Ashok & another Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Submitted By:

Kumar Sanjeev, (2122)

B.A. LL.B. (Hons.)

Submitted To:

Dr. Meeta Mohani

Faculty of Evidence Law

This Final Draft is submitted in the partial fulfillment in the course titled “Law of
Evidence” for the completion of B.A. LL.B. (Hons.) course.

March, 2021

Chanakya National Law University, Patna

1
 DECLARATION BY THE CANDIDATE
I, hereby, declare that the work reported in the B.A LL.B (Hons.) Project Report entitled
“Ashok & another Vs State of Chhattisgarh” submitted at CHANAKYA NATIONAL
LAW UNIVERSITY; PATNA is an authentic record of my work carried out under the
supervision of Dr. Meeta Mohani, Faculty of Evidence Law. I have not submitted this
work elsewhere for any other degree or diploma. I am fully responsible for the contents of
my Project Report.

(Signature of the Candidate)

Kumar Sanjeev (2122)

B.A. LL.B., 2nd year

SEMESTER -4th

CNLU, Patna

2
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I would like to show my gratitude towards my guide Dr. Meeta Mohani, Faculty of
Evidence Law under whose guidance, I structured my project. I would also like to extend
my gratitude to my friends and all those unseen hands that helped me out at every stage of
my project.

THANK YOU,

Kumar Sanjeev (2122)

B.A. LL.B., 2nd year

SEMESTER -4th

CNLU, Patna

3
Table of Contents
Ashok & another Vs State of Chhattisgarh ........................................................................................................1
DECLARATION BY THE CANDIDATE ....................................................................................................2
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ..............................................................................................................................3
ABSTRACT ...................................................................................................................................................5
FACTS OF THE CASE..................................................................................................................................7
Facts............................................................................................................................................................7
ANALYSIS OF PROVISIONS INVOLVED IN THE CASE .......................................................................9
ORAL EVIDENCE (SECTION-59, IEA, 1872) ......................................................................................13
Section 59 – Proof of facts by Oral Evidence ....................................................................................13
Section 60 – Oral Evidence must be Direct .......................................................................................13
 Direct oral evidence ..........................................................................................................................14
 Hearsay Evidence .............................................................................................................................15
Rationale behind the exclusion of Hearsay Evidence ...............................................................................15
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE ..............................................................................................................16
Proof of content of documents (Section 61) .............................................................................................16
Primary Evidence: Section 62 ..................................................................................................................17
ORAL STATEMENTS ............................................................................................................................19
Proof of documents by primary evidence: Section 64 ..............................................................................19
Special Provision as to evidence relating to electronic record and admissibility: Section 65-A & 65-B
..................................................................................................................................................................20
Rules as to notice to produce: Section 66 .................................................................................................21
Proof of signature and handwriting of person alleged to have signed or written documentproduced:
Section 67 .................................................................................................................................................21
Provisions related to Attested documents .................................................................................................22
Provisions Regarding Public Document ...................................................................................................23
Presumptions as to documents ..................................................................................................................24
RATIONAL OF THE CASE ........................................................................................................................26
CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................................28
Bibliography .................................................................................................................................................29

4
 Ashok & another Vs State of Chhattisgarh

(2015) Cri LJ (NOC) 115 (Chh)

ABSTRACT

The paper analyses the case of “Ashok & another Vs State of Chhattisgarh” based on law of
evidence. The paper will analyse the provisions involved in the case related to Indian Evidence
Act, 1872. The evidence provided in the case is oral (Section 59 & 60 of IEA, 1872) and
documentary evidence (Section-61-90 of IEA, 1872) available on record including the testimony
of eye-witness namely Tarun Kumar (PW-6). The paper will analyse the provisions related to
oral and documentary evidence in the provided case.

The Evidence of the case which in order to reach such finding relied upon the testimony of eye-
witness namely Tarun Kumar (PW-6). The oral and documentary evidence available on record
including the testimony of eye-witness reached to a categorical finding that it is the convict who
was driving the offending vehicle rashly and negligently dashed Shivlal & Vasudeo as a result of
which they sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries. Thus, the act of the convict falls
within the ambit of Section 304-A of the IPC. The paper will also discuss the provisions of
“causing death by Negligence”.

AIMS & OBJECTIVE

 To analyse provisions of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 involved in the case.

 Provisions related to oral and documentary evidence (provisions Related to eye witness)
 To discuss the provisions of “Causing death by negligence".

LIMITATION OF THE PROJECT

Owing to the large number of topics that could be included in the project, the scope of this
research paper exceedingly vast. However in the interest of brevity and due to certain restrictions
like that of paucity of time, unavaibality of the library due the global pandemic (COVID-19) and
Researcher being the student of law involved in other research project related his course

5
Researcher will not be dealing vastly in the research project.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The researcher has adopted purely a doctrinal method of research. The researcher has made
extensive use of the books and internet sources which will helps in comparative study of the
topic. (Sources- Case laws, journals, Articles)

6
 FACTS OF THE CASE
“The Evidence of the case which in order to reach such finding relied upon the testimony of eye-
witness namely Tarun Kumar (PW-6). The oral and documentary evidence available on record
including the testimony of eye-witness reached to a categorical finding that it is the convict who
was driving the offending vehicle rashly and negligently dashed Shivlal & Vasudeo as a result of
which they sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries.”

