Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

16. Now, the question is, whether the procedure followed by the trial Court in which counsel for the accused has admitted the postmortem report which has been relied upon by the trial Court to hold that death of the deceased was homicidal in nature, is correct?
17. At this stage, it would be appropriate to notice Section 294 of the CrPC to decide the issue raised before the court. Section 294 of the CrPC states as under: -
"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.
18. The object in enacting this provision (Section 294 of the CrPC) is to shorten the proceedings. It provides the mode or manner in which the documents relied upon by the prosecution and defence can be proved without any formal proof thereof. The proviso, however, gives discretion to the court to call for the proof of the signature on the documents.
19. By virtue of sub-section (1) of Section 294 of the CrPC, before a document can be read in evidence under Section 294, the pleader for the prosecution / accused shall be called upon to admit or deny the genuineness of each such document. Where such requirement is not complied with and counsel is not called upon to admit or deny the genuineness of such document, the document cannot be held to be proved and admissible in evidence. Where the genuineness of the document, by virtue of sub-section (3) of Section 294 of the CrPC, filed by one party is admitted by the other party, the document can be read as substantive evidence by the Court.
22. In the matter of Shamsher Singh Verma v. State of Haryana 6, it has been held by the Supreme Court that the object of Section 294 of the CrPC is to accelerate pace of trial by avoiding the time being wasted by the parties in recording the unnecessary evidence and observed in paragraph 14 regarding the procedure to be followed under Section 294(1) of the CrPC as under: -
"14. In view of the definition of "document" in the

5 (2009) 13 SCC 722 6 (2016) 15 SCC 485 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) to 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 counsel for the complainant in respect of document filed by the defence."

28. In Boraiah @ Shekar (supra), Full Bench of the Karnataka High Court has emphasized the need for following the procedure under Section 294(1) of the CrPC. It has been held that the party seeking to avail the benefit of Section 294 of the CrPC should file a list containing the particulars of every such document and shall call upon the other side to admit or deny the genuineness of each such document. Only where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document may be read in evidence in any enquiry or trial without the proof of the signature of the person to whom it purports to be signed. It was further held that there must be something on record to show that either the prosecution or the defence was called upon to admit or deny the genuineness of 15 (2012) 11 SCC 685 certain document and it is only where the genuineness of the document is not disputed, such document may be read in evidence without the proof of the signature of the person to whom it purports to be signed. It was also held that Section 294 of the CrPC dispense with only the proof of the signature of the person to whom it purports to be signed and that being so, there must be enough indication in the record to show that the party against whom a document is sought to be put was called upon to admit or deny the genuineness of such document. However, the following word of caution was issued by their Lordships in paragraph 11 of the report: -