Supreme Court: Whether accused Can ask the court to Exhibit Documents as per S.294 CrPC already Part Of Chargesheet Without Formal Proof Of Signature?

6) In the facts of the present case, it is clear

that the documents as sought to be marked as

exhibits by the appellant are part of the

chargesheet and of documents produced by the

prosecution. The appellant, through averments made

in the application, contends that these documents

were included in the list of documents of

prosecution. Learned Additional Solicitor General,

appearing for the CBI, disputes this fact, but on

prima facie examination of the record, it suggests

that the documents sought by accused formed part of

the list of documents produced by CBI. Nevertheless,

we reserve the CBI’s liberty to raise this objection

at the appropriate stage before court.

7) We have further perused the findings as

recorded by the High Court relying upon the judgment

in State of Punjab Vs Naib Din (2001) 8 SCC 578. The said judgment deals with the provisions of Section 296 Cr.P.C.

which relates to the evidence of formal character on

affidavit; it has nothing to do with the case

wherein no formal proof of certain documents are

required. It is needless to express that Section 294

Cr.P.C. deals with documentary evidence while

Section 296 Cr.P.C. deals with the formal character

of some evidence which is on affidavit. Therefore,

the ratio of the judgment in the case of Naib Din

(supra) is, in fact, not applicable, in particular,

while rejecting the application under Section 294

Cr.P.C. it is the duty of the Court to uphold the

spirit of the provision, particularly with regard to

the documents for which the application has been

filed. The order has to be passed after ascertaining

the genuineness of such document by admission or

denial or by proof, if any required.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2026

R. GANESH Vsv THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU 

Dated: April 27, 2026.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Whether the court can permit Accused to Exhibit Documents as per S.294 CrPC, Already Part Of Chargesheet Without Formal Proof Of Signature?

 In order to duly appreciate the provisions of

Section 294 Cr.P.C., it is necessary to refer to the

provision which is reproduced as under:

“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 be prescribed by the State

Government.

(3) Where the genuineness of any

document is not disputed, such document

may be read in evidence in 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.”{Para 4}

5) After perusal thereof, it cannot be doubted

that in case any document has been filed by the

prosecution or the accused in any Court, such

document is required to be included in a list. The

genuineness of the documents included in the list

can be ascertained by the Court by calling upon the

prosecution or the accused, as the case may be. If

such document is not disputed, it can be read in

inquiry, trial or other proceedings under Cr.P.C.

without proving the signature of the person to whom

it purports to be. As per proviso thereto, if

necessary, it is on the discretion of the Court to

require such signature to be proved, while applying

the provision of Section 294 (3) Cr.P.C.

6) In the facts of the present case, it is clear

that the documents as sought to be marked as

exhibits by the appellant are part of the

chargesheet and of documents produced by the

prosecution. The appellant, through averments made

in the application, contends that these documents

were included in the list of documents of

prosecution. Learned Additional Solicitor General,

appearing for the CBI, disputes this fact, but on

prima facie examination of the record, it suggests

that the documents sought by accused formed part of

the list of documents produced by CBI. Nevertheless,

we reserve the CBI’s liberty to raise this objection

at the appropriate stage before court.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2026

(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 1383 of 2026)

R. GANESH Vs THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU 

Dated: April 27, 2026.

Print Page

Bombay HC: Under which circumstances the court can rely on post-mortem report even though prosecution has not proved it by examining doctor?

We accordingly hold that sub-section (3) of 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. In our view, Ganpat Raoji's case MANU/MH/0292/1979 is not correctly decided. {Para 18}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Criminal Appeal No. 970 of 1979

Decided On: 09.02.1981

Farid Hussinsab Vs. The State of Maharashtra

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Venkat Shrinivas Deshpande, C.J., D.M. Rege and M.N. Chandurkar, JJ.

Author: Venkat Shrinivas Deshpande, C.J.

Citation:  MANU/MH/0030/1981

Print Page

Supreme Court: Prosecution Documents admitted As Genuine U/S 294 of CRPC By defence can be read as substantive evidence to prove the correctness of its contents without examining its author

 Also, this Court in the case of Akhtar vs.

State of Uttaranchal (2009) 13 SCC 722 has held in para 21 as

under:

“21. It has been argued that nonexamination of the

 concerned medical

officers is fatal for the prosecution. However,

there is no denial of the fact that the defence

admitted the genuineness of the injury

reports and the poot-mortem examination

reports before the trial court. So the

genuineness and authenticity of the

documents stands proved and shall be

treated as valid evidence under Section 294

of the CrPC. It is settled position of law that

if the genuineness of any document filed by

a party is not disputed by the opposite party

it can be read as substantive evidence under

sub-section (3) of Section 294 CrPC.

