitted of the charges framed against him.