S. 294 CrPC | Defence Can't Be Given Chance To Discredit Prosecution Documents Which Were Admitted As Genuine By Them : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court today (Oct. 21) observed that when the defence admits the genuineness of the prosecution documents and dispenses with its formal proof then, such evidence may be read as substantive evidence under Section 294 of Cr.P.C.

The bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Prasanna B. Varale said that after the prosecution's documents were admitted under Section 294 Cr.P.C. by the defence without formal proof, then the only job left for the courts is “to appreciate, analyse and test the creditworthiness of the evidence led by the prosecution which was available on record and if such evidence beyond reasonable doubt established the charges, the conviction could be recorded.”

In this case, the appellant/informant approached the Supreme Court against the High Court's decision to remit back the matter to the trial court for fresh consideration from the stage of recording of the cross-examination of the PW2 by the defence. The High Court remitted the matter back to the trial court because the accused did not get a fair trial as their counsel had admitted the documents of the prosecution and had dispensed with its formal proof.

Setting aside the High Court's decision, the judgment authored by Justice Vikram Nath observed that when the defence counsel admitted the genuineness of the prosecution documents and dispensed with its formal proof, then it would not be open for the Courts to provide another chance to the defence to discredit the prosecution's documents when he had already supported the prosecution's story.

“A bare reading of the aforesaid provision (S. 294 CrPC), in particular, sub-section (3) provides that where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document may be read in evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code without proof of the signature of the person to whom it purports to be signed. That is to say that if the authors of such documents does not enter the witness box to prove their signatures, the said documents could still be read in evidence. Further, under the proviso the Court has the jurisdiction in its discretion to require such signature to be proved.”

“In the present case, the documents filed by the investigating agency were all public documents duly signed by public servants in their respective capacities either as Investigating Officer or the doctor conducting the autopsy or other police officials preparing the memo of recoveries etc. As such the Trial Court had rightly relied upon the same and exhibited them in view of the specific repeated stand taken by the defence in admitting the genuineness of the said documents. In so far as the police papers which had been signed by private persons like the informant, the same had been duly proved.”, the court added.

The Court said that it is the defence's role to discredit the testimony of the prosecution, failing which the admission of the genuineness of the admitted documents produced by the prosecution could not be disputed and would be read into evidence.

“The Trial Court, after appreciating the evidence, found that the evidence of PW 1 and 2, eye-witnesses to the account, to have fully supported the prosecution story and during the cross-examination, the defence could not elicit anything which could discredit their testimony.”, the court recorded.

“On a plain reading of section 294 CrPC and its interpretation by this Court in the above judgments, we do not find any error in the judgment of the Trial Court and particularly considering the facts of the present case where the defence repeatedly continued to admit the genuineness of the prosecution documents exempting them from formal proof.”, the court held.

Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, and the matter was remitted to the High Court for fresh consideration on the basis of material on record

Case Title: SHYAM NARAYAN RAM VERSUS STATE OF U.P. & ANR.ETC.

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 821

Click here to read/download the judgment

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Divyesh Pratap Singh, AOR Ms. Shivangi Singh, Adv. Mr. Amit Sangwan, Adv. Ms. Sneha Chandna, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Ajay Kumar Misra, A.G.(U.P.), Sr. Adv. Mr. Garvesh Kabra, AOR Mr. Avanish Deshpande, Adv. Mr. C B Gururaj, Adv. Mr. Animesh Dubey, Adv. Ms. Archita Prajapati, Adv. Mr. K P Singh, Adv. M/S. Gururaj & Nayak, AOR Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Rakesh Kumar Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Sandeep Lamba, Adv. Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, AOR