Summary
The Supreme Court set aside a High Court order that had remanded a 1998 double murder case for retrial on the ground that defence counsel's admission of the genuineness of prosecution documents denied the accused a fair trial. Under Section 294 CrPC, documents whose genuineness is admitted, here including the post-mortem reports and recovery memos, may be read in evidence without formal proof. The defence had repeatedly admitted them and opposed the prosecution's attempts to call the formal witnesses, so the High Court was directed to decide the appeals on merits.
Issues
- Whether defence counsel's admission of the genuineness of prosecution documents under Section 294 CrPC, dispensing with formal proof, vitiated the trial.
- Whether the High Court was justified in remanding the case for retrial from the stage of PW 2's evidence.
Provisions considered
- Section 294, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Where genuineness is not disputed, a document may be read in evidence without proof of the signatory's signature, subject to the court's discretion to require proof. An endorsement of admission by counsel suffices, and an admitted post-mortem report is substantive evidence without examining the doctor. The trial court rightly exhibited and relied on the admitted public documents. (¶¶ 14, 15, 18, 19, 20, 21)
- Section 311, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The prosecution's applications to summon the formal witnesses, the autopsy doctor and the investigating officer, were opposed by the defence in 2005 and 2019 and rejected, which showed the admission was a deliberate and consistent stand. (¶¶ 5, 6, 11, 12, 21)
Held
- Under Section 294(3) CrPC, documents whose genuineness is not disputed can be read in evidence even if their authors do not testify; an admission or denial endorsed by counsel is sufficient compliance, and an admitted post-mortem report can be read as substantive evidence of its contents without examining the doctor. (¶¶ 15, 18, 19, 20)
- Where the defence repeatedly admitted the genuineness of public documents signed by the investigating officer, the autopsy doctor and other police officials, and opposed the summoning of formal witnesses, the trial court committed no error in relying on them; what remained was to assess the creditworthiness of the evidence on record. (¶¶ 15, 16, 21)
- The High Court erred in treating the admission as a fatal illegality denying a fair trial. Its reliance on Munna Pandey v. State of Bihar was misplaced, as that case concerned failure to confront witnesses with their Section 161 statements, not Section 294. (¶ 22)
Result
Appeals allowed; the High Court's remand order set aside and the criminal appeals restored for fresh decision on merits on the existing record, with a request for early disposal. The convicted respondents to surrender before the trial court within six weeks, with liberty to seek suspension of sentence from the High Court; the evidence was not appreciated by the Supreme Court.