Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2010 (8) TMI 1114

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ted 8.5.2010 whereby the permission to lead secondary evidence filed by the accused regarding agreement to sell dated 1.9.2008 (Annexure-P6) and Pronote and receipt (Annexure-P7) has been declined. 3. The Petitioner is facing trial for the offences under Sections 302, 201, 120-B and 34 IPC. 4. The FIR (Annexure-P5) has been registered on the statement of Ram Kumar who has alleged that on 3.9.2008 at about 11.00 a.m. he came to know that one dead body of an unknown person was lying in the 'Bani' of the village. On this information, the complainant and many other villagers went to the 'Bani' and saw an unidentified body, which had a noose around its neck, besides, the feet were burnt. Moreover, near the dead body two pla .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ot appeared before the Court. Otherwise also, the evidence of Balwant Singh (DW- 2) and Chandgi Ram (DW-3) makes it clear that in the circumstances the said application for grant of permission to lead secondary evidence was not liable to be allowed. 7. The learned trial Court after considering the matter observed that photostat copies of the documents i.e. agreement to sell dated 1.9.2008 and pronote and receipt dated 2.9.2008 have been produced. No reason has been given by Balwant Singh (DW-2) and Chandgi Ram (DW-3) as to why photostat copies have been retained after the original had been destroyed. It was also stated that the photostat copies of the documents in question produced on record were not got done by the said witnesses. It wa .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... when the existence, condition or contents of the original have been proved to be admitted in writing by the person against whom it is proved or by his representative in interest; (c) when the original has been destroyed or lost, or when the party offering evidence of its contents cannot, for any other reason not arising from his own default or neglect, produce it in reasonable time; (d) when the original is of such a nature as not to be easily moveable; (e) when the original is a public document within the meaning of Section 74; (f) when the original is a document of which a certified copy is permitted by this Act, or by any other law in force in 60 (India) to be given in evidence; (g) when the originals consist of numerous a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... it is not clear as to whether these are copies of the original. The basic principle with respect to evidence that is to be produced is that the best evidence available ought to be produced. Original document is the best and primary evidence. Section 65 provides other alternative methods for producing and proving documents, which for various reasons cannot be produced. Secondary evidence is admissible in respect of conditions mentioned in Clauses (a) to (g) of Section 65. The purpose is to give protection to such persons who despite their intentions and efforts are unable in view of circumstances beyond their control produce on record the primary evidence. If, however, the document is destroyed by the person in whom it created an enforceable .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ocument. Therefore, secondary evidence in such circumstances where document itself has been destroyed by the person in whom it created an enforceable legal right or an obligation is normally not be allowed. 12. In the present case Balwant Singh (DW-2) had appeared and deposed that he executed the agreement to sell on 1.9.2008 and returned the original amount of ₹ 1 Lac along with interest to Roshan Lal brother of Om Parkash on 20.9.2008. Besides, Chandgi Ram (DW-3) appeared and deposed that the pronote and receipt dated 2.9.2008 had been destroyed by him after making repayment of loan and interest and that the correct photo copy of the pronote and receipt had already been produced on the record. The agreement dated 1.9.2008, it is .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates