2010 (8) TMI 1114 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues involved:
The judgment involves issues related to permission to lead secondary evidence regarding an agreement to sell and pronote and receipt, and the admissibility of photostat copies as secondary evidence in a criminal case.

Regarding Cr. Rev. No. 1788 of 2010:
The petitioner faced trial for offenses under Sections 302, 201, 120-B, and 34 IPC based on an FIR reporting the discovery of a dead body with signs of foul play. The petitioner sought permission to lead secondary evidence regarding an agreement to sell and pronote and receipt, which were allegedly destroyed by witnesses Balwant Singh and Chandgi Ram after repayment. The prosecution opposed, citing lack of proper documentation and custody of the photostat copies. The trial court dismissed the application, leading to the criminal revision petition challenging the decision.

Analysis of the judgment:
The petitioner argued for the allowance of secondary evidence under Section 65 of the Evidence Act, emphasizing the destruction of the original documents. However, the court noted that the witnesses who destroyed the documents were also in possession of the photostat copies, raising concerns about authenticity and manipulation. The court highlighted the importance of producing the best evidence available, with the original document being the primary source. Referring to legal precedents, the judgment emphasized that allowing secondary evidence when the original document has been destroyed by a party could lead to risks of fraud and contractual disputes. In this case, since the agreement and pronote-receipt had been destroyed by the witnesses who were parties to the transactions, the court upheld the trial court's decision to decline the application for secondary evidence.

Conclusion:
The criminal revision petition was found devoid of merit and dismissed, affirming the trial court's decision regarding the admissibility of secondary evidence in the form of photostat copies.