Whether it is necessary for a party to produce negative of photograph along with photo for confronting witness in cross examination?

Order 7 Rule 14(3), Order 8 Rule 1A(4) and Order 13 Rule 1(3) all provide that the rule for filing a document alongwith pleadings and/or before the settlement of issues does not apply to documents with which a witness may be confronted in his cross examination. The question which arises is as to with what documents a witness can be confronted; whether with those mentioned in Sections 144 and 145 of the Evidence Act only or with others also. In the opinion of this court, no limitation can be placed on the documents which can be confronted to the witness. The present case itself gives a classic illustration in this regard. The witness is an architect who claims to have inspected the property and reported that the tenants have carried out unauthorized changes in the property and which changes have lowered the value, utility or security of the building. The endeavour of the cross examining party would be to falsify the said report. The same can be done by showing to the said witness the photographs or other material which would run contrary to the testimony or report of the said witness. Such material would not necessarily be one to which the witness would be a signatory or a scribe. The said material can be in the form of photographs and from the replies of the witness to the said material it can be established whether the witness has visited the property or not and has inspected the same or not and whether his reporting is correct or not. For instance if the witness has deposed as to the weakening of the structure by removal of a wall and if from the photograph it is apparent that the wall was merely the partition wall and the structure is otherwise supported by pillars and beams then I see no reason why such photographs cannot be shown to the witness and/or why he cannot be confronted with the same.

7. The contention qua negatives is also not correct. The negatives are required when photographs are sought to be proved in examination in chief and not when used for confronting the witness.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI

C.M.(M) Nos. 692, 702, 9953 and 10057/2009

Decided On: 30.11.2009

 Surinder Kumar Bajaj  Vs.  Sheela Rani Pasricha

Print Page

Whether photograph can be proved even if its negative is not produced?

It is contended by counsel on behalf of the Defendant that the photographs can only be proved by producing the negative of the photographs and by leading evidence of the photographer. This dogmatic approach to consider the admissibility of only photograph   as   evidence   is   oft   applied   by   relying   upon   two judgments of this Court in the case of Laxman Ganpati Khot V. Anusuyabai, AIR 1976, (BOM)168 and Sabera Begum Vs. G M Ansari, 1978 LawSuit (Bom) 106. The judgments lay down a sound mode of proof of a photograph; in the facts of the case of Laxman (Supra), the only mode of proof.  However, that is not only way in which a photograph, like any other document under all circumstances, could be proved.   In the case of Laxman (Supra), the negative was sought to be proved. From the negative an enlarged print was made which was sought to be proved.   Such enlargement was made by a mechanical device by an expert who was the photographer.   How this law came to be laid down in the case of  Laxman (supra) must be first appreciated.    That was the case in which an adoption of a boy was sought to be proved.   One of the documentary evidence relied upon in support of the adoption ceremony which was alleged was a negative of a photograph of the adoption ceremony; not the positive of the photograph. The son of the then deceased photographer deposed.  He produced the negative of the photograph after he was shown the positive photograph and called upon to search the negative from his father's records.  He produced the negative and deposed that he could not say whether that negative was prepared by his father. Hence it was held that the negative was not duly proved and was not admissible in evidence.  The judgment essentially deals with the mode of proof of a negative of a photograph and the admissibility   of   such   a   negative.     The   judgment   does   NOT consider the admissibility of a positive photograph.    The ruling run thus :  It is only when the person who takes a photograph and develops it into a negative himself comes into the box and deposes to both those facts that a negative becomes admissible in evidence. Together with such a negative the positive photograph which was given to the witness to search out its negative was not produced.   An enlarged print made from another photo print in respect of which the negative was lost was produced.     It was observed that as regards the admissibility of such enlarged print,   the position was worse.  The observation of the Court why the print of a photograph cannot be admissible runs thus :    ….. no print or enlargement can be admitted in evidence without its negative being produced and proved in the manner already indicated above.   That   was   not   the   photograph,   but   an   enlargement   of   the photograph.   It could be made only by a skilled mechanical process.  Hence the observation.   A simple photograph may be taken by any one.   It may be developed by any other.  The person taking the photograph or the  person  present when  it was taken  can  depose  as to its taking, much as a person writing or signing a document or present when it is written or signed can depose as to that fact. Upon such deposition the writing becomes admissible subject, of course,   to cross examination  of the  witness proving the document.     A photograph is much the same.   It has to be identified.     Evidence   has   to   be   led   about   the   truth   of   the contents   of   the   photograph   which   is   done   upon   such identification.  A photograph, or any other document, may be proved by any of the 7 ways in which any document may be proved as set out in the case of Rani Bai Vs, LIC,  A 1981 MP 69 pg. 72.   There is nothing in law which bars proof of a photograph by the person taking (clicking) the photograph who may be analogous to a scribe or signatory of a document, a person present when it was taken, the expert (photographer) who took the photograph and developed it from its negative, the acquaintance being the person who is acquainted with the contents of the photograph i.e. the persons or objects therein, or even the person who can compare its contents with other evidence.   What must be appreciated is that admissibility of a document is a stage prior to appreciation of such documentary evidence. What   would   not   be   admitted   into   evidence   cannot   be appreciated  upon marshalling the evidence.  Hence to consider the merits of a given case, admitting a document in evidence must be upon the direct oral evidence of its existence.   Such evidence enjoins its admittance into evidence so as to give the witness,   or   the   party   producing   such   evidence   though   such witness, the right of being heard upon the case he seeks to make out.  Considering admissibility of documentary evidence does not allow a court to bar a party from being heard upon the evidence sought to be produced.  The technicality that only one mode of evidence set out in a judgment must be adhered to without seeking exceptions or variations, or without application of mind by any other mode, is to not allow party the right to be heard upon documentary evidence he / she seeks to produce because it happens to be a photograph.  If this were so, no photographs can in future be ever admitted in evidence as they all would be digital productions having no negatives.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY  ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION TESTAMENTARY SUIT NO.19 OF 1999 IN TESTAMENTARY PETITION NO.864 OF 1996 

Ronald Fernandes V. Mrs. Rita Pinto         CORAM :   MRS. ROSHAN DALVI, J.            

DATE     :   8th      May, 2013. 

Print Page

Whether enlarged photograph can be admitted in evidence unless person who has taken said photograph is examined?

 The photographs in my view and as also held by the learned District Judge, are not sufficient to prove the factum of marriage, especially when the same are not exhibited and proved on record in accordance with the Evidence Act. The appellant has taken no steps to lead secondary evidence in order to prove the said photographs. The photographs are not per se admissible. A Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in the case of Laxman Ganpati Khot and others Vs. Anusuyabai and another, AIR 1976 Bombay 264I, held as follows:-

"It is only when the person who takes a photographs and develops it into a negative himself comes into the box and deposes to both these facts,that a negative become admissible in evidence. As far as the enlarged print is concerned, the position is still worse for no print or enlargement can be admitted in evidence without its negative being produced and proved in the manner indicated above."

Therefore, the photographs are not to be read in evidence.

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Ramesh Kumar vs Sharda Devi @ Asha Devi on 4 November, 2009

Print Page