Facts

Station House Officer, Kondagaon charge sheeted the convict herein alleging that on 23-4-1999
the convict while driving the offending Truck bearing registration No. M.P. 25B/0664 rashly and
negligently caused death of Shivlal & Vasudeo which is not amounting to culpable homicide,
punishable under Section 304-A of IPC. The convict abjured his guilt and took the plea that he is
an innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the offence in question.

During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as nine witnesses and exhibited 15
documents to bring home the offence, whereas the defence neither examined any witness nor
exhibited any document in support of its defence.

Upon appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record, learned Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Kondagaon, Distt. Bastar, vide its order dated 16.09.2002 convicted the
convict for the offences punishable under Sections 279 & 304-A of the Indian Penal Code and
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months & fine of Rs. 1,000/- u/S 279 IPC, to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-,u/S 304-AIPC with
default stipulations. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

In an appeal preferred by the convict, learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Bastar at
Jagdalpur, by its judgment dated 21-11-2003 partly allowed the appeal and set aside the order
convicting the convict for the offence under Section 279 IPC whereas reduced the sentence from
two years to one year RI for the offence under Section 304-A IPC. Feeling dissatisfied with the
judgment of the appellate Court, the convict has filed the instant criminal revision.

Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case and particularly considering

7
the view taken in the State of Punjab in which their Lordships have reduced the sentence of one
year R.I. awarded by the trial Court to six months R.I, and likewise, in the State of Karnataka
(supra) also, six months S.I. was held to be sufficient sentence for offence punishable under
Section 304-A of IPC, I am of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would meet if the
sentence of one year awarded by learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Bastar at Jagdalpur
is reduced to six months of R.I., while maintaining the conviction under Section 304-A of IPC.

While maintaining the conviction under Section 304-A of IPC, sentence of one year awarded by
the first appellate Court is reduced to six months R.I. It is directed that the applicant be taken into
custody forthwith to suffer the remaining period of the sentence.

8
 ANALYSIS OF PROVISIONS INVOLVED IN THE CASE
The term evidence has come from the Latin word “evident” which means “to show clearly” or to
prove. Evidence contains everything that is used to reveal the truth or facts. In law the person on
whom the burden of proof lies has to produce the evidence before the court of law. It is also
important that the evidence which is produced before the court should be true.

Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 defines Evidence as – “––“Evidence” means and
includes ––(1) all statements which the Court permits or requires to be made before it by
witnesses, in relation to matters of fact under inquiry; such statements are called oral
evidence; (2) all documents including electronic records produced for the inspection of the
Court; such documents are called documentary evidence.”

Evidence can be said to be any matter of fact which produces a persuasion in the mind regarding
the existence and non-existence of some other matter of fact. Evidence may be oral, which refers
to the testimony of witnesses, or documentary, which refers to the documents and electronic
records tendered before the Court. The guilt of an accused may be proved using circumstantial
evidence also.

Circumstantial evidence refers to the indirect method of proving the guilt of an accused by
drawing inferences from certain facts which are closely related to the facts in issue. However, the
standard of proof required for circumstantial evidence is quite high and courts are usually
cautious while basing convictions upon circumstantial evidence.

The term “Fact” under the Evidence Act refers to the following:

1. External Facts- Anything or state of a thing or relation of things which is capable of being
perceived by the five senses.
2. Internal Facts- Any mental condition regarding which a person is conscious of.

Events which have neither occurred in the past nor in the present but are likely to occur in the
future does not fall within the ambit of the definition of “Fact” under the Indian Evidence Act,
1872.

The types of evidence are as follows:

9
 Direct evidence- It refers to the evidence directly about the real point in the issue. It is the
declaration of the observer as to key certainty to be demonstrated. Example- The proof of
an individual who says that he saw the commission of the demonstration that comprises
of affirmed wrongdoing. The original document is also included in the indirect evidence.
Direct evidence is generally clear and convincing. It is simply the hypothetical
verification when the truth of the matter is demonstrated by direct declaration or facts.
Direct evidence also means that the person has heard, seen, perceived, form opinion and
after that revealed the facts.
 Circumstantial evidence- “Proof does not mean hard mathematical formula since it is
impossible”. It was told by Justice Fletcher Moulton in regard to circumstantial event. He
also said that these proofs are strong but sometimes it leaves a gap through which the
accused escapes.
It was said by Justice Coleridge, that circumstantial evidence is like a grassamer thread,
light and visionary like air that easily vanishes with a touch. If a witness gives evidence
in a court that he saw a defendant while firing a bullet to a a person and the person dies,
then this is direct evidence. In this case, the only that question arises is whether the
person is telling the truth or not. However if the witness while giving evidence says that
he is only able to recognize that he heard the shot, then arrived on the scenes after some
time and saw the gun in hands of the defendant with fumes coming out, the proof is
circumstantial as the circumstances may be different from what he perceived.
 Real evidence- Real evidence means any tangible object which is presented before the
court as proof. It means the evidence of any class or object which can be treated as proof,
persons are also included in this. Real evidence may be a weapon found at a place where
crime is committed or any dispute arising in a contract. Any object, person or material
that is used at the time of proceeding in a court to make other parties feel guilty or to
make him liable is real evidence.
 Expert evidence- The law of evidence is drafted to make sure that, the court only
considers the proof that allows them to reach a valid conclusion. When an issue arises

