{"file_name": "2024_10_1726_1735_EN.pdf", "text": "[2024] 10 S.C.R. 1726 : 2024 INSC 800\n\nShyam Narayan Ram \nv. \nState of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. Etc.\n\nCrminal Appeal No(s). 4287-4289 of 2024\n\n21 October 2024\n\n[Vikram Nath* and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ.]\n\nIssue for Consideration\n\nWhether  the  High  Court  fell  in  error  in  remanding  the  matter  to \nTrial  Court  and  giving  liberty  to  the  accused  to  cross-examine  a \nprosecution witness and allowing the prosecution to lead further \nevidence in the form of formal witnesses.\n\nHeadnotes†\n\nCode of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.294 – The High Court \nwhile  allowing  the  appeal  filed  by  accused  persons  and \nremanding the matter back to Trial Court recorded – Accused \ndid  not  get  a  fair  trial  as  their  counsel  had  admitted  the \ngenuineness of documents filed by the prosecution and had \ndispensed with its formal proof. \n\nHeld:  It  is  not  for  any  error  or  oversight  of  defence  counsel \nthat  they  had  admitted  the  genuineness  of  the  police  papers \nby  dispensing  formal  proof  of  the  same,  rather  the  defence  had \nrepeatedly  confirmed  their  stand  of  admitting  the  genuineness \nof the documents – As per Section 294(3) of CrPC – where the \ngenuineness  of  any  document  is  not  disputed,  such  document \nmay be read in evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding \nunder CrPC without proof of the signature of the person to whom \nit  purports  to  be  signed  –  It  is  undisputed  that  the  Defence \nCounsel  admitted  the  genuineness  of  the  documents  presented \nby  prosecution  –  While  allowing  the  appeal  Hon’ble  Supreme \nCourt differentiated Munna Pandey vs. State of Bihar (2023) SCC \nOnLine SC 1103, as the issue in the said case was fair trial and \nnot  application  of  Section  294  CrPC  –  Thus,  Hon’ble  Supreme \nCourt held, Hon’ble High Court fell in error by remanding matter \nback to Trial Court for cross-examination of witnesses – Hon’ble \n\n* Author\n\n\f[2024] 10 S.C.R.  \n\n1727\n\nSupreme Court does not find any error in the judgment of the Trial \nCourt considering the defence repeatedly continued to admit the \ngenuineness of the prosecution documents exempting them from \nformal proof – Appeals allowed, impugned judgment and order of \nthe  High  Court  is  set  aside  and  the  criminal  appeals  before  the \nHigh Court are restored, to be heard and decided afresh on merits \non the basis of material on record. \n\nCase Law Cited\n\nSonu alias Amar v. State of Haryana [2017] 8 SCR 151 : (2017) \n8 SCC 570; Shamsher Singh Verma v. State of Haryana [2015] \n12 SCR 234 : (2016) 15 SCC 485; Akhtar v. State of Uttaranchal \n[2009] 5 SCC 771 : (2009) 13 SCC 722 – referred to.\n\nPenal Code, 1860; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. \n\nList of Acts\n\nList of Keywords\n\nRemanding  case  back  to  Trial  Court; Admission  of  documents; \nFair Trial; Section 294 of CrPC.\n\nCase Arising From\n\nCRIMINAL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION:  Criminal Appeal  Nos. \n4287-4289 of 2024\n\nFrom the Judgment and Order dated 01.11.2023 of the High Court \nof  Judicature  at Allahabad  in  CRLA  No.  4982,  5346  and  5347   \nof 2019\n\nAppearances for Parties\n\nDivyesh  Pratap  Singh,  Ms.  Shivangi  Singh,  Amit  Sangwan,   \nMs. Sneha Chandna, Advs. for the Appellant.\n\nAjay  Kumar  Misra,  A.G./Sr.  Adv.,  Garvesh  Kabra,  Avanish \nDeshpande,  C  B  Gururaj, Animesh  Dubey,  Ms. Archita  Prajapati,   \nK  P  Singh,  M/s.  Gururaj  &  Nayak,  Sunil  Kumar  Singh,  Rakesh \nKumar  Srivastava,  Sandeep  Lamba,  Rameshwar  Prasad  Goyal, \nAdvs. for the Respondents.\n\nShyam Narayan Ram v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. Etc.\f1728 \n\n[2024] 10 S.C.R.\n\nJudgment / Order of the Supreme Court\n\nJudgment\n\nVikram Nath, J.\n\n1. \n\nLeave granted. \n\n2.  