Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

27. The learned counsel for the respondent-accused invited our attention to Exh.-88, which was admitted by accused persons and thus exhibited. They were issued pursuant to Exh.-87 requisition given by police officer to the Medical Officer, General Hospital, Amravati. On perusal of these two documents, which are purportedly showing the blood group reports of accused no.1 Ajay 35 conf1.13.odt and Nitin as "O" positive and "B" positive respectively, we find that these two reports Exh.-88 or two pieces of papers at record page nos. 168 and 170 are almost of the size of 1/8th of the full scape paper torn out of the printed form in the hospital that too in different handwriting and without any endorsement or signature or certification from anybody mentioning the blood groups of accused persons as aforesaid. There is no stamp of hospital anywhere nor any details as to who determined their blood groups and how. They are torn pieces of the printed papers. It is true that these two pieces of printed paper were produced by the prosecution with Exh.-77 but then it is for the Court whether to accept or not the same as legal evidence. The reason is that it is not clear who determined blood group and whose handwriting it is. These two pieces of papers have been admitted by the defence and, therefore, exhibited purportedly with reference to Section 294 of Cr.P.C. in a most casual manner.

Provided that the Court may, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved."

The aforesaid section was introduced by amendment after year 1970. Section 294 Cr.P.C. was enacted with a view that the prosecution evidence may be shortened and the prosecution may not be required to prove the documents which are admitted by accused persons. The intention of the Legislature was not to bind the accused persons or force him to admit or deny the genuineness of the documents produced by the prosecution that is why the Court would not be justified in passing the order directing accused to admit or deny the documents, obviously since it would violate Article 20 (3) of the Constitution of India. Be that as it may, the question that arises for our consideration relates to the 37 conf1.13.odt procedure, which must be followed while insisting for admission or denial of the genuineness of the documents. To our mind, Section 294 (1) in particular providing for insertion of the description of the document in the list to be prepared either by the prosecution or the accused for calling upon either party to admit or deny the genuineness of the documents must be held to be mandatory. In other words, for making use of or for asking for effective operation of section 294 (1), (2) or (3), the particulars of such documents must be included in the list. In other words, the documents which are not included in the list contemplated by Section 294 (1) cannot be put forth for admission or denial nor can be exhibited or read in evidence without proof as contemplated by Section 294 (3) of the Cr.P.C. This is to prevent either the prosecution or the accused to push a document for clandestinely exhibiting it by admission and then read in evidence.

38 conf1.13.odt Let us now turn to the case at hand. The case at hand is typical example of such lapse on the part of the Presiding Officer as well as ministerial staff of the Sessions Court. The documents Exh.-87 and 88 were never included in the list Exh.-22 submitted by the prosecution under section 294 (1) of the Cr.P.C. that was given to the accused for admission or denial. We have carefully perused the list, which was prepared and submitted to the Court by the prosecution with a notice to the accused for admission and denial under section 294 Cr.P.C. but we find that the documents Exh.-87 and 88 (two pages) are not to be found in the list.

                             
     Sr    Particulars   of   the  Pages Whether        By   whom  Names   of   attesting  Remarks   if 
     No    documents   with              original       prepared persons   whether  any
           dates                         certified copy            they   are   cited   as 
      

                                                                   witnesses
   

30. We are not only amazed but are anxious since the said format prescribed by para 32 quoted above is not at all being used either by prosecution or by accused or by the Presiding Officer of the Court and that is the reason why the prosecution or the counsel for the accused have been preparing format and the list contemplated by Section 294 (1) as per their own whims. We deprecate such a practice since according to us the format provided by para 32 is prescribed with precision and none of the 41 conf1.13.odt parties should be allowed to have the format of their own. We also deprecate the practice of exhibiting the documents not included in the list under Section 294 (2) and in this case Exhs.87 and 88 which were not included in the list Exh.-22 contemplated by Section 294 (2) Cr.P.C.