Admissibility of A Document : Supreme Court Explains the Nuances of Law

Admissibility of A Document : Supreme Court Explains the Nuances of Law

An important Judgment was passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court on 3 October 2008.

Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 uses the terms "stating a fact in issue or relevant fact and made by a public servant in the discharge of his official duty". According to illustration to S.3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, a caricature is a document. [For complete Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - go to https://www.indiacode.nic.in/handle/123456789/2188?sam_handle=123456789/1362]

It has been commented in Babloo Pasi v State of Jharkhand [2008] GCtR 2167 (SC) thus :- 

"Section 35 of the said Act lays down that an entry in any public or other official book, register, record, stating a fact in issue or relevant fact made by a public servant in the discharge of his official duty especially enjoined by the law of the country is itself a relevant fact. It is trite that to render a document admissible under Section 35, three conditions have to be satisfied, namely: (i) entry that is relied on must be one in a public or other official book, register or record; (ii) it must be an entry stating a fact in issue or a relevant fact, and (iii) it must be made by a public servant in discharge of his official duties, or in performance of his duty especially enjoined by law."

Kindly note that full text Judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court can be downloaded absolutely free of cost (without any charges except internet data) from the official website at the link 

 https://main.sci.gov.in/judgments

Then entering the date of Judgment, for example, as 3 October 2008.

Written by 

Vishal

Delhi

Notice : Copyright of above blog and its content including headline vests with Vishal. Above should Not be reproduced in any form in newspapers/websites/Ph.D. thesis/College projects/ law firms' newsletters/law journals/books/book chapters without prior written permission. Fair use should be in terms of Copyright Act, 1957. Any violation will make violator liable for Pecuniary compensation with interest towards the author irrespective of the profit made. All disputes shall be subject to Delhi Jurisdiction. Reproduction of judgment or publication of judgment unless expressly prohibited by Court according is not an infringement of copyright according to S. 52 (1)(q)(iv) of Copyright Act, 1957.  

Admissibility of Evidence : Supreme Court Explains the Law

 Admissibility of Evidence : Supreme Court Explains the Law

An interesting Judgment was passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court on 8 October 2003.

It has been commented at page 5 and 6 of R. V. E. Venkatachala Gounder Vs Arulmigu Viswesaraswami & V. P. Temple And Another [2003] GCtR 2898 (SC) thus : - 

"Ordinarily, an objection to the admissibility of evidence should be taken when it is tendered and not subsequently. The objections as to admissibility of documents in evidence may be classified into two classes: (i) an objection that the document which is sought to be proved is itself inadmissible in evidence; and (ii) where the objection does not dispute the admissibility of the document in evidence but is directed towards the mode of proof alleging the same to be irregular or insufficient."

 

"In the first case, merely because a document has been marked as "an exhibit", an objection as to its admissibility is not excluded and is available to be raised even at a later stage or even in appeal or revision. In the latter case, the objection should be taken when the evidence is tendered and once the document has been admitted in evidence and marked as an exhibit, the objection that it should not have been admitted in evidence or that the mode adopted for proving the document is irregular cannot be allowed to be raised at any stage subsequent to the marking of the document as an exhibit."

 

"The latter proposition is a rule of fair play. The crucial test is whether an objection, if taken at the appropriate point of time, would have enabled the party tendering the evidence to cure the defect and resort to such mode of proof as would be regular. The omission to object becomes fatal because by his failure the party entitled to object allows the party tendering the evidence to act on an assumption that the opposite party is not serious about the mode of proof. On the other hand, a prompt objection does not prejudice the party tendering the evidence, for two reasons: firstly, it enables the court to apply its mind and pronounce its decision on the question of admissibility then and there; and secondly, in the event of finding of the court on the mode of proof sought to be adopted going against the party tendering the evidence, the opportunity of seeking indulgence of the court for permitting a regular mode or method of proof and thereby removing the objection raised by the opposite party, is available to the party leading the evidence. Such practice and procedure is fair to both the parties." 

Kindly note that full text Judgments of Hon'ble Delhi High Court can be downloaded absolutely free of cost (without any charges except internet data) from the official website at the link 

https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/judgment

Then entering the date of Judgment, for example, as  8 October 2003.

Written by 

Vishal

Delhi

Notice : Copyright of above blog and its content including headline vests with Vishal. Above should Not be reproduced in any form in newspapers/websites/Ph.D. thesis/College projects/ law firms' newsletters/law journals/books/book chapters without prior written permission. Fair use should be in terms of Copyright Act, 1957. Any violation will make violator liable for Pecuniary compensation with interest towards the author irrespective of the profit made. All disputes shall be subject to Delhi Jurisdiction.