Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Reliance on Tempered or Incomplete Documents - Generally, documents that are manipulated, tampered, or incomplete are not considered reliable evidence for prosecution during trial. Courts emphasize the importance of authenticity and proper production of evidence, noting that manipulated or fabricated documents undermine the integrity of the case. For example, in sources ["Amanulla VS State Of Maharashtra - Bombay"], it is highlighted that only material collected during evidence and properly produced can be relied upon, and documents that are manipulated or tampered with are questionable (material that is collected during the course of evidence and is produced along with charge-sheet that can be relied upon ["Amanulla VS State Of Maharashtra - Bombay"]; the documents may be manipulated or tampered ["Amanulla VS State Of Maharashtra - Bombay"]).
Production and Disclosure of Evidence - Courts require that all relevant documents, especially electronic records or digital data, be disclosed to the accused in advance to ensure fair trial and effective defense. As per sources ["Varun VS State Of U. P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home, Lko. - Allahabad"] and ["Smrithy George VS State of Kerala, Represented by The Public Prosecutor - Kerala"], the prosecution must furnish copies of relied-upon documents, including electronic evidence like memory cards or pen-drives, to uphold the principle of fair disclosure. Cloning or copying such evidence protects against tampering and ensures integrity (the contents of the memory card/pen-drive being electronic record must be regarded as a document ["Varun VS State Of U. P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home, Lko. - Allahabad"]; accused must be given a cloned copy ["Varun VS State Of U. P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home, Lko. - Allahabad"]).
Authentication and Genuineness - The genuineness of documents is crucial. If a document is disputed as fabricated or manipulated, courts tend to reject it unless proven otherwise through detailed evidence during trial. For instance, in ["GANESH DEVELOPERS V/s B NANJI ENTERPRISES LTD. - Gujarat"], the respondent claimed the construction agreement was fabricated, and such allegations require thorough examination during trial (the agreement was never executed and poor quality and inflated bills ["GANESH DEVELOPERS V/s B NANJI ENTERPRISES LTD. - Gujarat"]).
Impact of Manipulation on Evidence Credibility - Evidence found to be manipulated, such as tempered seals or forged documents, is considered unreliable. Sources ["P.M.Swaminathan vs The State Rep by its, Inspector of Police, Economic Office Wing, Coimbatore - Madras"], ["Kanhaiyalal And Company Through Its Proprietor Smt. Kiran Mundra, W/o. Shri Anand Swaroop Mundra vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited Through Its Managing Director - Madhya Pradesh"], and ["Bibhucharan Dutta, S/o. Khagendra Nath Dutta VS Management Of Oil And Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. - Gauhati"] discuss how tampered seals or forged documents undermine the prosecution's case. Courts may reject such evidence or consider it a critical irregularity that affects the case's integrity (the seal was found tempered ["Kanhaiyalal And Company Through Its Proprietor Smt. Kiran Mundra, W/o. Shri Anand Swaroop Mundra vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited Through Its Managing Director - Madhya Pradesh"]; exhibit found to be tempered or fabricated ["Bibhucharan Dutta, S/o. Khagendra Nath Dutta VS Management Of Oil And Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. - Gauhati"]).
Legal Principles and Court Discretion - Courts exercise discretion to exclude manipulated or incomplete evidence to maintain fairness and justice. They require that the prosecution prove the authenticity of documents beyond doubt. When documents are manipulated, courts are justified in refusing reliance, emphasizing the importance of genuine, properly obtained evidence for a reliable trial process (only genuine documents can be relied upon ["Amanulla VS State Of Maharashtra - Bombay"]; the prosecution must establish that the documents are not manipulated ["P.M.Swaminathan vs The State Rep by its, Inspector of Police, Economic Office Wing, Coimbatore - Madras"]).
Conclusion:A manipulated, tampered, or incomplete document generally cannot be relied upon by the prosecution during trial. Courts prioritize authenticity, proper disclosure, and integrity of evidence. Evidence found to be fabricated or tampered with is typically rejected or considered unreliable, impacting the prosecution's case and the fairness of the trial process.
In criminal trials, the admissibility and production of documents can make or break a case. Imagine a scenario where the prosecution references a document but hesitates to formally produce it as evidence—perhaps due to concerns over its authenticity or tampering. This raises a critical question: Can the prosecution be compelled to produce a document in evidence if they have called it under Section 91 of the CrPC?
This issue intersects with procedural laws under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973, and the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, particularly Section 65B for electronic records. Courts generally emphasize fairness, but they also scrutinize the prosecution's obligations. This blog post delves into the nuances, drawing from judicial precedents and legal principles to provide clarity—note: this is general information, not specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your case.