10
 such as a medical issue, then the court needs expert advice to settle it. The logical
inquiries included are assumed not to be within the knowledge of the court. The cases in
which scientists and specialists are involved, there the role of experts cannot be argued.
 Hearsay evidence- This evidence is also called as indirect, derivative or second- hand
evidence. In this type of evidence, the witness tells the court about what he had heard
from somebody but has not seen anything. Thus it can be said that the witness does not
tell about the circumstances with his knowledge but with the knowledge of other person
and what the other person told him. The court does not take such type of proof seriously.
 Primary oral evidence- Oral evidence means that any announcement which is made by
an observer in the court, who has personally seen the act, heard it and was present there.
This evidence is also called direct evidence contrary to hearsay. These types of evidences
are taken seriously by the court.
 Secondary evidence- The evidence which is given in the absence of primary proof is
called secondary evidence. Secondary evidence is the evidence which is extracted from
the original ones such as a photocopy of an original document. At the point when the first
archive has been crushed or lost, and when the party has made a persistent scan for it and
depleted all sources and means accessible for its generation then the optional proof is
allowable.
 Oral evidence- When the proof is restricted to spoken words or by gestures or motion
then it is termed as oral evidence. Oral evidence, when reliable, is adequate without
narration or written proof to demonstrate a reality or fact. Where a reality can be
demonstrated by oral proof, it isn’t essential that the announcement of the observer ought
to be oral. Accordingly, a speechless individual may give evidence by signs or by
composing. The reality can likewise be demonstrated or shown by oral proof.
 Documentary evidence- Any evidence which is present as a document before the court in
order to demonstrate or show a reality. The content of documentary evidence can be
separated into three sections:
1. How the subject matter of document can be demonstrated?
2. How the record is to be proved to be authentic? and
3. How far and in what instance oral evidence is excluded by documentary evidence?

11
 Substantive and Non-substantive evidence- Substantive evidence are those evidences on
which the court is dependent for the decision of a case. The non-substantive proof is
which either strengthens or validates the substantive proof to increase its worthiness of
belief or which disproves substantive evidence in order to impair the credibility of a
person.
 Prima facie and conclusive evidence- Prima facie evidence is accepted valid at a first
instance and demonstrates a fact in the absence of contradictory evidence. Conclusive
evidence is that evidence which is not opposed by any other evidence. It is very strong
that it can bear any other evidence. It is of such a nature that it compels the person who
finds the fact to come to a certain conclusion.
 Pre-appointed and casual evidence- The law prescribes this type of evidence in advance
which is necessary for the demonstration of certain facts or for the formation of certain
instruments. The evidence which isn’t pre-appointed is called casual evidence. The casual
evidence grows naturally with the surrounding situations.
 Scientific evidence- Scientific proof is proof which serves to either support or counters a
logical hypothesis or speculation. Such proof is required to be exact proof and translation
as per logical strategy.
 Digital evidence- Digital evidence was recognized in Commissioner of Customs, New
Delhi v. M/s. C-Net Communication India Pvt. Ltd., AIR 2007 SC (Supp) 957. In this
case, the Supreme Court held that “digital electronic” would mean that decoder is
multiple outputs, input and logical circuits that changes coded input into a coded output.
It was additionally held that a decoder is a gadget which does the opposite of an encoder,
fixing the encoding so that the first data can be recovered.
 Electronic evidence- This proof can likewise be as electronic record delivered in court.
The proof, even in criminal issues, can likewise be, by method for electronic records.
This would incorporate or comprise of video conferencing.
 Tape record evidence- The tape itself acts as direct evidence, what the person has said
can be recorded and can be presented before the court. Any previous statement made by a
person can be tape-recorded and if in the end, the person changes his statement before the
court then the tape-recorded statement can be presented before the court in order to test

12
 the veracity of the witness. Tape recorded evidence is more authentic than documentary
evidence.
ORAL EVIDENCE (SECTION-59, IEA, 1872)

Oral Evidence is dealt with under Section 59 and 60 of the Evidence Act, 1872. Oral evidence is
defined under section 3 (under evidence head) which explains that “All statements which the
court permits or requires to be made before it by witnesses, in relation to matters of fact under
inquiry, such statements are called as oral evidence.” The word ‘Oral’ itself describes its
meaning as something spoken or expressed by mouth; so anything which is accepted in the court
in relation to the inquiry and expressed by any witnesses who are called in the trial is termed as
oral evidence. Oral Evidence also includes the statements made by people in signs and writing
forms (inclusive of people who cannot speak).

