Should Court pass order of status-quo unless the status of the suit property is admitted by the parties or shown to Court by photographs or otherwise?

  Mr. Madon applies for an order of "statusquo" for 4 weeks. There is no admitted status quo by the parties in the suit property. The Court cannot pass any order of "statusquo" unless the status of the suit property is admitted by the parties or shown to Court by photographs or otherwise.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

R.S. DALVI, J.

Vimal Builders Vs. Nand Kumar Anant Vaity & Ors.

Notice of Motion No.3514 of 2008,Suit No.2715 of 2007

3rd March, 2009

Citation: 2009(3) ALL MR 559

Print Page

Whether court can permit the accused's identification by victim in the court by showing his photograph to her?

 Firstly, we would like to appreciate the submission of the

learned counsel as to whether identification of both the accused by

the “victim” was proper identification or not because they were

identified by the “victim” in the Court from their photographs. {Para 66}

67. The first information report would show that apart from

penal provisions of the Indian Penal Code, the Investigation Officer

also registered the offence under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012.

Similarly, the charge was also framed against both the accused for

the offence punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act. Clause

(d) of Section 2 of the POCSO Act defines “child” and according to

the said provision, the “child” means – “any person below the age of

eighteen years.”

 68. In the earlier part of this judgment, we have already

dealt with the issue of age and has recorded a finding that the victim

was a “child” under the provisions of the POCSO Act. The trial was

conducted in the Court of learned Special Judge, Buldhana as Special

(POCSO) Case No. 27/2019.

69. The POCSO Act was enacted to protect the children from

the offence of sexual assault, sexual harassment and pornography

and provide for establishment of Special Courts for trial of such

offences and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.

Chapter V of the POCSO Act deals with the procedure for reporting

of cases. Chapter VI of the said Act deals with the procedure for

recording the statement of the child ; and Chapter VIII of the Act

deals with the procedure and powers of the Special Courts of

recording of evidence.

70. Section 36 of the POCSO Act is reproduced hereunder :

“Section 36 – Child not to see at the time of testifying -

(1) The Special Court shall ensure that the Child is

not exposed in any way to the accused at the time

of recording of the evidence, while at the same

time ensuring that the accused is in a position to

hear the statement of the child and communicate

with his advocate.

(2) For the purposes of sub-section (1), the Special

Court may record the statement of a child through

video conferencing or by utilizing single visibility

mirrors or curtains or any other device.”

Sub-section 1 of Section 36 mandates the Special Court

that the said Court shall ensure that the child is not exposed in any

way to the accused at the time of recording of evidence, while at the

same time ensuring that the accused is in a position to hear the

statement of the child and communicate with his advocate. Subsection 2 of Section 36 also permits the Special Court to record

statement of the child through video conferencing.

71. In our view, in order to give complete meaning to subsection

1 of Section 36 of the POCSO Act, the learned Special Judge

was absolutely right in recording evidence of the “victim” in respect of identification of accused persons by allowing the learned prosecutor to show their photographs. Further it was never the case of any of the accused either during trial or even before this Court that the photographs of the accused were not shown to the victim. Even it was not their case either during trial or even before this Court that the accused persons were not having opportunity to hear the statement of the child i.e. “victim” and they were unable to

communicate with their advocate in that behalf. In view of this, we

have no hesitation in our mind to reject the submission made by the

learned counsel that the identification of accused persons in the

Court by the “victim” is vitiated because they were identified by the

“victim” through photographs.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

: NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.

CRIMINAL CONFIRMATION CASE NO. 01 OF 2020

 State of Maharashtra, Vs  Sagar Vishwanath Borkar,

Print Page

Does posting a person's name or photograph on a pornographic website amount to a breach of that person's privacy?

 In the present case, the petitioner's photographs and images, though not in themselves obscene or offensive, were taken from her Facebook and Instagram accounts without her consent and were uploaded on a pornographic website, adding derogatory captions to them. It is an irrefutable proposition that if the name and/or likeness of a person appears on a pornographic website, as in the present case, without the the consent or concurrence of such person, such act would by and in itself amount to an offence inter-alia under section 67 of the IT Act. This is so since section 67 makes it an offence to publish or transmit, or causes to be published or transmitted, in the electronic form, any material which appeals to the prurient interests of those who are likely, having regard to all relevant circumstances, to read, see or hear the matter contained or embodied in it. The only purpose of posting the petitioner's photograph on a pornographic website could be to use it to appeal to the prurient interests of those who are likely to see it. That apart, the inclusion of the name and/or likeness of a person on such website, even if the photograph of the person is not in itself obscene or offensive, without consent or concurrence, would at the very least amount to breach of the person's privacy, which a court may, in appropriate cases, injunct or restrain. It is is evident that such publication would likely result in ostracisation and stigmatisation of the person concerned in society; and therefore immediate and efficacious remedy is required in such cases. {Para 86}

 In the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

(Before Anup Jairam Bhambhani, J.)

