The main legal point established in the judgment is that non-compliance with the conditions of Section 294 of the Criminal Procedure Code makes the documents inadmissible as evidence.

Challenge in this revision application is to the order dated 16.05.2014 passed by Principal Sessions Judge, Gumla in Criminal Revision no. 14 of 2013 whereby and whereunder the order dated 23.08.2013 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gumla in G.R. Case No. 128 of 2008 on an application filed under Section 294 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short “the Code”) has been set aside.

2. At the instance of the informant-petitioner Savita Devi, Gumla P.S. Case No. 42 of 2008 was instituted on 21.12.2007 under Section 341, 323 and 324/34 of the I.P.C. with the allegation that on the alleged date of occurrence, her son Ashish, aged about 13 years, was playing with the son of the accused and in course of playing, there was a quarrel between the children. Whereafter, wife of the accused Prem Sahu caught the son of the informant and confined him in a room and assaulted him using naked electric wire. The boy sustained several injuries including injury in his right eye and the bleeding started oozing out from the said eye. When the son of the informant did not return in the evening, she along with other persons started searching her son and found the said son coming along with one Md. Kullu but considering the seriousness of the injury sustained by her son, she immediately contacted the doctor at Gumla, who referred the matter to RIMS, Ranchi where she stayed with her son till 19.01.2008 but for better treatment, she took her son to “Shankar Netralaya”, Madras.

3. It appears that after submission of the charge sheet, the accused persons were put on trial and charges were framed against them and witnesses were examined. On 06.04.2013, a petition under Section 294 of the Code was filed by the prosecution praying therein to accept and mark certain medical reports, bills and railway tickets as exhibits under the aforesaid provision. The defence filed objection to the said petition but the court below vide order dated 23.08.2013 accepted those documents and marked them as Ext.-2 to Ext.-12 without formal proof. The accused persons questioned the validity of the said order by filing a revision application before the Sessions Court and by the impugned order dated 16.05.2014, the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Gumla set aside the order dated 23.08.2013 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gumla. Aggrieved by the said order, the present revision application has been preferred by the informant.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner while assailing the order impugned of revisional court as illegal and perverse submitted that the learned revisional court failed to consider the scope of Section 294 of the Code in right perspective and without appreciating that no formal proof of those documents were required, set aside the order dated 23.08.2013 and allowed the said application. Hence, the order impugned is fit to be set aside and the order passed by the trial court be directed to be restored.

5. Contrary to the aforesaid submission, the learned counsel appearing for the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 submitted that those documents filed by the informant were never admitted by the opposite parties as provided under Section 294 of the Code and hence they cannot be used as substantive piece of evidence and the revisional court rightly set aside the order passed by the trial court.

6. For better appreciation of the submissions of the counsels, a reference of Section 294 of the Code is necessary for proper adjudication of the matter. Section 294 of the Code reads as follows:-

“294. No formal proof of certain documents.- (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 for 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 form as may be prescribed by the S