Accordingly, the post-mortem report, if its

genuineness is not disputed by the opposite

party, the said post-mortem report can be

read as substantive evidence to prove the

correctness of its contents without the doctor

concerned being examined.”{Para 20}

Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. OF 2024

SHYAM NARAYAN RAM Vs STATE OF U.P. & ANR.

Author: VIKRAM NATH, J.

Citation: 2024 INSC 800.

Print Page

Supreme Court: if the genuineness of any document filed by prosecution is not disputed by defence it can be read as substantive evidence U/S 294(3) CrPC

  Also, this Court in the case of Akhtar vs. State of Uttaranchal (2009) 13 SCC 722 has held in para 21 as

under:

“21. It has been argued that non-examination of the

 concerned medical officers is fatal for the prosecution.

 However, there is no denial of the fact that the defence

admitted the genuineness of the injury

reports and the post-mortem examination

reports before the trial court. So the

genuineness and authenticity of the

documents stands proved and shall be

treated as valid evidence under Section 294

of the CrPC. It is settled position of law that

if the genuineness of any document filed by

a party is not disputed by the opposite party

it can be read as substantive evidence under

sub-section (3) of Section 294 CrPC.

Accordingly, the post-mortem report, if its

genuineness is not disputed by the opposite

party, the said post-mortem report can be

read as substantive evidence to prove the

correctness of its contents without the doctor

concerned being examined.” {Para 20}

21. On a plain reading of section 294 CrPC

and its interpretation by this Court in the above

judgments, we do not find any error in the

judgment of the Trial Court and particularly

considering the facts of the present case where

the defence repeatedly continued to admit the

genuineness of the prosecution documents

exempting them from formal proof.

Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. OF 2024

SHYAM NARAYAN RAM Vs  STATE OF U.P. & ANR. ETC.

Coram: VIKRAM NATH, J.

Citation: 2024 INSC 800.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Calling Accused To Admit/Deny Genuineness Of Documents Produced By Prosecution U/ S. 294 CrPC Not Violation Of Article 20(3) of constitution

After having heard the learned senior counsel, Mr. Dave for the petitioner and having perused Section 294 of Cr.P.C., we are of the opinion that calling upon the accused to admit or deny the genuineness of the documents produced by the prosecution alongwith the list under Section 294 of Cr.P.C., could not be said to be in any way prejudicial to the right of the accused, nor could it be said to be compelling him to be a witness against himself as contemplated under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India.{Para 2}

 S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).8535/2024

ASHOK DAGA Vs  DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT 

CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE BELA M. TRIVEDI

 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA

Date : 12-07-2024 This petition was called on for hearing today.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Calling Accused To Admit/Deny Genuineness Of Documents Produced By Prosecution U/S 294 of CRPC is Not in Violation Of Article 20(3) of consitution

 After having heard the learned senior counsel, Mr. Dave forthe petitioner and having perused Section 294 of Cr.P.C., we are of the opinion that calling upon the accused to admit or deny the genuineness of the documents produced by the prosecution alongwith the list under Section 294 of Cr.P.C., could not be said to be in any way prejudicial to the right of the accused, nor could it be said to be compelling him to be a witness against himself as contemplated under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India.

{Para 2}

 S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).8535/2024

ASHOK DAGA Vs DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT 

CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE BELA M. TRIVEDI

 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA

Date : 12-07-2024 This petition was called on for hearing today.

Print Page

Under which circumstances,the court should not convict accused for an offence U/S 376(2) of IPC relying on Whatsapp Chat between prosecutrix and accused?

 In this case, no charge was framed against the Appellant- Accused for the offence punishable under Clause (f) of Sub-section (2) of Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. A perusal of Clause (f) of Sub-section (2) of Section 376 shows that the punishment for the offence covered by Sub-section (2) of Section 376 is more stringent than the punishment for the offence Under Sub-section (1) of Section 376. In the absence of the charge framed at any stage against the Appellant-Accused for the offence punishable under Clause (f) of Sub-section (2) of Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, now, at this stage, neither the prosecution nor the victim can contend that Clause (f) of Sub-section (2) of Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code was applicable. Another important aspect which goes to the root of the matter is that in his examination Under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the case that he was in a position of trust to the victim, was not put to him. In any event, the contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the Prosecutrix that the Appellant-Accused was a person in a position of trust as far as the Prosecutrix is concerned is completely erroneous. There was no fiduciary relationship between the Appellant-Accused and the Prosecutrix, which will be apparent when we examine the Prosecutrix's evidence. Therefore, on the face of it, the presumption Under Section 114A of the Evidence Act will not apply, and, therefore, the burden will be on the prosecution to prove that the sexual intercourse was without the consent of the Prosecutrix. We may also add here that in our jurisprudence unless there is a specific legislative provision which puts a negative burden on the Accused, there is no burden on the Accused to lead evidence for proving his innocence. The Accused may have some burden to discharge in case of a statutory prescription, such as Section 114A of the Evidence Act. In this case, the burden was on the prosecution to lead evidence to prove the guilt of the Accused beyond a reasonable doubt. {Para 11}

