9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Admissibility of notes of attendance as evidence. 2. Interpretation of the term "statement" under Section 157 of the Indian Evidence Act. 3. Applicability of Section 159 and Section 161 of the Indian Evidence Act. Detailed Analysis: 1. Admissibility of notes of attendance as evidence: The appeal was limited to the question of whether certain notes of attendance prepared by a solicitor, Santook, could be admitted as evidence in a criminal trial. The appellant was tried for criminal breach of trust involving Rs. 4,14,750. The notes, marked as Ex. V, were produced to corroborate Santook's testimony. The trial judge admitted these notes in evidence despite objections on two grounds: non-compliance with Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the assertion that they could not be admitted under Section 157 of the Indian Evidence Act. The trial judge's decision was upheld by the High Court, which convicted the appellant after reviewing the entire evidence, including Ex. V. 2. Interpretation of the term "statement" under Section 157 of the Indian Evidence Act: The appellant's counsel contended that the notes could not be admitted under Section 157 of the Act, arguing that the term "statement" implies communication to another person. The Supreme Court examined the dictionary meanings and usage of the term "statement" in various sections of the Act. The Court concluded that the primary meaning of "statement" is "something that is stated," and communication to another person is not essential. The Court noted that words are generally used consistently throughout a statute unless contextually repugnant. The Court found that in sections dealing with admissions (Sections 17-21) and other sections like 32, 39, and 145, the term "statement" does not necessarily imply communication to another person. Therefore, the Court held that the term "statement" in Section 157 should be interpreted in its primary sense, meaning "something that is stated," without requiring communication to another person. Consequently, the notes of attendance were deemed admissible as statements under Section 157. 3. Applicability of Section 159 and Section 161 of the Indian Evidence Act: The appellant's counsel argued that the notes could only be used for refreshing memory under Section 159 and could become evidence only under the conditions prescribed in Section 161. The Court clarified that Section 159 deals with refreshing memory and does not exclude such writings from being considered statements under Section 157. The Court emphasized that the admissibility of a writing under Section 157 does not preclude its use for refreshing memory under Section 159. The Court also noted that corroboration under Section 157 could be by written or oral statements, whereas Section 159 specifically deals with written statements for refreshing memory. The Court concluded that the notes of attendance prepared by Santook were admissible under Section 157 and that the concerns about self-corroboration were mitigated by the cross-examination process. Conclusion: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the notes of attendance were admissible as evidence under Section 157 of the Indian Evidence Act. The Court clarified that the term "statement" in Section 157 means "something that is stated" and does not require communication to another person. The Court also distinguished the roles of Sections 157 and 159 in the context of corroboration and refreshing memory. The appeal was thus dismissed, upholding the High Court's conviction of the appellant.
|
