Section 294 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, dispenses with the proof of post-mortem reports and every other document of which genuineness is not disputed.

Headnote:
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 294 - INTERPRETATION - POST-MORTEM REPORT - ADMISSIBILITY IN EVIDENCE - GENUINENESS OF DOCUMENTS - WAIVER OF PROOF - SCOPE OF SECTION 294 - DISTINCTION BETWEEN SUBSTANTIVE AND CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE - RELEVANCE AND AUTHENTICITY OF DOCUMENTS.
Fact of the Case:

The appellant was convicted for murder under section 302, I.P.C. The trial Court relied, amongst others, on the post-mortem notes. The doctor, who held the post-mortem, and prepared the notes, was not examined at the trial. The defence lawyer had earlier indicated that he was not disputing the genuineness thereof in response to a query under sub-section (1) of section 294 of the Code. The trial Judge dispensed with its formal proof and received the report in evidence.
Finding of the Court:

The Court held that section 294 of the Code covers post-mortem notes and every other document of which genuineness is not disputed. Thus such documents can be read in evidence as genuine without the formal proof.
Issues: 1. Whether section 294 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, dispenses with the proof of post-mortem reports? 2. Whether the genuineness of a document under section 294 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, contemplates only genuineness of the signature and not that of the document or contents thereof? 3. Whether the authority to "read in evidence" under section 294(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, amounts to authority to use the same in evidence at the trial? 4. Whether a post-mortem report can be used in evidence without the substantive evidence of the doctor?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 294 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, dispenses with the proof of post-mortem reports and every other document of which genuineness is not disputed. 2. The genuineness of a document under section 294 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, contemplates the genuineness of the document or contents thereof and not merely the genuineness of the signature. 3. The authority to "read in evidence" under section 294(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, amounts to authority to use the same in evidence at the trial. 4. A post-mortem report can be used in evidence without the substantive evidence of the doctor.
Final Decision: The Criminal Appeal was sent back to the Division Bench for disposal in accordance with law.

JUDGMENT - V.S. DESHPANDE, C.J.:---This reference to the Full Bench raises a question of some importance as to the true interpretation of section 294 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1973. The appellant is convicted for an offence of murder under section 302, I.P.C. The trial Court relied, amongst others, on the post-mortem notes. The doctor, who held the post-mortem, and prepared the notes, was not examined at the trial. The defence lawyer had earlier indicated that he was not disputing the genuineness thereof in response to a query under sub-section (1) of section 294 of the Code. The trial Judge dispensed with its formal proof and received the report in evidence. In the course of the hearing of the appeal before the Division Bench, the learned defence Advocate contended that the report cannot be relied on without the evidence of the doctor and section 294 is not intended to dispense with proofs of such documents. Reliance was placed on the decision of another Division Bench of this Court in the case of (Ganpat Raoji v. State of Maharashtra)1, 1980 Mh.L.J. 60, in support of this contention. Reliance was also placed on two other judgments of the Gujarat and Allahabad High Courts relied on by the Division Bench in Ganpat Raojis case.

2. The learned Judges of the Division Bench could not agree with the ratio of Ganpat Raojis case (supra). The Division Bench indicated its reasons for the dissent and referred the point for decision to the Full Bench.

3. Mr. Phadkar, the learned Advocate appearing for the appellant, raised three points in support of this contention of the defence : (1) Indicating no dispute with the genuineness of the documents means at the most admission of the signature of the author and not the truthfulness of the contents. (2) Authority to "read in evidence" contemplated under sub-section (3) of section 294 does not amount to authority to use the same in evidence at the trial and (3) that without the doctors substantive evidence the post-mortem prepared by the doctor cannot be used in evidence, it having no evidentiary value.

4. Section 294 of the Code reads as follows :

"(1) 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 fro the prosecution or the accused, if any, shall be called upon to admit or deny the genuineness of each such document.

(2) The list of documents shall be in such forms as may be prescribed by the State Government.

(3) 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 :

Provided that the Court may, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved."

5. It will be convenient first to analyse the section without reference to the case law. As the marginal note indicates, the section is intended to dispense with the "formal proof" of certain documents. Sub-section (3) providing for such dispensation is the main provision, sub-sections (1) and (2) being merely procedural. Such dispensing of the proof is restricted only to, such documents of which genuineness is not disputed when called upon to do so under sub-section (1). Under the Evidence Act evidence can be oral or documentary. Even the original primary documents cannot be read in evidence merely because the same are relevant and produced, unless the authenticity thereof is established. Mode of proof for establishing such authenticity is prescribed under sections 67 to 71 of the Evidence Act. These can be used in evidence for adjudication of points in dispute only after they are proved to be authentic and genuine by this mode.

6. In civil cases mode of proof can be waived by the person against whom it is sought to be used. Admission thereof or failure to raise objection to their tendering in

Click Here to Read the rest of this document