Copy of Diary as Evidence - Authenticity Concerns The primary issue with photocopies or certified copies of diaries is whether they are authentic, genuine, and reliable. Courts often uphold objections to photocopies if the original is available or if the photocopy is not listed or properly certified, as seen in JAYASINGHE V LEELAWATHIE AND OTHERS and Thakur Ajay Singh VS Medishetty Ravindra Kumar - Telangana. Authenticity verification involves establishing that the copy truly represents the original document, and without this, the copy may not be admissible as evidence.JAYASINGHE V LEELAWATHIE AND OTHERS, Thakur Ajay Singh VS Medishetty Ravindra Kumar - Telangana
Legal Admissibility of Photocopies and Secondary Evidence Photocopies can serve as secondary evidence if the original is unavailable for reasons beyond the party’s control, but courts are cautious. For instance, Thakur Ajay Singh VS Medishetty Ravindra Kumar - Telangana emphasizes that photocopies should not be accepted as secondary evidence if the primary document's custody is doubtful or if the photocopy is incomplete or unreadable. The courts also require proper certification and proof of authenticity before admitting photocopies.Thakur Ajay Singh VS Medishetty Ravindra Kumar - Telangana, JAYASINGHE V LEELAWATHIE AND OTHERS
Use of Diaries in Court Proceedings Police diaries and case diaries are typically considered as aids or references rather than substantive evidence. They are not part of the primary evidence unless specifically authorized, and their entries are often considered secondary or auxiliary, as discussed in Saravanan VS State Represented through the Inspector of Police, Vaipoor - Madras, Sheshnath Singh alias Shishu VS State of U. P. - Allahabad, and WICKREMESINGHE v. FERNANDO. Courts may refer to diaries to clarify or corroborate evidence but do not treat photocopies or extracts as conclusive proof unless authenticated.Saravanan VS State Represented through the Inspector of Police, Vaipoor - Madras, Sheshnath Singh alias Shishu VS State of U. P. - Allahabad, WICKREMESINGHE v. FERNANDO
Limitations on Access to Diaries and Copies The courts generally restrict the accused or parties from obtaining copies of diaries unless permitted under law. For example, K.Narender Naresh vs The Union of India - Telangana notes that the accused cannot access the case diary or supervision notes directly, and such documents are mainly for investigation and court reference, not for substantive evidence. Similarly, Rakesh Kumar Gupta vs GNCTD - Central Information Commission emphasizes the need for certified copies and proper documentation for official use.K.Narender Naresh vs The Union of India - Telangana, Rakesh Kumar Gupta vs GNCTD - Central Information Commission
Procedural and Certification Requirements To admit a diary or its copy as evidence, proper certification, authenticity, and adherence to legal procedures are essential. Courts scrutinize whether the document is properly certified and whether it is genuine before considering it as evidence, as outlined in KULASIRIWARDENA VS. JAYASINGHE AND OTHERS. Without certification and authentication, photocopies or extracts are unlikely to be accepted as proof.KULASIRIWARDENA VS. JAYASINGHE AND OTHERS
Analysis and ConclusionPhotocopies of diaries or case records are generally not regarded as fully authentic or admissible evidence unless they are properly certified, verified for authenticity, and the original is unavailable for legitimate reasons. Courts tend to treat such copies as secondary evidence, which requires strict proof of authenticity. The reliability of photocopies is often challenged, especially if the original documents are accessible or if the copies are incomplete, unreadable, or uncertified. Therefore, asserting the copy of a diary as evidence without proper authentication and verification is typically considered inadmissible or weak in court.