By means of these appeals, the informant-appellant has assailed the \ncorrectness of the judgment and order dated 01.11.2023 passed by the \nAllahabad High Court in Criminal Appeal Nos.4982/2019, 5346/2019 \nand  5347/2019  whereby  the  High  Court  allowed  the  appeals,  set \naside the order of conviction passed by the Trial Court dated 15/16th \nJuly, 2019 and had remanded the matter to the Trial Court to decide \nthe  same  afresh  and  that  the  matter  be  retried  from  the  stage  of \ntestimony of PW 2 onwards. Further a direction was issued that the \nauthors of the exhibited documents liable to establish the authenticity \nof the same would be cross-examined by the defence, and that the \ntrial  would  proceed  on  day  to  day  basis  and  shall  conclude  on  or \nbefore 31st May, 2024. Further, the appellants before the High Court \nwere to be released on bail on furnishing personal bonds and two \nheavy sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court \nconcerned. They were further liable to give additional affidavit to the \nTrial Court concerned, that they would remain present on every day \nor as and when required by the Trial Court. It was further directed \nthat the fine amount imposed by the Trial Court would remain stayed \nduring the period of trial and would remain subject to final verdict to \nbe pronounced by the Trial Court.\n\n3.  Brief facts giving rise to the present appeals are: \n\n3.1  First  Information  Report1  was  lodged  on  22.04.1998  at  05.30 \nam  by  the  appellant  which  was  registered  as  FIR  bearing \nNo.27/1998, Police Station Dhanapur, District Chandauli, U.P. \nunder section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 18602 and 3(1)\n(v)  of  the  SC/ST Act. According  to  the  prosecution  story,  on \nthe  intervening  night  of  21/22.04.1998  the  appellant  (PW  1), \nRam Dular (PW2) who were harvesting crops in the fields, on \nhearing gunshots, rushed to the pumping set from where the \n\n1 \n\n2 \n\nFIR\n\nIPC\n\nDigital Supreme Court Reports\f[2024] 10 S.C.R.  \n\n1729\n\nshots were being fired and saw that the four accused namely \nRadhey Shyam Lal A-1, Pratap A-2, Rajesh Kumar @ Pappu \nA-3  and  Jagannath A-4  were  assaulting  the  parents  of  the \nappellant namely Bodha Devi and Mohan Ram who belonged \nto Scheduled Caste. After brutally assaulting the two deceased, \nthey threw their bodies into the well. \n\n3.2  Upon  registration  of  the  FIR,  the  police  came  to  the  site  and \nwith the help of the villagers, pulled out the two dead bodies of \nparents of the appellant from the well. An inquest was prepared \nand  their  bodies  were  thereafter  sent  for  post-mortem.  The \ndeceased Bodha Devi had suffered seven injuries all over her \nbody including a fatal wound on the back of the chest extending \nupto the neck measuring 48 cm x 28 cm. The cause of death \nwas recorded as due to the fracture in the vertebra and injury \nto  the  spinal  cord. The  post-mortem  of  the  deceased  Mohan \nRam  disclosed  as  many  as  sixteen  injuries  which  included \neleven lacerated wounds and the cause of death was reported \nas death due to injuries to spine and spinal cord. \n\n3.3  The  Investigating  Officer  recovered  blood  soaked  gamcha \n(scarf) belonging to accused Pratap (A-2), licensed SBBL gun \nwith  two  live  cartridges.  From  the  place  of  occurrence,  the \nInvestigating Officer also recovered three empty-shell-casings \nof 12 bore, 1 live 12 bore cartridge, cardboard and plastic rods, \ntikli  and  other  remnants  of  spent  cartridges,  apart  from  other \nstandard  recoveries.  The  recovered  articles  were  sent  to  the \nforensic laboratory and as per the report one out of the three \ncartridges has been found to have been fired from the seized \nlicensed  SBBL  gun.  The  FSL  report  further  confirmed  that  in \nthe barrel of the seized SBBL gun, there was residue of firing. \nFurther, the presence of lead and nitrate clearly indicated that \nthe gun had been recently used. \n\n4.  After completing the investigation charge-sheet was submitted. The \nMagistrate  concerned  took  cognizance  and  thereafter  committed \nthe case to the Sessions Court for trial. The charges were read out \nto the four accused who denied the same and claimed to be tried. \n\n5.  The prosecution examined the informant-appellant as PW 1 and the \nother  eye-witness  Ram  Dular  as  PW  2  and  also  filed  the  relevant \ndocuments.  Counsel  for  the  defence  on  28.04.2005  admitted  the \n\nShyam Narayan Ram v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. Etc.\f1730 \n\n[2024] 10 S.C.R.\n\ngenuineness of the prosecution documents and dispensed with its \nformal proof. The Public Prosecutor had filed an application under \nsection 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19733 for summoning \nthe  formal  witnesses  which  was  opposed  by  the  defence.  