Section 59 – Proof of facts by Oral Evidence

All the facts and circumstances may be proved by oral evidence by expressing or speaking
except the contents of documents and electronic records. The contents of documents and
electronic records cannot be proved by oral evidence. It is held that if any person has to be called
for proving their documents then that document becomes oral and documentary evidence loses
its significance.

It was held in Bhima Tima Dhotre v. The pioneer chemical co . that “Documentary
evidence becomes meaningless if the writer has to be called in every case to give oral evidence
of its contents. If that were the position, it would mean that, in the ultimate analysis, all evidence
must be oral and that oral evidence would virtually be the only kind of evidence recognised by
law. This provision would clearly indicate that to prove the contents of a document by means of
oral evidence would be a violation of that section.”

Section 60 – Oral Evidence must be Direct

This is the cardinal principle of any evidence to be admissible in the court. If any oral evidence
needs to be admissible, all the conditions under Section 60 of the Indian Evidence Act must be
fulfilled. If anyone of the following conditions is not fulfilled, then the evidence will fail to be

13
pictured as an Oral Evidence. Oral evidence and section 60 is a proportional equation. For acting
out one, the other needs to be fulfilled.

The base principle on which section 60 is placed is that the evidence which is taken into regards
must be direct. The word direct does not include any category of hearsay as its main element is
vested in the word “must”. Every statement under oral evidence must be direct. Now let’s focus
on some conditions which need to be fulfilled to make oral evidence admissible;

 Direct oral evidence

Oral Evidence must be direct in all cases. Indirect ways or hearsay is not considered a part of
direct oral evidence. The word “Direct” in all matters must mean that it is administered by
any person on their own i.e through their personal knowledge and is not passed by any other
person (hearsay) which on the other hand will be inadmissible. This involves certain cases in
which the word “direct” is involved :-

1. It refers to a fact which could be seen, it must be the evidence of a witness who says
he saw it –

It refers to evidence which has been given by the person who has actually seen or
observed the matter by their own eyes, This will be actuated as direct evidence. For
example: if A saw that B is hitting C. A will be an eyewitness to the crime scene and his
testimony will be that of direct evidence.

2. It refers to a fact which could be heard, it must be the evidence of a witness who says
he heard it –

It refers to evidence which has been given by the person who was present and has
actually heard the matter by themselves, this will come under direct evidence.For
example: if A overheard B’s conversation that stated; that he is going to kill C tomorrow
under the bridge, A’s testimony will be that of direct evidence.

3. It refers to a fact which could be perceived by any other senses or any other manner,
it must be the evidence of person who says he perceived it by that sense or manner –

14
 Meaning such evidence that has been given by the person who has perceived it in any
other manner or by any other senses but it has been perceived by that person itself. For
example: through sense of smell or taste.

4. If it refers to an opinion or to grounds on which that opinion is held, it must be the

evidence of the person who holds that opinion on those grounds –

It means when a person holds any opinion on any matter or incident, only his testimony
on the ground of which his opinion is formed will be admissible in the court.For example
A thinks that B is not a good guy, so his testimony of that opinion will be termed under
direct evidence.

 Hearsay Evidence

All of us are aware of what hearsay is; hearsay is any information which is received by any
person from any other source. Hearsay means when a person does not have a personal
knowledge about a particular matter or incident and he has been informed about that
particular matter by any other person.

As oral evidence includes first-hand knowledge thus, Hearsay evidence is excluded under the
ambit of oral evidence because hearsay is not directly obtained evidence.

Rationale behind the exclusion of Hearsay Evidence

From the above head now we know that Hearsay Evidence is second-hand knowledge. But why
is it excluded from oral evidence?

For oral evidence to be admissible it only accepts the rule of first-hand knowledge. It only
includes what is directly seen, heard and perceived by a person. There is no room for second-
hand knowledge. A conviction passed on hearsay may be truly unjustified as there is no
reliability as to whether the person who has passed on the following information is credible
enough or not. For example: if A has received information through B that he saw C hitting D.
This will be hearsay because A himself has not administered the incident. For this reason,
Hearsay has been excluded from Oral Evidence.

15
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE

Documentary evidence refers to that evidence which is in Tangible, physical form. It is different
from other kinds of evidence in many ways. Other kinds of evidence include oral evidence,
circumstantial evidence, hearsay evidence, etc. Generally, the credibility of the documentary
evidence is comparatively higher than other types of evidence.

According to the Indian Evidence act,1872, concerning documentary evidence, the act requires
that generally the original should be produced because it is considered that copy of the document
may contain omission or mistakes of a deliberate or accidental nature.

Documentary evidence is defined in the act as all documents produced for the inspection of the
court. The purpose of producing documents is to rely upon the truth of the statement contained
therein. This involves when a document is produced in court, analysis of three questions is taken
into consideration:

 Is the document genuine?

 What are its contents?
 Are the statements in the documents true?

Explicit provisions regarding documentary evidence are contained in chapter V, Section 61-90 of
the Evidence Act, 1872. These provisions provide for the detailed guidelines and procedure of
how documentary evidence is to be admitted in a court of law. It also provides for the evidentiary
value for such kind of documents.

