Formal proof required in certain documents

Formal proof required in certain documents

No formal proof of certain documents - Sec 294 CrPc

Where any document is filed before any Court by the prosecution or the accused, the particulars of every such document shall be included in a list and the prosecution or the accused, as the case may be, or the pleader for the prosecution or the accused, if any, shall be called upon to admit or deny the genuineness of each such document.

The list of documents shall be in such form as may be prescribed by the State Government.

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:


explanation:
The object is to eliminate avoidable delay and expenditure in the conduct of criminal proceedings.

Where the prosecution or the accused does not dispute the genuineness of a document filed by the opposite party under Section 294 (1) it implies admission of the fact that the entire document is true and genuine in its contents and it has been signed by the person by whom it purports to be signed, such a document may be taken as a substantive evidence to prove a fact in issue. Thus a postmortem report filed by the prosecution under Section 294 (1) whose genuineness is not disputed by the accused may be admitted as substantive evidence under Section 294 (3)

Where documents which were produced in the Court, about whom no formal proof was required and they were admitted by the opposite party as genuine, it was held that they could be admitted by the Court as a substantive piece of evidence.

cases
In the case of Ram Dev Yadav v. State of Bihar, the trial Court accepted the injury reports prepared by the doctor under Section 294. The doctor was not examined. The Patna High Court rejected the plea to treat these injury reports as substantive evidence under Section 294 and held that these reports could not substitute direct evidence of the doctor. They could, however, be used to corroborate or contradict the doctor.

In Shankaria v. State of Rajasthan, the person who had taken finger prints of the accused was not examined as a witness at the trial instead, his affidavit was accepted. The Apex Court held that his evidence on affidavit was admissible because it was of a formal character.