The \nTrial  Court,  after  recording  the  submissions  and  the  admission  of \nthe  prosecution  documents  by  the  defence  counsel,  exhibited  the \nprosecution papers which had not been exhibited. Further, the Trial \nCourt closed the prosecution evidence and fixed 4th May, 2005 for \nrecording  the  statement  of  the  accused  under  section  313  CrPC. \nThe statements of all the accused were recorded under section 313 \nCrPC on 4th May, 2005 and later on because of a few incriminating \ncircumstances which were not put to the accused, a supplementary \nstatement was also recorded under section 313 CrPC. Despite the \nstatement  under  section  313  CrPC  was  recorded  as  far  back  as \nMay,  2005,  the  trial  could  not  proceed  further,  apparently  as  the \nsame  was  stayed  by  the  High  Court.  The  trial,  however,  further \ncommenced in 2019.\n\n6.  At this stage also the Public Prosecutor pressed upon the court for \nconsideration of their applications 29 kha and 30 kha for summoning \nDr.  S.K.  Srivastava,  who  had  conducted  the  autopsy  on  the  dead \nbodies of the two deceased, and the Investigating Officer to prove \nthe  recovery  memos  etc.  These  applications  were  also  seriously \nobjected to by the defence. \n\n7.  The Trial  Court,  vide  judgment  and  order  dated  15/16th  July,  2019 \nconvicted all the four accused and sentenced them to life imprisonment \nunder section 302 IPC and other ancillary sentences for the rest of \nthe offences and all of them to run concurrently. The accused were \ntaken into custody on the date of the judgment.\n\n8.  Aggrieved by their conviction and sentence, the four accused preferred \nthree separate appeals before the High Court. Appeal No.4982/2019 \nwas preferred by Rajesh Kumar @ Pappu, 5346/2019 was preferred \nby Radhey Shyam Lal and 5347/2019 was preferred by Pratap and \nJagannath. The  High  Court,  by  the  impugned  judgment  and  order \ndated 1st November, 2023 recorded that the accused did not get a fair \ntrial as their counsel had admitted the documents of the prosecution \nand had dispensed with its formal proof. This resulted into a serious \n\n3 \n\nCrPC\n\nDigital Supreme Court Reports\f[2024] 10 S.C.R.  \n\n1731\n\nand fatal illegality and as such in order to extend to the accused a \nfair trial, it was expedient to remit the matter back to the Trial Court \nfor  further  trial  from  the  stage  of  recording  of  evidence  of  PW  2  \n(he  had  not  been  cross-examined  by  the  defence),  after  affording \nliberty to cross-examine PW 2. The prosecution would produce its \nformal witnesses and the defence would have liberty to cross-examine \nthem also and only thereafter the trial may be concluded and decided.\n\n9.  Aggrieved by the said order of remand, the informant has preferred \n\nthe present appeals.\n\n10.  The submission advanced on behalf of the appellant is to the effect \nthat the High Court fell in error in remanding the matter and giving \nliberty  to  the  accused  to  first  cross-examine  PW  2  and  thereafter \nallow the prosecution to lead further evidence in the form of formal \nwitnesses  to  prove  the  police  papers  and  only  thereafter  proceed \nfurther with the trial, maybe by recording a further statement under \nsection 313 CrPC.\n\n11.  According to the learned counsel for the appellant, if the judgment of \nthe High Court is allowed to stand, it would render the provisions of \nsection  294  CrPC  redundant  and  otiose.  It  was  also  submitted  that \nit  is  not  for  any  error  or  oversight  of  defence  counsel  that  they  had \nadmitted the genuineness of the police papers by dispensing formal \nproof  of  the  same,  rather  they  had  repeatedly  confirmed  their  stand \nof admitting the genuineness of the documents and had opposed the \nrecall of witnesses by the Public Prosecutor on two occasions, once \nin 2005 and again in 2019. It was thus submitted that the High Court \nought to have decided the appeal on merits on the basis of evidence led \nduring the trial and there was no justification for remanding the matter. \n\n12.  On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-State of U.P. \nhas supported the case of the appellant and submitted that despite \nthe Public Prosecutor having repeatedly requested the Trial Court to \nallow them to produce the formal witnesses but on account of strong \nopposition by the counsel for defence, the Trial Court had rejected \nthe said request as such there was no justification for remitting the \nmatter  back  to  the  Trial  Court  for  a  further  trial  from  the  stage  of \nrecording of evidence of PW 2. \n\n13.  