9911796707
TMI Blog1981 (2) TMI 255X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the decision of another Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ganpat Raoji v. State of Maharashtra 1980 Mah LJ 60 : in support of this contention. Reliance was also placed on two other judgments of the Gujarat and Allahabad High Courts relied on by the Division Bench in Ganpat Raoji's case. 2. The learned Judges of the Division Bench could not agree with the ratio of Ganpat Raoji's case (supra). The Division Bench indicated its reasons for the dissent and referred the point for decision to the Full Bench. 3. Mr. Phadkar, the learned Advocate appearing for the appellant, raised three points in support of this contention of the defence : (1) Indicating no dispute with the genuineness of the documents means at the most admission of the signature of the author and not the truthfulness of the contents. (2) Authority to read in evidence contemplated under sub-sec. (3) of Section 294 does not amount to authority to use the same in evidence at the trial and (4) that without the doctor's substantive evidence the post-mortem prepared by the doctor cannot be used in evidence, it having no evidentiary value. Dated the 11th February 1981 :- 4. Section 294 of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case of Chainchal Singh v. Emperor it was held by the Privy Council that the accused was not competent to waive his right and the obligation of the prosecution to prove the documents on which the prosecution relied. Resultantly, the prosecution was driven to examine witnesses even when the accused was not interested in challenging the facts sought to be proved though them. The inconvenience and the delay was avoidable. 7. Section 294 of the Code is introduced to dispense with this avoidable waste of time and facilitate removal of such obstruction in he speedy trial. The accused is now enabled to waive the said right and save the time. This is a new provision having no corresponding provision in the repealed Code of Criminal Procedure. It requires the prosecutor or the accused, as the case may be, to admit or deny the genuineness of the document sought to be relied against him at the outset in writing. On his admitting or indicating no dispute as to the genuineness, the Court is authorised to dispense with its formal proof thereof. In fact after indication of no dispute as to the genuineness, proof of documents is reduced to a sheer empty formality. The section is obviously a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tents thereof is devoid of any substance. Such a contention ignores the implications of the proof by the mode prescribed under sections 67 to 71 of the Evidence Act. Section 67 of the Evidence Act is aimed at ensuring the authenticity of the document. The words without proof of the signature ...... in sub-section (3) of Section 294 of the Code are obviously intended to dispense with such proof without the compliance of which ordinarily the documents cannot be relied on as authentic and genuine. 11. Mr. Phadkar then contends that all that Section 294 of the Code permits, with regard to a document of which the proof of signature is dispensed with, is to read such document in evidence at the trial. Reading in evidence, so contends Mr. Phadkar, is not the same thing as receiving in evidence or giving in evidence or using in evidence, for reliance as contemplated in several other sections of the Code. Mr. Phadkar therefore, contends that the authority to read does not amount to receive in evidence and rely thereon without the formal proof thereof. This contention of Mr. Phadkar also appears to us to be devoid of any merit. It is difficult to conceive of using any document in e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Post-mortem notes thus are in the nature of previous statement within its conception under S. 157 of the Evidence Act. The fact, however, that if lacks more details or is merely corroborative does not make it any the less relevant piece of evidence. These factors may have a bearing on its probative, value. The adjectives corroborative and substantive are relative depending on the context and set of facts in which these words are used. Ordinarily, the entire medical evidence i.e., the doctor's oral evidence and his reports, happens to be corroborative as against the substantive eye-witness account of any assault. Thus, even the doctor's oral evidence itself is corroborative in nature. Authenticity of a document which is determinative of its reception in evidence is altogether a different factor unconnected with its probative value and its being corroborative or substantive. 14. The probative value of any documentary evidence also has no direct relevance to reception thereof in evidence. As seen earlier, no document with all its probative value can be received in evidence unless its authenticity is first established by the mode of proof prescribed under Sections 67 to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... considered decision of further details being irrelevant. The Court has ordinarily to accept this decision and refrain from entering into the arena itself unless miscarriage of justice is apprehended on demonstrable grounds. The section also invests the Court with a discretion to examine the doctor or any such witness in that case. The section itself thus furnishes in-built protections to the defence or the prosecutor against possible lapses. It was open to the Court in its such discretion to examine the doctor or any other witness when it apprehended miscarriage of justice. Mere such apprehension cannot justify interpreting the section differently and hold it inapplicable to post-mortem reports in the face of its plain language indicating to the contrary. 16. It was faintly suggested that (1) Section 294 of the Code aims at dispensing with proof only of such documents which require formal proof, (2) examination of the author of the documents is necessary to prove only certain documents and not every document, and (3) that relevancy of only certain documents depends on their genuineness. A few observations in Ganpat Raoji's case in in paragraph 33 (page 64) were relied on in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
