S.294 CrPC | Accused Can Exhibit Documents Already Part Of Chargesheet Without Formal Proof Of Signature : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has observed that when an accused seeks to exhibit on the defence side certain documents which already form part of the charge sheet and the prosecution's record, they need not undergo formal proof and can be read in evidence without proving the signature of the person purported to have signed them.
The Court relied on Section 294(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as per which, proof of signature is not required to take the document on evidence if its genuineness is not disputed.
“If such document is not disputed, it can be read in inquiry, trial or other proceedings under Cr.P.C. without proving the signature of the person to whom it purports to be,” the Court observed.
A bench of Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar was hearing an appeal against a Madras High Court decision which had refused to permit certain documents to be marked as exhibits under Section 294 Cr.P.C. without formal proof of signatures, even though those documents already formed part of the prosecution's record.
The case arose from a criminal appeal pending before the Additional Sessions Judge. During the pendency of the appeal, the accused filed an application under Section 294 Cr.P.C. seeking permission to mark certain documents, such as account opening forms, bank certificates, copies of IT returns, risk rating, and pricing score sheet, etc., as exhibits without insisting on formal proof, contending that the documents were already part of the prosecution records and charge sheet materials.
The trial court rejected the application. Challenging this, the accused filed a criminal revision petition with the Madras High Court. However, the High Court also dismissed the revision, leading to a present SLP before the Supreme Court.
The High Court refused to allow marking those documents as exhibits, referring such documents to be of a formal character, which need to be proved via affidavit under Section 296 CrPC. The High Court's decision was based on the Supreme Court's decision in State of Punjab v. Naib Din, (2001) 8 SCC 578, concerning Section 296 Cr.P.C., which permits evidence of formal witnesses to be tendered through affidavits.
Before the Supreme Court, the appellant argued that Section 294 and Section 296 Cr.P.C. deal with entirely different procedural mechanisms and that the High Court had wrongly applied precedent relating to affidavit evidence while deciding an application concerning admission or denial of documents under Section 294 Cr.P.C.
Finding a force in the Appellant's argument, the Court explained the difference between Sections 294 and 296 Cr.P.C. while also distinguishing the ruling in Naib Din (supra), observing that Section 294 Cr.P.C. pertains to documents already filed before the court, wherein parties may be called upon to admit or deny the genuineness of documents, and if genuineness is not disputed, the documents may be read in evidence without formal proof of signatures.
In contrast, Section 296 Cr.P.C. concerns evidence of a formal character being given through an affidavit by witnesses whose testimony is merely formal in nature.
In essence, the Court noted that when the genuineness of the document sought to be relied upon by the accused is not disputed, then such documents ought to have been exhibited without the requirement of a formal proof of signatures.
"We have further perused the findings as recorded by the High Court relying upon the judgment in State of Punjab Vs Naib Din. The said judgment deals with the provisions of Section 296 Cr.P.C. which relates to the evidence of formal character on affidavit; it has nothing to do with the case wherein no formal proof of certain documents are required. It is needless to express that Section 294 Cr.P.C. deals with documentary evidence while Section 296 Cr.P.C. deals with the formal character of some evidence which is on affidavit. Therefore, the ratio of the judgment in the case of Naib Din (supra) is, in fact, not applicable, in particular, while rejecting the application under Section 294 Cr.P.C. it is the duty of the Court to uphold the spirit of the provision, particularly with regard to the documents for which the application has been filed. The order has to be passed after ascertaining the genuineness of such document by admission or denial or by proof, if any required.", the court observed.
Applying the law to the facts of the case, the Court said that since the documents sought to be relied upon by the Appellant, formed part of the prosecution's record, therefore the High Court erred in refusing to allow the same to be exhibited, though the State can be permitted to deny or admit the genuineness.
“In the facts of the present case, it is clear that the documents as sought to be marked as exhibits by the appellant are part of the chargesheet and of documents produced by the prosecution. The appellant, through averments made in the application, contends that these documents were included in the list of documents of prosecution.”, the court observed.
In terms of the aforesaid, the Court remitted the matter back to the High Court for fresh consideration of the Section 294 application in accordance with law. This is because the prosecution raised a dispute that the documents do not form part of the record.
The bench clarified that the State would remain free to raise all objections available under law regarding the admissibility or genuineness of the documents.
Cause Title: R. GANESH VERSUS THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 471
Appearance:
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S. Nagamuthu, Sr. Adv. Mr. Kartik Vashisht, Adv. Mr. Devesh Tripathi, Adv. Mr. Kaustubh Chandra Seth, Adv. Mr. Mohd Faraz Anees, AOR Ms. Mahima Anand, Adv. Mr. Mukeshwar Nath Dubey, Adv. Ms. Epsita Agastya, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Yadav, Adv. Mr. Ajay Kumar, Adv. Mr. Shivendu Sharma, Adv. Mr. Divesh, Adv. Mr. Anand, Adv. Mr. Yash Singh, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Dwivedi, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Satya Darshi Sanjay, A.S.G. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Mr. Khushal Kolwar, Adv. Ms. Shreya Jain, Adv. Ms. Archana Surve Shinde, Adv. Mr. Raman Yadav, Adv.