S. 294 CrPC | Calling Accused To Admit/Deny Genuineness Of Documents Produced By Prosecution Not Violation Of Article 20(3) : Supreme Court
Recently, the Supreme Court observed that an accused cannot be said to be a witness against himself if he was called upon to admit or deny the genuineness of the documents produced by the prosecution under Section 294 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
“we are of the opinion that calling upon the accused to admit or deny the genuineness of the documents produced by the prosecution alongwith the list under Section 294 of Cr.P.C., could not be said to be in any way prejudicial to the right of the accused, nor could it be said to be compelling him to be a witness against himself as contemplated under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India.”, the bench comprising Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma said.
Article 20(3) of the Constitution states that no person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. It is an individual's right against self-incrimination.
The object of Section 294 of CrPC is to accelerate the pace of the trial proceedings by reading into the relevant piece of evidence in the trial, leaving aside unnecessary material. Where the genuineness of any document is admitted or its formal proof is dispensed with, the same may be read in evidence.
The appellant/accused had denied the appearance to admit or deny the genuineness of the documents produced by the prosecution. Non-appearance of the accused led to the recording of adverse findings against the accused. The trial court had recorded that "his conduct in deliberately denying the genuineness of a document may be taken as an aggravating circumstance while determining quantum of sentence because it will lead to prolonged trial."
The Supreme Court held that there cannot be a violation of the right against self-incrimination if the accused was called upon to admit/deny the genuineness of the documents produced by the prosecution, and refused to interfere with the impugned order of the trial court. However, the adverse observation recorded against the accused stands deleted by the Court.
Case Details: ASHOK DAGA Versus DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 480