21. Firstly, the learned Counsel appearing for the Prosecutrix admitted that the prosecution did not produce the WhatsApp messages before the recording of evidence commenced. According to his version, the same was produced when the Prosecutrix was under cross-examination. The essential ingredient of Sub-section (1) of Section 294 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is that when any document is produced by the prosecution or the Accused, the parties shall be called upon to admit or deny the genuineness of each such document. In this case, it is nobody's case that the Appellant-Accused was called upon to admit or deny the genuineness of the WhatsApp chats. Moreover, Sub-section (3) of Section 294 of the Code of Criminal Procedure indicates that even if a particular document is not disputed, the Court has the discretion to read or not to read the same in evidence without formal proof of the signature of the person to whom it purports to be signed. The Court always has the power to require the signature to be proved. Therefore, the contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the Prosecutrix based on Section 294 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has absolutely no merit. In any case, a certificate Under Section 65B of the Evidence Act has not been produced.

22. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the prosecution has failed to prove the Appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Hence, the impugned orders cannot be sustained, and they are hereby quashed and set aside. The Appellant-Accused is acquitted of the charges framed against him.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 1753/2023

Decided On: 21.03.2024

Pankaj Singh Vs. The State of Haryana

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Abhay Shreeniwas Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ.

Author: Abhay Shreeniwas Oka, J.

Citation:  MANU/SC/0254/2024.

Print Page

When court can not compel accused to admit documents of complainant U/S 294 of CRPC?

The question that arises for consideration is whether, in the

facts, the respondent No.1 can be compelled to admit Annexure `C’ i.e. transcript of the alleged speech, by taking recourse to the provisions of the Evidence Act. The answer is `No’. The scope and import of Section 294 Cr.P.C is very clear i.e. to shorten the prosecution evidence and to ensure that certain documents when admitted by the accused, need not be proved by the prosecution. The legislative intent was not to bind the accused persons or compel them to admit or deny the genuineness of the documents produced by the prosecution. It is well settled that if an accused is compelled to deny or admit a document, it would be contrary to the constitutional mandate, inasmuch as, it would violate Article 20(3) of the

Constitution of India. In the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Ajay

Dayaram Gopnarayan (Supra), this Court in para 28 has observed as

under:

“…. The intention of the Legislature was not to bind the

accused persons or force him to admit or deny the

genuineness of the documents produced by the prosecution

that is why the court would not be justified in passing the

order directing accused to admit or deny the documents,

obviously since it would violate Article 20(3) of the

Constitution of India.”

Similarly, in Niwas Keshav Raut (Supra), this Court has, in

para 11 observed as under :

“…. Then it is not necessary for the accused, who is called

upon to admit or deny the document, to choose either of

these options and he may simply keep silence in respect of

the document which may as well be an expression of his

fundamental right under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of

India which says that no person accused of any offence shall

be compelled to be witness against himself. In case the

accused chooses to deny the document or just remain silent

in the regard, the document cannot be admitted in evidence

and it would be required to be proved in accordance with

law having regard to the right of the accused under Article

20(3) of the Constitution of India.”

13 Thus, it is clearly evident that an accused cannot be compelled

to admit/deny any document. The right of an accused to remain silent flows

from the Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India and is sacrosanct in a

criminal trial. No Court can compel or direct an accused to admit/deny any

document. It is also not the intent of the legislature under Section 294

Cr.P.C.

14 As noted above, the CD is a document of the petitioner relied

upon by him in the complaint and is also annexed to the list of documents.

Merely because a document of the complainant (petitioner) is annexed to

the petition filed by the respondent No. 1, would not make such a document

a `public document’, obtained from whichever source, thus giving a

complete go-by to the complainant (petitioner) from proving the same in

accordance with law. As noted earlier, prosecution/complainant has to

stand on its own feet and prove its case on its own steam.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.376 OF 2019

Rajesh Mahadev Kunte, Vs  Rahul Rajeev Gandhi,

CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.

PRONOUNCED ON : 20 th SEPTEMBER 2021

Print Page