Proof of content of documents (Section 61)

Section 61 of the act provides that the contents of documents may be proved either by primary or
secondary evidence.

Section 3 defines documentary evidence-“Documentary evidence means all documents produced

for the inspection of the court”. Documents are of two kinds: Public and private. Section 74 gives
a list of public documents. Rest all other documents are regarded as private documents. The
production of documents in courts is regulated by the Civil Procedure Code and the Criminal
Procedure Code.

16
The contents of a document must be proved either by the production of the document which is
called primary evidence or by copies or oral accounts of the contents, which is called secondary.
It was held by the supreme court that where there is documentary evidence, the oral evidence
must not be given much weight.

When a document is not required to be registered, it is admissible, even though unregistered. An

ex-parte affidavit without having to allow the other party to test the veracity of its contents by
cross-examination cannot be a proof of its contents.

Primary Evidence: Section 62

Section 62 provides for the provision of Primary Evidence. Primary evidence means the
documents itself produced for the inspection of the court. Ingredients for section 62 are as
follows:

 Primary evidence means the document itself produced for the inspection of the court.
 Where a document is executed in several parts, each part is primary evidence.
 Where a document is executed in counterpart, each counterpart is primary evidence
against the party executing it.
 Where several documents are made by a uniform process, such as painting, lithography,
or photograph, each one is primary evidence of the contents of the rest.
 Where several documents are made by one uniform process, but they are copies of the
common original, they are not primary evidence of the contents of the original.

This section defines the meaning of the primary evidence which means the documents itself is
produced for the inspection by the court. Where a document is executed in several parts, each
part is the primary evidence of the document. Where a document is executed in counterparts,
each counterpart is primary evidence.

Two wills in identical language were prepared by the process of typing in which the second copy
was obtained by carbon impression. Both were duly executed and attested. Both were held to be
original and not a copy of the other. The fact that the testator inserted a remark on one of the
“true copy” would not alter their character.

17
In Prithvi Chand v. state of H.P, it was held that a carbon copy was made by a uniform process
of the certificate of a doctor (as to the condition of a rape victim) given in the performance of
professional duty. It was held to be primary evidence within the meaning of the explanation to
section 62.

Section 276 of the succession act 1925 requires that an application for probate or letters of
administration should be made with the “will” annexed. Since this does not necessarily mean
“original will”, a copy certified by sub-registrar was allowed to be annexed

Secondary evidence: Section 63

Section 63 provides for Secondary evidence means and includes:

 Certified copies.
 Copies made from the original by a mechanical process and copies compared with such
copies.
 Copies made from or compared with the original.
 Counterparts, of documents as against the party who did not execute them.
 Oral accounts of the contents of a document by a person who has seen it.

Clause 1 to 3 deals with copies of the documents, while clause 4 deals with counterparts of
documents, and clause 5 deals with oral statements.

At one instance a copy of the document was admitted in evidence in trial court without objection,
its admissibility cannot be challenged in the appellate court because omission to object to its
admissibility implies that it is a true copy and therefore, it is not open to the appeal court to say
whether a copy was properly compared with original or not.

Documents that are merely copies of copies, the originals not having been satisfactorily
accounted for, are inadmissible in evidence and must be rejected.

In Idandas v. Anant Ram Chandra, when a document is executed in counterpart, each virus
signing only the part by which he is bound, each counterpart, each party signing only the part by
which he is bound, each counterpart is the best evidence against the party signing it and his

18
privies. As to other parties, it is only secondary evidence. A landlord counterfoil was held to be
not relevant for showing that the arrangement was month-to-month tenancy.

ORAL STATEMENTS

Secondary evidence includes, according to cl.5, oral accounts of the contents of a document,
given by some person who has himself seen the original document. But a written statement of
contents of a copy of a document, the original of which the person making the statement has not
seen, cannot be accepted as secondary evidence.

In Veerappa v. Md. Attavullah, it was held that secondary evidence of a document which is lost
or difficult to trace can be adduced in two ways:

 By oral evidence of persons who were present when the document was executed.
 By a certified copy of the original document.

In Aher Ram Goa. V Gujral, The original dying declaration was lost, a head constable who
maintained a copy testified to its accuracy. This was allowed as corroborative evidence.

Proof of documents by primary evidence: Section 64

Documents must be proved by primary evidence except in the cases hereinafter mentioned.
Ingredients:

 Documents must be proved by primary evidence.

 Secondary evidence can be given under the circumstances described under section 65.

A written document can only be proved by the instrument itself where the contents of any
document in question, either as a fact directly in issue or the sub-alternative principal fact the
document is proper evidence of its contents. But where a written instrument or document of any
description is not a fact in issue and is merely used as evidence to prove some fact, the
independent proof is required.

In P.C Purushathama v. S. Perumal, it was held that once a document is properly admitted the
contents of the document are also admitted in evidence, though those contents may not be
conclusive evidence.