‘X’  Vs  Union of India and Others 

W.P.(CRL) 1082/2020 & Crl. M.A. Nos. 9485/2020, 10986-87/2020

Decided on April 20, 2021

Citation: 2021 SCC OnLine Del 1788.

Print Page

Whether identification of accused by photograph is permissible?

It is contended that the evidence of PWs 19 and 31 with regard to the identification of the accused Laxmi Raj Shetty before the Court of Sessions for the first time without any prior test identification parade was not of any value but we are not impressed. Later both these witnesses saw the photograph of the accused carried by PW 50 Deviasigamani and identified him to be the person involved. In the world as a whole today, the identification by photographs is the only method generally used by the Interpol and other crime detecting agencies for identification of criminals engaged in drug trafficking, narcotics and other economic offences as also in other international crimes. Such identification must take the place of a test identification.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 36 of 1987

Decided On: 26.04.1988

 Laxmi Raj Shetty  Vs. State of Tamil Nadu

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
A.P. Sen and L.M. Sharma, JJ.
 Citation : AIR 1988 SC 1274

Print Page

Whether husband can prove that wife is earning income by filing photograph showing her presence at beauty parlour?

The claim of the petitioner that the first respondent is earning her livelihood from work in a parlour is founded on some photographs showing her presence at a certain place. This, to say the least, is not sufficient evidence to show that she has regular income sufficient to maintain herself and the minor daughter of the parties. The denial of this on the part of the respondents cannot be disbelieved at this stage, the burden being of the petitioner to prove his contentions by better proof.

In the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

(Before R.K. Gauba, J.)

Khem Chand  v. Bhagwati alias Laxmi

Crl. M.C. 812/2016 & Crl.M.A. 3423/2016

Decided on January 22, 2019

Citation: 2019 SCC OnLine Del 6776

Print Page

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 court should permit production for photograph for the purpose of confronting plaintiff's witness?

 The learned counsel for the applicant contends that the photographs were produced in the course of the cross-examination of plaintiff's witness No. 1 only with a view to confront him with the assertion made by him in the deposition that he did not attend any function in question. According to him, the relevant provisions applicable for such situation would be sub-rule (3) of Rule 8A of Order VIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which permits production of document at the time of cross-examination of the plaintiffs witness. It is therefore, submitted that the Court below has clearly overlooked this provision while deciding the application below Exh. 91. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the non-applicant, besides the reasons assigned by the trial Court, also relied upon Order XVIII, Rule 17A to contend that it was not open to the plaintiff to produce document at such belated stage.

4. Having considered rival arguments, I am of the view that the Court below has clearly overlooked the provisions of Sub-rule (3) of Rule 8 A of Order VIII of Civil Procedure Code, which entitles the applicant to produce the document during the cross-examination of the plaintiffs witness. The Court below therefore, ought to have permitted the applicant to produce the said document as the same was being produced for the limited purpose of confronting the plaintiffs witness No. 1.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (NAGPUR BENCH)

C.R.A. No. 816 of 2000

Decided On: 07.09.2000

Herald Prashant Lal Vs.  Dorthy

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.

Citation: 2001(1) ALLMR 152

Print Page

Whether sub tenancy can be proved on basis of photograph?

 Without going into the question whether the petition was maintainable or not, we find the assessment made by the High Court to be completely incorrect. The fact that the sub-tenant was carrying on business from the suit shop was admitted by him when he stepped into the witness box as D.W. 2. This assertion is equally supported by the photographs which were placed on record by the Appellant-landlord. It is common knowledge that normally in jewellery business the person who sits on the gaddi is the owner of the business in question. Be that as it may, once this fact stood admitted by D.W. 2, the findings recorded by the courts below were perfectly right and justified. Even if we were to consider the petition filed in the High Court to be one under Article 227 and not under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, there was no justification to upset the findings of fact concurrently recorded by courts below which findings are well-supported by the evidence on record.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

C.A. No. 5599 of 2010

Decided On: 21.07.2016

Devendra Prakash Bansal Vs. Sunil Kumar Verma and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla and U.U. Lalit, JJ.

Citation: (2016) 14 SCC 283.

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 Photographs from Google Earth are admissible in evidence ?