A manipulated, incomplete, or tampered document generally cannot be relied upon by the prosecution as authentic evidence unless proper procedures for establishing its genuineness are followed. Specifically, for electronic or digital evidence, compliance with Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act is essential. Without it, especially if the document appears forged or altered, its admissibility and reliability become highly questionable. KUNDAN SINGH VS STATE - 2015 0 Supreme(Del) 3285Sejal Basavraj Talloli VS State of Gujarat - 2018 0 Supreme(Guj) 328Sundaran, S/o Raghavan VS State Of Kerala - 2023 0 Supreme(Ker) 358
Section 91 CrPC empowers courts to issue summons for document production when necessary for proceedings. However, merely mentioning or calling a document does not obligate the prosecution to exhibit it if authenticity issues arise. Courts have held that even production or marking as an exhibit is insufficient without proving genuineness. Sundaran, S/o Raghavan VS State Of Kerala - 2023 0 Supreme(Ker) 358
Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act stipulates that electronic records must come with a certificate confirming the device's proper functioning and the record's integrity. Courts view this as a condition precedent for admissibility. Failure to comply, especially with tampered documents, renders evidence unreliable. For instance, Courts have consistently held that this certificate is a condition precedent for the admissibility of electronic evidence. KUNDAN SINGH VS STATE - 2015 0 Supreme(Del) 3285Sejal Basavraj Talloli VS State of Gujarat - 2018 0 Supreme(Guj) 328Kundan Singh vs State - Delhi (2015)
Under Section 91 CrPC, a court may compel production if the document is in the prosecution's possession and relevant. However, if tampering is alleged, the prosecution isn't automatically forced to exhibit it without verification.
Tampered documents lack safeguards, making them inadmissible. The Supreme Court has noted that electronic records are prone to tampering, and without proper certification and verification, their credibility is compromised. Sundaran, S/o Raghavan VS State Of Kerala - 2023 0 Supreme(Ker) 358KUNDAN SINGH VS STATE - 2015 0 Supreme(Del) 3285
In cases involving manipulated cheques, courts have allowed prosecution applications under Section 311 CrPC to summon witnesses and produce originals, recognizing it wasn't a lacuna but an oversight. Power to be exercised only if Court, for valid reasons, feels that injustice is caused to party—summoning of material witness to find out truth not unjustified. Ram Gopal Gupta VS The State of Madhya Pradesh - 2023 Supreme(MP) 9
The Delhi High Court ruled that producing uncertified documents renders them inadmissible. Sejal Basavraj Talloli VS State of Gujarat - 2018 0 Supreme(Guj) 328 Similarly, mere marking without proof doesn't suffice. Sundaran, S/o Raghavan VS State Of Kerala - 2023 0 Supreme(Ker) 358
In another context, courts upheld trial continuation despite manipulation allegations, finding prima facie cases warranted. The court upheld the necessity for trial based on serious allegations of conspiracy and manipulation of public records. M.M.Lambodaran vs State of Kerala - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 46297
Accused rights to access are protected too. Under Sections 173 and 207 CrPC, accused get copies of relied-upon and un-relied documents, including digital ones. The accused is entitled to copies of both 'relied upon' and 'un-relied' documents. Kalyani Singh VS Central Bureau of Investigation - 2023 Supreme(P&H) 2163
Prosecution documents, even unexhibited, can benefit the accused. It is a well established principle of law that a prosecution document even if it remains unexhibited can be relied upon by an accused. Prabal Dogra VS Superintendent of Police, Gwalior & State - 2017 Supreme(MP) 1164
Courts may admit documents if originals are lost, but genuineness must still be proved. Under Section 311 CrPC, recall for manipulated evidence is possible if it prevents justice failure. However, recall of witness is not a matter of course—discretion has to be exercised judiciously. Ram Gopal Gupta VS The State of Madhya Pradesh - 2023 Supreme(MP) 9
In forgery claims, like a fabricated building certificate, proceedings were quashed for lack of substance. The continuation of proceedings against the petitioner amounted to an abuse of process of court. A. N. Lokesh VS Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance & Anti-Corruption, Tiruvannamalai - 2022 Supreme(Mad) 3369
Burden remains on prosecution: The burden will be on prosecution to prove that a particular story referred in such document is not a correct story. Baban Datta Gaikwad VS State of Maharashtra - 2021 Supreme(Bom) 887
Non-supply of documents doesn't vitiate trials if provided later. If the prosecution, for any good reason, has thought fit not to provide certain documents... such document can always be relied upon in the course of the trial. Jayeshbhai Khemchandbhai Patel VS State of Gujarat - 2017 Supreme(Guj) 596
Generally, courts may compel prosecution under Section 91 CrPC to produce called documents if essential for justice, but not if they are tampered without safeguards like Section 65B certification. Reliance on such evidence is untenable, potentially leading to exclusion. Sundaran, S/o Raghavan VS State Of Kerala - 2023 0 Supreme(Ker) 358Sejal Basavraj Talloli VS State of Gujarat - 2018 0 Supreme(Guj) 328
Key Takeaways:- Authentication trumps mere production.- Electronic evidence demands certificates.- Fair trial rights include document access. Kalyani Singh VS Central Bureau of Investigation - 2023 Supreme(P&H) 2163- Judicial discretion balances interests. Ram Gopal Gupta VS The State of Madhya Pradesh - 2023 Supreme(MP) 9
This framework ensures trustworthy evidence, upholding justice. For tailored advice, reach out to a legal expert.