19
Section 65 mentions cases in which secondary evidence relating to documents may be given. It
provides certain emergencies in which secondary evidence concerning a document may be
preferred. For example when the original is shown or appears to be in the possession or power of
the person against whom the document is sought to be proved; Or when the original is of such a
nature as not easily moveable. Etc

Special Provision as to evidence relating to electronic record and admissibility: Section 65-
A & 65-B

Section 65-A provides that the contents of electronic records may be proved in accordance with
the provision of section 65-B. It may be noted that section 65-A & 65-B are new insertions to the
original act and are inserted by an amendment in the year 2000. Earlier it was becoming a
difficult task to prove the electronic evidence in courts as no explicit provision provided an
authenticity to the electronic records and with the increasing use of electronic mediums and with
the emergence of the digital era, it became imperative on Indian courts to make electronic
records admissible to ensure justice in its truest sense.

According to section 65-B, any information contained in an electronic record which is printed on
paper, stored, recorded, or copied in optical or magnetic media produced by a computer shall be
deemed to be also a document provided condition mentioned in the section is satisfied.

The conditions shall be as follows:

 Computer output containing the information was produced by a computer that was
regularly used to store or process such information by a person having lawful control
over the use of a computer.
 Such information was regularly fed in such a computer during the ordinary course of
activities.
 The computer should be operating properly during the period for which the information is
sought. Even if the computer was not operating during such a period then the defect was
not as such to affect the electronic record or the accuracy of its contents.
 The information contained in the electronic record reproduced or is derived from such
information fed into the computer in the ordinary course of the said activity.

20
  A certificate is required by virtue of section 65-B if the statement is to be given, then
following is be duly regarded:
 Identifying the electronic record containing the statement and describing how it was
produced.
 Giving such particular of any device involved in the production of that electronic record
as may be appropriate for showing that the electronic record was produced by a
computer.
 Dealing with any of the matters to which the condition as provided above.

Rules as to notice to produce: Section 66

This section lays down that a notice must be given before secondary evidence can be received
under section 65-A. Notice to produce a document must be in writing. Civil procedure code,1908
and Code of criminal procedure,1973 provide for provision regarding the production of notice
and documents.

Ingredients are as follows:

 Secondary evidence of the contents of the documents referred to in Section 65, clause (a),
shall not be given.
 Unless the party has given notice to other parties to produce it as is prescribed by law.
 Notice is not necessary in the following cases:
 When the document to be proved is itself a notice.
 When, from the nature of the case, the adverse party must know that he will be required
to produce it.
 When the adverse party has obtained possession of the original by fraud or force.
 When the adverse party or its agent has the original in court.
 When the adverse party or his agent has admitted the loss of the document.
 When the possessor of the document is out of the reach or not subject to the process of
the court.

Proof of signature and handwriting of person alleged to have signed or written document
produced: Section 67

21
If the document is alleged to be signed or to have been written wholly or in part by any person,
the signature or writing or so much of the document as is alleged to be in that person’s
handwriting must be proved to be in his handwriting. Section 67A provides for proof as to digital
signature.

Provisions related to Attested documents

Section 68 of the act provides that if a document is required by law to be attested, it shall not be
used as evidence until one attesting witness has been called to prove the execution, provided
there is an attesting witness alive and is subject to the process of the court. This section is not
permissive or enabling. It lays down the requirement which the parties have to observe so that a
document can be held to be proved. The principle underlying the section is that execution of the
will must be proved by at least one attesting witness.

Section 69 provides for the situation in which there is no attesting witness found. As per this
section, if no such attesting witness can be found, it must be proved that the attestation of at least
one attesting witness is in his handwriting and that the signature of the person executing the
document is in the handwriting of that person.

As per section 70 of the evidence act,1872, the admission of a party to an attested document of
its execution by himself shall be sufficient proof of its execution as against him, though it is a
document required by law to be attested. This section serves as a proviso to section 68. The
effect of this section is to make the admission of executant a sufficient proof of execution of
document as against the executant himself even it may be a document for which attestation is
required by law. Owing to this reason only, the document does not become binding on other
parties or persons.

Section 71 provides for a Proof when attesting witness denies the execution. If the attesting
witness denies or does not recollect the execution of the document, its execution may be proved
by other evidence. In Ram Ratan v. Bittan Kaur, it was held that this section only operates if the
attesting witness denies or does not recollect the execution of the document or has turned hostile.

When a document is not required by law to be attested, then provision of section 72 applies and
the document shall be proved as if it was unattested.

22
As per section 73, to ascertain whether a signature, writing or seal is that of the person by whom
it purports to have been written or made, any signature, writing, or seal admitted or proved to the
satisfaction of the court to have been written or made by that person may be compared with the
one which is to be proved, although that signature, writing, or seal has not been produced or
proved for any other purpose.

While section 73 A provides for proof as to verification of the digital signature. In order to
ascertain whether a digital signature is that of the person by whom it purports to have been
affixed the court may direct:

 That person or controller or the certifying authority to produce the digital signature
certificate.
 Any other person to apply the public key listed in the digital signature certificate and
verify the digital signature purported to have been affixed by that person.

