Section 294 CrPC Intended To Expedite Trials, Avoid Delay Caused By Recording Irrelevant Evidence: Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court recently observed that the object of Section 294 of CrPC was to expedite trials and avoid unnecessary delay by recording irrelevant evidence. Section 294 provides that no formal proof is required for certain documents filed before any court. Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V also added that endorsement of admission or denial of such document by the defence counsel or the...
The Kerala High Court recently observed that the object of Section 294 of CrPC was to expedite trials and avoid unnecessary delay by recording irrelevant evidence. Section 294 provides that no formal proof is required for certain documents filed before any court.
Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V also added that endorsement of admission or denial of such document by the defence counsel or the Public Prosecutor, as the case may be, is sufficient for compliance with Section 294.
"The object of Section 294 of the Code is to accelerate the pace of the trial by avoiding the time being wasted by the parties in recording unnecessary evidence. Where the genuineness of any document is admitted or its formal proof is dispensed with, the same may be read in evidence. It is not necessary for the court to obtain admission or denial on a document under sub-section (1) to Section 294 of the Code personally from the accused or complainant or the witness. The endorsement of admission or denial made by the counsel for defence on the document filed by the prosecution or on the application/report with which the same is filed is sufficient compliance of Section 294 of the Code."
A case was instituted against the petitioner before the Judicial Magistrate based on a complaint alleging his involvement in criminal conspiracy, forgery, and mischief related to manipulating records for personal gain. During the cross-examination, the de facto complainant sought permission from the Magistrate to produce certain documents. These documents were neither seized nor produced by the police along with the final report.
Despite the petitioner's objection, the Magistrate permitted the submission, considering that the document's authenticity and impact on the accused would be examined during the trial.
The petitioner approached the High Court challenging this order of the Magistrate.
Advocates Sherry J. Thomas and Joemon Antony appearing for the petitioner cited Section 173(5) to argue that all relevant documents must be included in the final report. They asserted that the said documents were neither produced nor seized during the investigation, and their introduction at a later stage should be seen as an attempt to fabricate evidence against the accused.
Advocate Lakshmeesh S Kamath, representing the respondent, argued that although the application filed before the Magistrate did not specify a particular provision, various provisions allow the court to permit the admission of the documents. He cited Sections 294, 242(2), 311 of IPC, and Section 165 of the Evidence Act as potential avenues for the court to exercise its powers in obtaining the documents. He emphasized that the objective is to arrive at a just decision in the case and urged against interference with the Magistrate's order.
Senior Public Prosecutor Vipin Narayan conceded that the procedure adopted deviated from the principles of fair trial but emphasised that the prosecution is entitled to seek the production of public documents under Section 74 of Evidence Act or documents of unimpeachable nature. In this case, the documents being attempted to be produced were crucial to support the prosecution's case, and thus he sought permission to file an application before the Magistrate for further investigation under Section 173(8).
Considering the contention regarding the applicability of Section 294, Justice Vijayaraghavan noted that the object of Section 294 was to expedite trials by avoiding waste of time in presenting irrelevant evidence. In this case, no application was filed under Section 294 and an endorsement was made by the defence. Thus, it was held that Section 294 did not apply either.
The Court also found that the law mandates a Police Officer to submit all relevant documents and extracts to the Magistrate for the prosecution to rely on. It was added that the accused is entitled to receive free copies of certain documents. These documents filed with the chargesheet form the basis of the prosecution's case during the trial.
In this case, the documents sought to be produced were not presented to the police or seized, and their authenticity was not verified prior to the filing of the final report. Additionally, these documents were not public or unquestionable, thus allowing objections to be raised.
The Court further noted that as per Section 238, when the accused is brought before the Magistrate, the latter must ensure compliance with Section 207 (provide the accused a copy of the Police Report and other accompanying documents), which was not done in this case.
The Single Judge then recorded that Section 242(2) empowers the Magistrate to issue a summons to a witness for the production of documents upon application by the prosecution. However, no such application was filed by the prosecution here. Instead, an application was filed by CW3, stating that the documents were not produced during the investigation due to oversight and requesting their acceptance as evidence. Therefore, Section 242 was found to be not applicable in this case.
As such, the petition was allowed and the impugned order was set aside. However, it was clarified that this will not stand in the way of the Investigating Officer filing an application under Section 173(8) for further investigation.
Advocates V. Santharam and Revathu A.K also appeared for the respondents in the matter.
Case Title: Smrithy George v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 319