Learned counsel for the respondents accused in the three appeals \nsupported the judgment of the High Court. There is no denial by the \n\nShyam Narayan Ram v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. Etc.\f1732 \n\n[2024] 10 S.C.R.\n\nlearned counsel that the stand taken by the defence counsel before \nthe Trial Court was any different from what has been submitted by \nthe counsel for the appellant. He only submitted that considering the \nprinciples of fair trial, this Court may not interfere with the impugned \njudgment and order.\n\n14.  Section 294 of the CrPC reads as follows:\n\n“Section 294 – No formal proof of certain documents\n\n1.  Where any document is filed before any Court by the \nprosecution or the accused, the particulars of every \nsuch  document  shall  be  included  in  a  list  and  the \nprosecution or the accused, as the case may be, or \nthe pleader for the prosecution or the accused, if any, \nshall be called upon to admit or deny the genuineness \nof each such document.\n\n2.  The list of documents shall be in such form as may \n\nbe prescribed by the State Government.\n\n3.  Where  the  genuineness  of  any  document  is  not \ndisputed, such document may be read in evidence in \nany inquiry trial or other proceeding under this Code \nwithout proof of the signature of the person to whom \nit purports to be signed:\n\nProvided that the Court may, in its discretion, require \nsuch signature to be proved.”\n\n15.  A bare reading of the aforesaid provision, in particular, sub-section (3) \nprovides that where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, \nsuch  document  may  be  read  in  evidence  in  any  inquiry,  trial  or \nother proceeding under this Code without proof of the signature of \nthe  person to whom it purports to be signed. That is  to  say  that if \nthe  authors  of  such  documents  does  not  enter  the  witness  box  to \nprove  their  signatures,  the  said  documents  could  still  be  read  in \nevidence. Further, under the proviso the Court has the jurisdiction in \nits discretion to require such signature to be proved. In the present \ncase,  the  documents  filed  by  the  investigating  agency  were  all \npublic documents duly signed by public servants in their respective \ncapacities either as Investigating Officer or the doctor conducting the \nautopsy  or other police officials preparing  the  memo of recoveries \netc. As  such  the  Trial  Court  had  rightly  relied  upon  the  same  and \n\nDigital Supreme Court Reports\f[2024] 10 S.C.R.  \n\n1733\n\nexhibited them in view of the specific repeated stand taken by the \ndefence in admitting the genuineness of the said documents. In so \nfar as the police papers which had been signed by private persons \nlike the informant, the same had been duly proved.\n\n16.  Thus the only job left for the Court was to appreciate, analyse and \ntest the credit-worthiness of the evidence led by the prosecution which \nwas  available  on  record  and  if  such  evidence  beyond  reasonable \ndoubt  established  the  charges,  the  conviction  could  be  recorded. \nHowever, if the evidence was not credit-worthy and worthy of reliance, \nthe accused could be given benefit of doubt or clean acquittal.\n\n17.  The  Trial  Court,  after  appreciating  the  evidence,  found  that  the \nevidence of PW 1 and 2, eye-witnesses to the account, to have fully \nsupported the prosecution story and during the cross-examination, the \ndefence could not elicit anything which could discredit their testimony.\n\n18.  Coming back to the applicability of section 294 CrPC, reference may \nbe had to the following judgments of this Court in the case of Sonu \nalias Amar  vs.  State  of  Haryana4  wherein  this  Court  had  held  in \npara 30 as follows:\n\n“30. Section 294 of the Cr.P.C. 1973 provides a procedure \nfor filing documents in a Court by the prosecution or the \naccused.  The  documents  have  to  be  included  in  a  list \nand the other side shall be given an opportunity to admit \nor deny the genuineness of each document. In case the \ngenuineness is not disputed, such document shall be read \nin  evidence  without  formal  proof  in  accordance  with  the \nEvidence Act.”\n\n19.  