Provisions Regarding Public Document

Section 74 enumerates that the following are public documents:

1. Documents forming the acts, or records of the acts-

2. Of the sovereign authority,
3. Of official bodies and tribunals, and
4. Of public officers, legislative, judicial and executive of any part of India or the
commonwealth, or a foreign country.
5. Public records kept in any state of private documents.

Documents are divided into two categories:

 Public
 Private

The section states what comes in the category of public documents. Section 75 states that all
other documents are private documents. Section 74-78 deal with:

1. Nature of public document, and

2. The proof which is given of them.

23
Section 74 defines their nature and section 76-78 deals with the exceptional mode of proof
applicable in their case. The proof of private documents is subject to the general provisions of
the act relating to the proof of documentary evidence contained in section 71-73.

Public documents form an exception to the hearsay rule and their admissibility rest on the ground
that the facts contained therein are of public interest and the statements are made by authorized
and competent agents of the public in the course of their official duty.

In Ram Jethmalani v. director CBI, it was held that statements recorded by police officers under
section 161 Cr.P.C are required by section 115(5) & (7) Cr.P.C read together, to be furnished to
the accused. Hence all earlier case, before this provision was enacted in Cr.P.C 1973, which
regarded such statement as a public document entitled to the privilege against disclosure under
section 123 of the evidence act became out of date since then.

Presumptions as to documents

Section 79-90 Section deals with certain presumptions as to documents.

Section 79 provides that the court shall presume to be genuine every document purporting to be a
certificate, certified copy, or the document, which is by law declared to be admissible as
evidence of any particular fact which purports to be duly certified by any officer of central
government or a state government, or by any officer who is duly authorized by the central
government. Provided that such document is substantially in the form and purports to be
executed in the manner directed by the law in that behalf. This section proceeds upon the
maxim Omnia proesumuntur rite esse acta. It means all acts are presumed to be rightly done.
Though the courts are directed to draw the presumption in favor of an official certificate, it is not
a conclusive presumption, it is rebuttable.

Section 80 provides whenever any document is produced before any court, purporting to be a
record or memorandum of the evidence, or of any part of the evidence given by a witness in a
judicial proceeding or before any officer authorized by law to take such evidence, or to be a
statement or confession by any prisoner or accused person, taken following the law, and
purporting to be signed by any judge or magistrate, or by any such officer, the court shall
presume that the document is genuine, that any statements as to the circumstances under which it

24
was taken, purporting to be made by the person signing it, are true and that such evidence,
statement or confession was duly taken.

Section 81 provides for presumptions as to gazettes, newspapers, private acts of parliament, and
other documents. This section casts a presumption on the courts to presume documents
purporting to be London gazette or any official gazette or to be newspaper or journal and such
documents to be genuine. Section 81 A is a corresponding section and provides for the
genuineness of documents in electronic form.

Section 82 provides for presumption as to document admissible in England without proof of seal
or signature. These provisions have lost their relevance in today’s era because India is now an
independent nation and is not a colony of Britain. Section 83 relates to presumption regarding
maps or plans made by the authority of government.

Section 84 deals with presumption as to books and decisions printed or published under the
authority of government. While section 85 deals with presumption as to power of attorney.
According to section 85, the court shall presume that every document purporting to be the power
of attorney which is executed before Notary public or any court, to be so executed and
authenticated. Section 86 provides presumption as to certified copies of foreign judgment and
records.

Section 87 provides for presumption as to maps and charts, provision regarding telegraphic
messages is dealt in section 88 of the act. Section 89 deals with presumption as due execution of
document not produced before the court. In Kodri Smt. v. L.RS of Fakira, a document is shown to
have remained unstamped for some time after its execution, the party who relied on it must prove
that it was duly stamped.

While section 90 deals with documents more than 30 years old. Where any document purporting
or proved to be thirty years old, is produced from any custody which the court in particular case
considers proper, the court may presume that the signature and every other part of such
document, was duly executed and attested by persons.

25
 RATIONAL OF THE CASE
In the instant case, the factum of rash and negligent driving has been established. The court has
been constantly noticing the increase in number of road accidents and has also noticed how the
vehicle drivers have been totally rash and negligent. It seems to us driving in a drunken state, in a
rash and negligent manner or driving with youthful adventurous enthusiasm as if there are no
traffic rules or no discipline of law has come to the centre stage. The protagonists, as we
perceive, have lost all respect for law. A man with the means has, in possibility, graduated
himself to harbour the idea that he can escape from the substantive sentence by payment of
compensation. Neither the law nor the court that implements the law should ever get oblivious of
the fact that in such accidents precious lives are lost or the victims who survive are crippled for
life which, in a way, worse then death. Such developing of notions is a dangerous phenomenon
in an orderly society. Young age cannot be a plea to be accepted in all circumstances. Life to the
poor or the impecunious is as worth living for as it is to the rich and the luxuriously
temperamental. Needless to say that the principle of sentencing recognizes the corrective
measures but there are occasions when the deterrence is an imperative necessity depending upon
the facts of the case. In our opinion, it is a fit case where we are constrained to say that the High
Court has been swayed away by the passion of mercy in applying the principle that payment of
compensation is a factor for reduction of sentence to 24 days. It is absolutely in the realm of
misplaced sympathy. It is, in a way mockery of justice. Because justice is "the crowning glory",
"the sovereign mistress" and "queen of virtue" as Cicero had said. Such a crime blights not only
the lives of the victims but of many others around them. It is ultimately shatters the faith of the
public in judicial system. In our view, the sentence of one year as imposed by the trial Magistrate
which has been affirmed by the appellate court should be r educed to six months".

