Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

34. It is also relevant to mention that Exhibit-5 to 7 were suo moto marked by the court under Section 294 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Section 294 of the Code of Criminal Procedure reads as follows:-

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 Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.282 of 2004 dt.11-09-2025 be called upon to admit or deny the genuineness of each such document.
Provided that the Court may, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved.
35. On perusal of the record, it is evident that no petition was filed by the prosecution before the court to mark these documents as exhibits.

However, the Court suo moto, marked these documents as exhibits without there being a petition by either of the parties. Such a procedure is unknown to law. Any document before the court has to be marked as exhibits through the parties. In the absence of the parties it can be only marked under Section 294 Code of Criminal Procedure if the genuineness of the document is admitted, then only Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.282 of 2004 dt.11-09-2025 it can be read as evidence. The chargeseet is nothing but the report of the Investigating Officer with all the allegations against the accused/appellant. The same cannot be marked as Exhibit by the trial Court. The trial Court has erred in marking the charge-sheet as an exhibit.

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.282 of 2004 dt.11-09-2025 In Shamsher Singh Verma v. State of Haryana reported in (2016) 15 SCC 485, the Lordships have held at para 14, as follows:-

"14. In view of the definition of "document" in the Evidence Act, and the law laid down by this Court, as discussed above, we hold that the compact disc is also a document. It is not necessary for the court to obtain admission or denial on a document under sub-section (1) of 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 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 Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.282 of 2004 dt.11-09-2025 counsel for the complainant in respect of document filed by the defence."

In Sonu v. State of Haryana reported in (2017) 8 SCC 570, the Lordships have held at para 35 as under:-

"35. Section 294 CrPC, 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. The judgment in Sk. Farid case [Sk. Farid Hussinsab v. State of Maharashtra, 1981 SCC OnLine Bom 26 :