Further, in the case of Shamsher Singh Verma vs. State of Haryana,5 \n\nthis Court held in para 14 as under:\n\n“14….. It is not necessary for the court to obtain admission \nor denial on a document under sub-section (1) to Section \n294  CrPC  personally  from  the  accused  or  complainant \nor the witness. The endorsement of admission or denial \nmade by the counsel for defence, on the document filed \n\n4 \n\n5 \n\n[2017] 8 SCR 151 : (2017) 8 SCC 570\n\n[2015] 12 SCR 234 : (2016) 15 SCC 485\n\nShyam Narayan Ram v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. Etc.\f1734 \n\n[2024] 10 S.C.R.\n\nby the prosecution or on the application/ report with which \nsame is filed, is sufficient compliance of Section 294 CrPC. \nSimilarly on a document filed by the defence, endorsement \nof admission or denial by the public prosecutor is sufficient \nand  defence  will  have  to  prove  the  document  if  not \nadmitted by the prosecution. In case it is admitted, it need \nnot  be  formally  proved,  and  can  be  read  in  evidence.   \nIn a complaint case such an endorsement can be made \nby the counsel for the complainant in respect of document \nfiled by the defence.”\n\n20.  Also, this Court in the case of Akhtar vs. State of Uttaranchal6 has \n\nheld in para 21 as under:\n\n“21.  It  has  been  argued  that  non-examination  of  the \nconcerned  medical  officers  is  fatal  for  the  prosecution. \nHowever,  there  is  no  denial  of  the  fact  that  the  defence \nadmitted  the  genuineness  of  the  injury  reports  and  the \npoot-mortem  examination  reports  before  the  trial  court. \nSo  the  genuineness  and  authenticity  of  the  documents \nstands proved and shall be treated as valid evidence under \nSection 294 of the CrPC. It is settled position of law that \nif the genuineness of any document filed by a party is not \ndisputed by the opposite party it can be read as substantive \nevidence  under  sub-section  (3)  of  Section  294  CrPC. \nAccordingly, the post-mortem report, if its genuineness is \nnot disputed by the opposite party, the said post-mortem \nreport can be read as substantive evidence to prove the \ncorrectness of its contents without the doctor concerned \nbeing examined.”\n\n21.  On  a  plain  reading  of  section  294  CrPC  and  its  interpretation  by \nthis Court in the above judgments, we do not find any error in the \njudgment of the Trial Court and particularly considering the facts of \nthe present case where the defence repeatedly continued to admit \nthe  genuineness  of  the  prosecution  documents  exempting  them \nfrom formal proof. \n\n6 \n\n[2009] 5 SCC 771 : (2009) 13 SCC 722\n\nDigital Supreme Court Reports\f[2024] 10 S.C.R.  \n\n1735\n\n22. \n\nIn  our  opinion,  the  High  Court  fell  in  error.  Moreover,  reliance  by \nthe High Court on the case of Munna Pandey vs. State of Bihar7 \nwas misplaced, because in that case the issue was of fair trial and \nnot  of  the  application  of  section  294  CrPC.  In  the  case  of  Munna \nPandey (supra), prosecution witnesses were not confronted with their \nstatements  under  section  161  CrPC  for  purposes  of  contradiction \nand in such a situation this Court had held that if the same be put to \nwitnesses under section 145 of the Evidence Act, 1872 it would have \na  bearing and, therefore, remitted the matter to the Trial  Court for \nfurther examination/cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses. \n\n23.  For  all  the  reasons  recorded  above,  we  allow  these  appeals,  set \naside the impugned judgment and order of the High Court and restore \nthe criminal appeals before the High Court to be heard and decided \nafresh on merits on the basis of material on record.\n\n24.  Considering  the  fact  that  the  incident  is  of  1998,  we  request  the \nHigh Court to make an endeavour to decide the appeals afresh on \nthe basis of the evidence led during the trial as early as possible. \n\n25.  The private respondents in all the three appeals who stand convicted \nunder the order of the Trial Court, would surrender within six weeks \nbefore  the  Trial  Court  and  it  would  be  open  for  them  to  apply  for \nsuspension of sentence before the High Court on admissible grounds \nin accordance to law, which application would be considered on its \nown merits uninfluenced by any observations made in this order. We \nfurther make it clear that the evidence has not been appreciated by us.\n\nResult of the case: Appeals allowed.\n\n†Headnotes prepared by:  Gaurav Upadhyay, Hony. Associate Editor \n\n(Verified by: Shadan Farasat, Sr. Adv.)\n\n7 \n\n[2023] 11 SCR 1005 : (2023) SCC OnLine SC 1103\n\nShyam Narayan Ram v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. Etc.\f"}