Before parting with the case, we are compelled to observe that India has a disreputable record of
road accidents. There is a non-challant attitude among the drivers. They feel that they are the
"Emperors of all they survey". Drunkenness contributes to careless driving where the other
people become their prey. The poor feel that their lives are not safe, the pedestrians think of
uncertainty and the civilized persons drive in constant fear but still apprehensive about the
obnoxious attitude of the people who project themselves as "larger than life". In such obtaining

26
circumstances, we are bound to observe that the law makers should scrutinize re-look and re-visit
the sentencing policy in Section 304-A of IPC. We say so with immense anguish".

Similarly, in a very recent decision in Shanti Lal Meena vs. State of N.C.T. Of Delhi, CBI[3]
their Lordships of the Supreme Court while considering the sentencing policy held that the
judgment on sentence shall not shock the common man and observed as under:

"The court is the conscience of the statute and hence its judgment should project and
promote the policy aims of punishment, lest it should shake the faith of common man in
courts. The judgment on sentence shall not shock the common man. It should reflect the
public abhorrence of the crime. The court has thus a duty to project and promote public
interest and build up public confidence in efficacy of rule of law. Misplaced sympathy or
unwarranted leniency will send a wrong signal to the public giving room to suspect the
institutional integrity affecting the credibility of its verdict ".

In a decision in State of Karnataka vs. Sharanappa Basnagouda Aregoudar[4] while considering

the scope of interference in revision filed against conviction and sentence for offence under
Section 304-A of IPC, their Lordships observed as under:

"We are of the view that having regard to the serious nature of the accident, which
resulted in the death of four persons, the learned Single Judge should not have interfered
with the sentence imposed by the Court below. It may create and set an unhealthy
precedent and send wrong signals to the subordinate courts which have to deal with
several such accident cases. If the accused are found guilty of rash and negligent driving,
courts have to be on guard to ensure that they do not escape the clutches of law very
lightly. The sentence imposed by the courts should have deterrent effect on potential
wrong-doers and it should commensurate with the seriousness of the offence. Of course,
the courts are given discretion in the matter of sentence to take stock of the wide and
varying range of facts that might be relevant for fixing the quantum of sentence, but the
discretion shall be exercised with due regard to larger interest of the society and it is
needless to add that passing of sentence on the offender is probably the most public face
of the criminal justice system".

27
 CONCLUSION

The paper has analysed the case of “Ashok & another Vs State of Chhattisgarh” based on law
of evidence. The paper will analyse the provisions involved in the case related to Indian
Evidence Act, 1872. The evidence provided in the case is oral (Section 59 & 60 of IEA, 1872)
and documentary evidence (Section-61-90 of IEA, 1872) available on record including the
testimony of eye-witness namely Tarun Kumar (PW-6). The paper has analysed the provisions
related to oral and documentary evidence in the provided case.

The Evidence of the case which in order to reach such finding relied upon the testimony of eye-
witness namely Tarun Kumar (PW-6). The oral and documentary evidence available on record
including the testimony of eye-witness reached to a categorical finding that it is the convict who
was driving the offending vehicle rashly and negligently dashed Shivlal & Vasudeo as a result of
which they sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries. Thus, the act of the convict falls
within the ambit of Section 304-A of the IPC. The paper will also discuss the provisions of
“causing death by Negligence”.

Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case and particularly considering
the view taken in the State of Punjab in which their Lordships have reduced the sentence of one
year R.I. awarded by the trial Court to six months R.I, and likewise, in the State of Karnataka
(supra) also, six months S.I. was held to be sufficient sentence for offence punishable under
Section 304-A of IPC, I am of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would meet if the
sentence of one year awarded by learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Bastar at Jagdalpur
is reduced to six months of R.I., while maintaining the conviction under Section 304-A of IPC.

While maintaining the conviction under Section 304-A of IPC, sentence of one year awarded by
the first appellate Court is reduced to six months R.I. It is directed that the applicant be taken into
custody forthwith to suffer the remaining period of the sentence.

28
 Bibliography

Websites
 http://www.legalserviceindia.com/article/l279-Beyond-Reasonable-Doubt.html
 http://www.manupatra.com MANU/UC/0387/2014
 https://www.legalbites.in/documentary-evidence-presumptions/
 https://www.legalbites.in/oral-and-documentary-evidence/
 https://blog.ipleaders.in/central-conceptions-law-evidence/
 https://blog.ipleaders.in/oral-documentary-evidence/
 https://blog.ipleaders.in/oral-evidence-indian-evidence-act1872/
 https://14.139.209.68:10443/proxy/36e39ecb/https/heinonline.org/HOL/MyHeinTest?controller
=users&action=register_form&collection=aallar

29