Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

17. Peculiarly in this case, Ex.P5 was marked with the consent of the counsel for the accused. In fact, the learned counsel for the accused made endorsement in Crl.M.P.417 of 2006, as extracted supra.

18. At this juncture, I recollect and call up the following Full Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Allahabad High court:

1981 Cri.L.J.379 (Saddiq and others vs. State), an excerpt from it would run thus:
"11. In Jagdeo Singh vs. State (1979 Cri LJ 236) a Division Bench of this Court held "it was not permissible to exhibit the post-mortem report under Section 294 Cr.P.C and even if it was done the report could not be used as substantive piece of evidence until and unless the doctor concerned was examined in Court. Documents that Section 294, Cr.P.C contemplates reading in evidence upon admission about genuineness by the opposite party are only such documents which when formally proved speak for themselves. It does not refer to any document, which even if exhibited cannot be read in evidence as substantive evidence". With great respect, we are unable to agree with the view taken by this Court in the above mentioned case. As mentioned earlier, there is no restriction placed on documents in sub-section (1) of Section 294, Cr.P.C and it applies to all documents filed by the prosecution or the accused. If the genuineness of any document filed by the prosecution or the accused under sub-section 91) of Section 294, Cr.P.C is not disputed by the opposite party sub-section (3) of Section 294, Cr.P.C is applicable and it may be read as substantive evidence. It is true that prior to the coming into force of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 the post-mortem report after it was proved was not substantive evidence but only corroborated the statement of the doctor made in court and even now if the genuineness of the post-mortem report is disputed by the accused, the doctor must be examined to prove the injuries found on the body of the deceased and also the post-mortem report and the post-mortem report may only be used to corroborate or discredit his testimony which is the substantive evidence. This, however, cannot lead to the conclusion that the post-mortem report cannot be read as substantive evidence under sub-section (3) of Section 294, Cr.P.C if its genuineness is not disputed by the accused. As already mentioned, the very object of enacting Section 294 Cr.P.C would be defeated if the signature and the correctness of the contents of the post-mortem report are still required to be proved by the doctor concerned even if its genuineness is not disputed by the accused. Section 294 Cr.P.C is clear and unambiguous. It is only when the genuineness of the post-mortem report filed by the prosecution is not disputed by the accused that sub-section (3) of Section 294, Cr.P.C is applicable and the post-mortem report may be read as substantive evidence and the signature and the correctness of its contents need not be proved by the doctor concerned. We are, therefore, clearly of the opinion that if the genuineness of the post-mortem report filed by the prosecution under sub-section (1) of Section 294, Cr.P.C is not disputed by the accused, it may be read as substantive evidence under sub-sec(3) of Section 294, Cr.P.C."

19. The Full Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court reported in 1996, Cri.L.J, 2015 (Shabbir Mohammad vs. State of Rajasthan) is also in consonance with the Full bench judgement of the Hon'ble Allahabad High court, cited supra.

20. A plain reading of the aforesaid decisions would clearly indicate that if a document is marked with the consent of other side under Section 294 of Cr.P.C., the same could be relied on and it would be too late in the day on the part of the accused to veer round by having a volte face and dispute the genuineness of such a document, for which, consent was given already.