Whether contents of a document can be proved by mere identification of signature of person on that document?

Further, it is the case of the appellant
that the aforesaid two letters were given by one Shri M.P.
Agrawal-a former Director of the Respondent No. 1. Shri M.P.

Agrawal has not been produced as a witness so as to establish
that these two letters were in fact given by the Mill Mazdoor
Sabha. Further, in the statement of Mr. Vasant Gupte (PW-2),he has only stated that the letter must have ben sent by theMill Mazdoor Sabha and the post-script might have been
written by Mr. Pathak as it bears his signature. He had not
stated that it was written in his presence. Mere identifying the
signature of Mr. Pathak does not prove the contents of the saidletter which is being relied upon by the appellant. Even if the
two letters viz., Exh. Nos. P-27 and P-28 are taken into
consideration, from a reading of the said letters, it appears
that the contents are contradictory of one another. In the
letter dated 05.12.1977 (Exh. P-27), in the underlined portion
reproduced above, we find that the Mill Mazdoor Sabha had
demanded an option to provide alternate employment and to
pay full compensation to those workers who do not want
alternate employment as per the law. In the note below the
said letter, a mention has been made that a proposal was
given to pay 60 per cent compensation which was not
acceptable.

 In the earlier part of the letter dated 10.01.1978 (Exh.
P-28), it has been specifically mentioned that they do not agree
to the proposed sale and the matter be treated as closed.
However, in the note, it is mentioned that they are agreeable to
the proposal given in the discussion and to the proposed sale.
Letter dated 10.01.1978 is contradictory to the earlier part of
the letter, and therefore, in our considered opinion, the
Division Bench had rightly disbelieved these two letters viz.,
Exh. P-27 and Exh. P-28.

 REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1148 OF 2010
Nandkishore Lalbhai Mehta .... Appellant(s)
Versus
New Era Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. .... Respondent(s)
 WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NOs. 1131-1132 OF 2010
Citation;(2015) 9 SCC 755

Read full judgment here; click here

Print Page

Whether Suicide note written by deceased found in her clothes can be treated as dying declaration?

In the case ''State v. Maregowda, 2002 (1) RCR (Criminal) 376 (Karnataka) (DB)'', it was held  that ''A suicide note written found in the clothes of the deceased it is in the nature of dying declaration  and is admissible in evidence under section 32 of Indian Evidence Act''. -1

What is equally curious was that the rejection of Ex. P. 3-suicide note by the Trial Court on the ground that identification of the handwriting of the deceased by the father and other relations was not sufficient, since they are interested witnesses. Who else could identify the daughter's signature better than the father? Equally erroneous was the reasoning of the Trial Court that the suicide note cannot be accepted because it was written on the reverse side of Electrol card and written in red ink. We asked ourselves the question where was the need for the Trial Court to reject Ex. P. 3 merely because it was in red ink or on the reverse of a electral card. The Trial Court conveniently forgot that if the suicide note was fabricated there would have been allegations with respect to the dowry. All that Ex. P. 3 states is that certain people owe monies to her and her husband was the main cause for her suicide. The deceased further states in the suicide note that the difficulty she had faced should not come to anybody else. A prayer in anguish on brink of death cannot be rejected for flippant reasons. The Trial Court hurt the memory of the deceased by giving such insensitive reasons.

15-A. We have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that Ex. P. 3 which was identified by the relations of the deceased is a genuine document found in the clothes of the deceased and was undoubtedly in the nature of a dying declaration which was perfectly admissible in evidence under Section 32 of the Evidence Act.1

Karnataka High Court

State By Kamakshipalya Police, ... vs Maregowda And Ors. on 27 August, 2001

Equivalent citations: 2001 CriLJ 4491, I (2002) DMC 458, ILR 2001 KAR 4657

Author: K Rajaratnam

Bench: K Rajaratnam, V Sabhahit

Print Page