#CrPCSection91, #EvidenceAct65B, #LegalIndia
During the course of trial at the stage of evidence, the prosecution filed an application below Exhibit 120 seeking permission from the Court to produce on record some important documents which were necessary for the purpose of trial. ... It is only the material that is collected during the course of evidence and is produced along with charge-sheet that can be relied upon by the prosecution. The material ....
On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer for the State has contended that learned trial Court was fully justified in allowing the application under section 311 of Cr.P.C filed by prosecution as whole prosecution case depends on the manipulated cheques which were earlier not exhibited by calling the same ... It is not a case of lacuna but the failure of prosecution to produce original manipulated#....
The contention in the afÏdavit of the respondent that the construction agreement dated 23.04.2010 presented by the petitioner is a fabricated and tempered document and the said agreement was never executed between the parties and hence, not binding upon the respondent, cannot be appreciated at the pre ... The petitioner herein has relied upon the construction agreement dated 23.04.2010 appended at Annexure ‘A’, Page No. ‘11’ of the Paper-bo....
The learned trial court has refused to give its copy on the ground that If it is cloned, the data may get deleted and may also be tempered with causing disappearance of important evidence. Therefore, the learned trial court rejected the application dated 03.09.2022. ... A document which has been obtained bona fide and has bearing on the case of the prosecution and in the opinion of the Public Prosecutor, ....
However, the defacto complainant (R2) appeared and submitted that the alleged varthamana letter and other agreements relied upon by the petitioner are fabricated and manipulated documents created for unlawful gain, and that no amount has been repaid till date. ... had been manipulated by the petitioner to defraud him. ... Without any material evidence, it cannot be presumed that the amount was repaid or that the documents were man....
The above provision provides that when a 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 ... - (1) Where any document is filed before any Court by the prosecution or the accused, the part....
Another report was submitted for DU 0035 with a conclusion that this unit has also been manipulated. ... The same analogy applies to the totaliser seal if it is found to be tempered. ... and accordingly, as per the photographs of DU 1387 the W&M seal was found tempered. ... The fact-finding inquiry cannot be compared with a full-fledged trial in civil suits or criminal trials where the witnesses are called upon to depose o....
In such a case, interference in the impugned order sought for by the 2nd accused/revision petitioner could not succeed as the prosecution materials make a prima facie case, warranting trial of the accused, after framing charge. ... According to the learned senior counsel, though the 2nd accused was evicted, as per the proceedings, relied on by the prosecution, the same by itself would not depict the fact that the 2nd accus....
The documents relied upon by the prosecution/CBI were furnished to the petitioner. ... (iv) In a case where the 'relied upon' document/evidence is in digital form (electronic data) stored in a device/storage device wherein other data is also stored which is 'un-relied' document then as to whether the accused would be entitled to a copy of the entire stored ... Fourth Question: (iv) In....
Further in Exhibit-N(17) the date, 1.11.95 appears to have been fabricated/tempered as such, the document marked as Exhibit-N(17) cannot be accepted. ... is found to be tempered/fabricated on the face of it. ... He also said that the period of service in Annexure- N/1, N/36 are also manipulated. ... The decision in the case of Director, Fisheries Terminal Department (supra) relied upon by Mr. ... He categ....
According to the Petitioner, the document issued by the private Engineer as license holder cannot be put against him to make a claim that on the date of issuance of building permission on 03.7.2014, there exists a building. 6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner/A4 would further contend that the alleged certificate issued by the Licensed Engineer is a forged and fabricated, in which instead of mentioning the subject property as proposed building, he has mentioned it as building and relied upon ....
In fact the burden will be on prosecution to prove that a particular story referred in such document is not a correct story but the story is otherwise. The Court has to consider such document relied upon by the prosecution and admitted by the accused. If prosecution files a particular paper and accused admits it, you cannot put the responsibility on the accused to prove it and draw an adverse inference for the failure.
The FSL report is the scientific and extremely important piece of evidence. It is also pointed out that it is not the case of appellant that the said FSL report was tempered or manipulated one, as such the aforesaid FSL report stands proved and can easily be relied upon.
The Supreme Court in the case of State of M.P. Vs. Sheetala Sahai and others reported in (2009) 8 SCC 617 has held as under:- It is a well established principle of law that a prosecution document even if it remains unexhibited can be relied upon by an accused, if the said document is in favour of the accused, or even at the time of framing charge the prosecution document, in favour of the accused has to be taken into favour. If the prosecution is directed to investigate the m....
In such circumstances, the provisions of Section 207 of the Code will have to be given a liberal and relevant meaning so as to achieve its object. [4] If the prosecution, for any good reason, has thought fit not to provide certain documents to the accused at the stage of framing of the charge or there is some omission on its end in this regard, then such document can always be relied upon in the course of the trial and can be produced subsequently. [3] In contradistinction to....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
