Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(II) Section 293 Cr.P.C. deals with reports of certain Government Scientific experts. Section 294 Cr.P.C. dealing with no formal proof of certain documents specifies as hereunder:-

(a) "293: Reports of certain Government scientific experts:-
(1) Any document purporting to be a report under the hand of a Government scientific expert to whom this Section applies, upon any matter or thing duly submitted to him for examination or analysis and report in the course of any proceeding under this Code, may be used as evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code.

23. (I) A Division Bench of this Court in Kudumula Pratap Reddy v. State of A.P., 1985 Crl.L.J.1446 held that "Sections 293 and 294 of the Code are obviously intended to slim the proceedings by dispensing with elaborate and sometimes long drawn procedure of examining the concerned person when the genuineness of document is not in dispute. The refrain from such procedure is not invariable and the Court is empowered to examine depending upon the circumstances and expediency. In the instant case, the report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives is taken as evidence as the Court did not consider it necessary to examine the expert in view of express consent of accused for reception of the report. Similarly post-mortem report is admitted as evidence as no exception is taken for reception of the same. Section 294 Cr.P.C., empowers Court to admit the document as evidence in the situations embodied in Section 294 Cr.P.C. namely, when no objection, is taken as to the admission of the document by either side and when it is not possible to examine the person connected with the document. Both these requirements have been satisfied as there was no objection for the admission of the document and further the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in the hospital. The trial Court is justified in admitting the report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives and post-mortem report as evidence without insisting upon the evidence of expert or doctor."

(II) Reliance also was placed on Phool Kumar v. Delhi Administration, .

(III) A Full Bench of Bombay High Court in Shaikh Farid Hussinsab v. The State of Maharashtra, 1983 Crl.L.J. 487 while dealing with scope and ambit of Section 294 of the Code of Criminal Procedure held that:

"Section 294 of the Cr.P.C. dispenses with proof of every document when it becomes formal on its genuineness not being disputed. There is nothing in Section 294 to justify exclusion of a post-mortem report, from the purview of "documents" covered thereby. Sub-section (3) of Section 294 Cr.P.C. covers post-mortem notes and every other document of which genuineness is not disputed. The word "genuineness" contemplates not only genuineness of the signature but also genuineness of the contents of the document. Raising no dispute to the genuineness of any document implies their considered decision of further details being irrelevant. The Court has ordinarily to accept this decision and refrain from entering into the arena itself unless miscarriage of justice is apprehended on demonstrable grounds. Thus, a document whose genuineness is not disputed can ordinarily be read in evidence without the formal proof. The authority to read in evidence implies the authority to use the document and rely on it for adjudicating points at the trial. A document becomes both relevant and authentic evidence of its contents without the proof of its authenticity by the author or anybody else by force of Section 294 on its conditions being complied with. The documents covered by Section 294 are, therefore, receivable in evidence without anything more. Thus, the post-mortem report is receivable in evidence without the doctor's evidence and can still furnish corroborative evidence to support other evidence in the case."