 Contention advanced by learned counsel is that in so far as no separate location plan has been prepared by the local authority including the area in question as within CRZ-I, Map No.66A prepared by the KSCZMA is arbitrary and illegal. It is clear that Map No.66A prepared by the KSCZMA in the year 1995 is approved by the Central Government. It is indicated by the stand of the Society also that the area in question is included in Map No.66A prepared by the KSCZMA in that the Society has sought for a declaration in its Writ Petition and that the said plan is arbitrary and illegal. We have referred to the criteria based on which CRZ-I is categorized. Coastal line is only one of the considerations and not the only consideration for inclusion in CRZ-I. We also referred to the observations in Ext.P2, report and Ext.R4(a) that the Theme Park is situated on the banks of Valapattanam river and its branch and that even at the time of inspection (by Dr.Susarla), the area was under high tide. Therefore it is clear that the area is within the High Tide line from the Arabian Sea on the west. Though reliance is placed by the Society on Exts.P10 and P11, the photographs taken in December, 2003 from Google Earth (marking the property of the Society) to contend that even as in December, 2003 there were no mangroves in the property of petitioner, we are not inclined to accept that contention based on Exts.P10 and P11. Google Earth gives only a satellite imagery and need not always having regard to the existence of clouds, etc., give a clear picture of the area. There is no reliable evidence to show that mangroves were planted in the property in question only in the year, 2004. Map No.66A itself belies that contention. 

Kerala High Court

Ansari Kannoth vs State Of Kerala Rep.By The ... on 24 January, 2011

Coram:J. CHELAMESWAR, C.J. & THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J.
         

Print Page

Supreme Court: Under which circumstances conspiracy can be proved on the basis of photograph of disputed handwriting?

On the whole, we think that if the court is satisfied that there is no trick photography and the photograph is above suspicion, the photograph can be received in evidence. It is, of course, always admissible to prove the contents of the document, but subject to the safeguards indicated, to prove the authorship. This is all the more so in India under s. 10 of the Evidence Act to prove participation in a conspiracy. Detection and proof of crime will be rendered not only not easy but sometimes impossible if conspirators begin to correspond through photographs of letters instead of originals, Many conspiracies will then remain unproved because one of the usual methods is to intercept a letter, take its photograph and then to send it on and wait for the reply. But evidence of photographs to prove writing or handwriting can only be received if the original cannot be obtained and the photographic reproduction is faithful and not faked or false. In the present case no such suggestion exists and the originals having been suppressed by the accused, were not available. The evidence of photographs as to the contents and as to handwriting was receivable. 639, Regarding the specimen writing in the letter Z 217, with which, the impugned writings were compared, we think the letter must be treated as genuine for the purpose of comparison of handwriting.

Supreme Court of India

Laxmipat Choraria And Ors vs State Of Maharashtra on 14 December, 1967

Equivalent citations: 1968 AIR 938, 1968 SCR (2) 624

Bench: Hidayatullah, M.

Print Page

Bombay HC: Conditions which can be imposed while releasing seized vehicle on supratnama

Therefore, this application can be allowed by modifying the condition Nos. (i), (ii) and (iii) in the impugned order dated 17/6/2014. Insofar as the contention regarding imposing of additional condition is concerned, I do not think that same is necessary as the applicant is a well established finance company which is furnishing an undertaking as well as an indemnity bond, which, therefore, are to be seen to be as good as a Bank guarantee. In the result, the application is allowed and the condition Nos. (i), (ii) and (iii) of the order dated 17/6/2014 are hereby deleted and substituted by the following conditions.:

I. The photographs of the seized vehicles taken by the Investigating Officer shall be used as secondary evidence during the trial and, therefore, physical production of the vehicles is dispensed with.

II. The applicant is permitted to sell the vehicles by auction. Before auctioning off the vehicles the applicant shall get the vehicles valued by recognized Government Valuer and the Valuation Report shall be submitted to the trial Court. The details of the auction and auction proceedings shall be submitted to the trial Court.

III. The applicant shall submit an indemnity bond, stating therein, that the applicant shall remit the proceeds from the sale of the vehicles conducted through auction by the applicant to such party as may be directed by the Court. The applicant shall also submit an undertaking within two weeks from the date of the order to the effect that in the event the ownership of vehicles is found to be vested with the accused persons, the sale proceeds of the vehicles shall be deposited by it in the trial Court or shall be paid by it in terms of the order to be passed in that regard by the trial Court.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (NAGPUR BENCH)

Criminal Application (Apl.) No. 431 of 2014

Decided On: 06.01.2015

 Shriram Transport Finance Co.Ltd.
Vs.
Respondent: The State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:S.B. Shukre, J.

