Supreme Court: Rough notes prepared at the time of occurrence of incident is primary evidence, in its absence fair report can not be given importance

A noticeable feature in the case is that the report Exhibit P. A. is said to have been prepared on the basis of the "rough notes" prepared by P.W. 1 but the "rough notes" is not forthcoming and has not been marked in evidence and it is said to have been destroyed. Since the "rough notes" constitute the first recorded entry of the speech it is an important document and in the absence of it the fair report cannot be given unreserved acceptance. {Para 14}

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 222 of 1986

Decided On: 20.01.1987

Balbir Singh Vs. State of Haryana

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

A.P. Sen and S. Natarajan, JJ.

S. Natarajan, J.

Citation: 1987 SCC (Cri) 193,AIR 1987 SUPREME COURT 1053

Print Page

What is basic concept of Primary Evidence and Secondary Evidence as per provisions of Indian Evidence Act?

 S 62 of Indian Evidence Act:-  Primary evidence.—Primary evidence means the document itself produced for the inspection of the court.

Explanation 1.—Where a document is executed in several parts, each part is primary evidence of the document.

Where a document is executed in counterpart, each counterpart being executed by one or some of the parties only, each counterpart is primary evidence as against the parties executing it.

Explanation 2.—Where a number of documents are all made by one uniform process, as in the case of printing, lithography, or photography, each is primary evidence of the contents of the rest; but where they are all copies of a common original, they are not primary evidence of the contents of the original.

Print Page

Whether court can permit production of Email evidence subject to issue of admissibility to be decided at the final stage?

Mr. Sawant submitted that the plaintiffs did not challenge the order dated 5.10.2011 and, therefore, it will operate as res judicata. This aspect was considered by the learned trial Judge in paragraph 16. The learned trial Judge observed that issue of admissibility of the e-mails was kept open at the stage of final hearing. In other words, e-mails were neither discarded nor admitted in evidence. In view thereof, the order passed on 5.10.2011 did not finally decide issue of admissibility of e-mails on record. Principle of res judicata will not be applicable as the learned trial Judge did not decide the said issue on merits and it was in fact kept open at the stage of final argument.

10. Mr. Sawant submitted that in any case the learned trial Judge was not justified in passing the impugned order and ought to have considered this aspect only at the time of final hearing of the suit. It is not possible to accept this submission as no provision was pointed out prohibiting the plaintiffs from applying for admitting the documents subject to compliance of requirements of section 65B(4).

11. Section 65-B(1) reads thus:

“65B. Admissibility of electronic records:

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, any information contained in an electronic record which is printed on a paper, stored, recorded or copied in optical or magnetic media produced by a computer (hereinafter referred to as the computer output) shall be deemed to be also a document, if the conditions mentioned in this section are satisfied in relation to the information and computer in question and shall be admissible in any proceedings, without further proof or production of the original, as evidence of any contents of the original or of any fact stated therein of which direct evidence would be admissible.”

12. Perusal of the above provision shows that if the conditions mentioned in Section 65B are satisfied in relation to the information and computer in question, it shall be admissible in any proceedings without any further proof or production of the original as evidence of any contents of the original or of any fact stated therein of which direct evidence would be admissible.

13. In view thereof, I do not find that the learned trial Judge has committed any error in admitting e-mails in evidence.

In the High Court of Bombay

(Before R.G. Ketkar, J.)

Nyati Builders Pvt. Ltd. v.  Mr. Rajat Dinesh Chauhan and Ors

Writ Petition No. 7329 of 2015

Decided on December 18, 2015

Citation: 2015 SCC OnLine Bom 7578

Print Page

When carbon copy of statement under S 164 of CRPC is admissible in evidence?

 I do not find substance in the
apprehension of counsel for Applicant. Proof of a
document is separate aspect. Even if the documents

are treated as primary evidence, the same have to
be strictly dealt with and treated within the
ambit and scope of Section 164 of Cr.P.C. I find
Section 62, Explanation (2) of the Evidence Act
read with Judgment in the matter of Prithi Chand
(supra) applies to present matter. When the
statements under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. were found
to be not traceable, the carbon copies of the
statements have been rightly treated as primary
evidence as they were made by one uniform process.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1018 OF 2014
Krishna Sahebrao Patil,

VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra

CORAM: A.I.S. CHEEMA, J.
DATE : 5TH MARCH, 2014
Citation; 2015 ALLMR(CRI)2657

Print Page

How to prove photocopy of Ration card?

The photocopy of the alleged ration card could be proved and would be admissible only in absence of primary evidence. If the original evidence is not produced on account of failure of the party to file the same and it is not proved to be valid the same party is not entitled to introduce secondary evidence of its contents. In Smt. J. Yashoda (supra), the Supreme Court had held that secondary evidence of the contents of a document cannot be admitted without non-production of the original being first accounted for in such a manner as to bring it within one or the other of the conditions provided for in Section 65 of the Evidence Act. This is not the case of the prosecution that the original record of the ration department of the year 1992 has been destroyed nor any other ground has been made out for production of this secondary evidence. The argument advanced by the Learned Public Prosecutor that the photocopy is admissible under section 65 (c) of the Evidence Act is reflective of non comprehension of the said provision and ignorance of the record of the Ration Department. Primary evidence  regarding the ration card is the record of the Ration Department on the basis of which the Ration Card is issued. Being a certified copy of record of the department, ration card is admissible under section 74 of the Evidence Act. However to prove the photocopy of the ration card, the record from the ration department should have been summoned. No effort was even made to call any official of the ration department regarding the alleged ration card. Perusal of the alleged photocopy also reveals that it does not bear a printed ration card number. Though, the registration number is given however, the printed/endorsed number is missing as also the photograph of the head of the family. In Arti Bhargava (supra), it was held by the Supreme Court that the genuineness of the photocopies cannot be guaranteed unless there is evidence that someone had compared the photocopies with the original or had obtained the photocopies from the original. In The United India Insurance Company Limited (supra), it was held that production of photocopy of driving license was not sufficient to prove that the driver had a valid license and its genuineness was not admitted.

Delhi High Court

Shakuntala vs State on 25 March, 2011

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.L.BHAYANA

Print Page

Supreme Court: Carbon copy made by one uniform process is primary evidence as per the Evidence Act.

  The learned Sessions Judge felt that it would not be possible to secure her presence without undue delay, and therefore, permitted the prosecution to prove the certificate through PW-2 Dr. Kapila, who was conversant with her hand-writing and signature, he having worked with her for about two years. He stated that the carbon copy of the certificate Ex P-E was prepared by Dr. Vedwa by one process and bears her signature. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that this certificate was inadmissible in evidence since the prosecution has failed to prove that the original certifi- cate was lost and not available. Section 32 of the Evidence Act provides that when a statement, written or verbal, is made by a person in the discharge of professional duty whose attendance cannot be procured without an amount of delay, the same is relevant and admissible in evidence. Besides, since one carbon copy was made by one uniform process the same was primary evidence within the meaning of explanation 2 to Section 62 of the Evidence Act. Therefore the medical certificate Ex. P-E was clearly admissible in evidence.

Supreme Court of India

Prithi Chand vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 17 January, 1989

Equivalent citations: 1989 AIR 702, 1989 SCR (1) 123

BENCH:
AHMADI, A.M. (J)
NATRAJAN, S. (J)

Print Page