1981 (2) TMI 255 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of Section 294 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
2. Admissibility of post-mortem notes without the doctor's testimony.
3. Authority to "read in evidence" under Section 294(3) of the Code.
4. Waiver of the mode of proof in criminal cases.
5. Distinction between substantive and corroborative evidence.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Interpretation of Section 294 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:
The judgment focuses on the interpretation of Section 294 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The section is designed to dispense with the "formal proof" of documents whose genuineness is not disputed. Sub-section (3) allows such documents to be read in evidence without proof of the signature of the person by whom it purports to be signed, provided the court does not require such proof.

2. Admissibility of Post-Mortem Notes Without the Doctor's Testimony:
The court held that post-mortem notes are documents like any other and can be admitted in evidence if their genuineness is not disputed, as per Section 294(3). The court rejected the contention that the post-mortem report cannot be used in evidence without the doctor's substantive testimony. The judgment clarified that Section 294 allows for the waiver of the mode of proof, making the doctor's testimony dispensable if the document's genuineness is not contested.

3. Authority to "Read in Evidence" Under Section 294(3) of the Code:
The court dismissed the argument that "reading in evidence" does not equate to "using" or "relying" on the document in evidence. The judgment stated that the terms "reading," "using," "receiving," "giving," or "admitting" in evidence have the same meaning and import. Thus, a document can be used at the trial for the disposal of the case in the same manner as any other document, proof of which is not dispensed with.

4. Waiver of the Mode of Proof in Criminal Cases:
The court noted that Section 294 was introduced to facilitate the waiver of the mode of proof in criminal cases, which was not permissible under the previous Code. The section aims to avoid unnecessary delays by allowing the accused to waive the right to formal proof of documents whose genuineness is not disputed. This legislative change was intended to expedite the trial process.

5. Distinction Between Substantive and Corroborative Evidence:
The judgment clarified that the distinction between substantive and corroborative evidence pertains to their probative value, not their admissibility. The post-mortem report, while corroborative, is still a relevant piece of evidence. The court held that the probative value of a document does not affect its admissibility, which is determined by its genuineness and compliance with the mode of proof, which can now be waived under Section 294.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that Section 294(3) of the Code covers post-mortem notes and any other document whose genuineness is not disputed. Such documents can be read in evidence as genuine without formal proof. The judgment overruled the decision in Ganpat Raoji's case, which had held that Section 294 was inapplicable to post-mortem reports. The appeal was sent back to the Division Bench for disposal in accordance with this interpretation.