 Citation: 2015ALLMR(Cri)2257

Print Page

Whether it is necessary to conduct test identification parade if accused is known to witness?

In Vijay @ Chinee v. State of M.P., (2010) 8 SCC 191, this Court, while dealing with the effect of non holding of a test identification parade, placed very heavy reliance upon the judgments of this Court in Santokh Singh v. Izhar Hussain & Anr., AIR 1973 SC 2190; State of Himachal Pradesh v. Lekh Raj & Anr., AIR 1999 SC 3916; and Malkhan Singh & Ors. v. State of M.P., AIR 2003 SC 2669 and held that, the evidence from a test identification parade is admissible under Section 9 of the Evidence Act, 1872. The identification parade is conducted by the police. The actual evidence regarding identification, is that which is given by the witnesses in court. A test identification parade cannot be claimed by an accused as a matter of right. Mere identification of an accused in a test identification parade is only a circumstance corroborative of the identification of the accused in court. Further, conducting a test identification parade is meaningless if the witnesses know the accused, or if they have been shown his photographs, or if he has been exposed by the media to the public. Holding a test identification parade may be helpful to the investigation to ascertain whether the investigation is being conducted in a proper manner and with proper direction. (See also: Munna Kumar Upadhyay v. State of A.P., AIR 2012 SC 2470).

   REPORTABLE


                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


                      CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1774  of 2010


 R. Shaji   Vs State of kerala
        

Citation;(2013) 14 SCC 266

Print Page

Metadata of Digital photograph-its uses in litigation

We are hopeful that you are familiar with metadata, especially as it exists in e-mail messages and word processing files. If not, then a brief refresher is in order. There are a couple of different types of metadata, but most regard the common definition to be data that is stored internal to the file (you can’t see it without knowing how to look at it) and is not explicitly defined by the user. The application (e.g., word processor) inserts data within the file such as the author, last time printed, fonts used, or creation date. But what about image files such as those taken with digital cameras? What metadata do those files contain? Digital photos can be an electronic evidence heaven.

Print Page

Whether Identification of accused by witnesses by photograph is permissible?

The learned Counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that showing of photographs to the witnesses for the purpose of identification is permissible under law. He even drew our attention to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, 1984 which is in force in England and submitted that the provisions of the said statute permit the showing of photographs to the witnesses for the purpose of identification and there is nothing in law which prohibits such action being taken by the Investigating Officer. In the instant case, the witnesses had not described the physical features of the accused or any identifying characteristics as to how they identified the assailants. To such a witness, showing of photograph would only lead the investigating officer to make the wrong conclusion regarding the identification. Even under the provisions of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, 1984 which is prevalent in England, the photographs could be shown to the witnesses only under certain specified conditions. Annexe E of the Act are the guidelines and it says that before showing the photographs of the suspect, the supervising officer must first confirm that the description of the suspect given by the witness has been recorded, and if the supervising officer is unable to confirm the description, the officer shall postpone the showing of the photographs. The other condition as stated in Annexe E of the statute says that a witness must not be shown photographs or computerized or artist's composite or similar likeness or pictures if the identity of the suspect is known to the police and suspect is available to take part in a video identification, an identification parade or group identification.

There are no statutory guidelines in the matter of showing photographs to the witnesses during the stage of investigation. But nevertheless, the police is entitled to show photographs to confirm whether the investigation is going on in the right direction. But in the instant case, it appears that the investigating officer procured the album containing the photographs with the names written underneath and showed this album to the eye-witnesses and recorded their statements under Section 161 Cr. P.C. The procedure adopted by the police is not justified under law as it will affect fair and proper investigation and may sometimes lead to a situation where wrong persons are identified as assailants. During the course of the investigation, if the witness had given the identifying features of the assailants, the same could be confirmed by the investigating officer by showing the photographs of the suspect and the investigating officer shall not first show a single photograph but should show more than one photograph of the same person, if available. If the suspect is available for identification or for video identification, the photograph shall never be shown to the witness in advance.

In the instant case, the High Court held that the witnesses had no occasion to properly identify the assailants as they had no previous acquaintance with them. The witnesses had been travelling in a vehicle while going to the factory, and if a group of workers were seen by them while travelling, it may not be easier for them to identify them. It cannot be said that the High Court has made a perverse appreciation of evidence, and the view taken is plausible and this is not a fit case where this Court can interfere with the acquittal passed by the High Court.

Supreme Court of India

D. Gopalakrishnan vs Sadanand Naik & Ors on 15 October, 2004

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