Sign in


ShareS ha re EVIDENTIAL VA LUE OF PRIVATE REPORTS IN COURT OF LA W

Documents are classified into two categories: public and private

documents. When we talk about the evidential value of a document the
first thing that comes to mind is the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 which
lays down the basic rules governing the evidentiary value of documents
admissible before Court. However, there are other acts which talk about
whether a document can be admissible in court as evidence. The
evidence Act approves two types of documents viz. Public documents
and Private documents. As far as public documents are concerned, they
are described and listed under Section 74 of the Evidence Act. Apart
from the documents in Section 74 all other documents are private
documents. Documents forming the acts or records of the act of the
sovereign authority, namely, the parliament and the legislative
assemblies, or of the official bodies and tribunals, and of public officers,
legislative, judicial and executive, of any part of India or of the
commonwealth, or of a foreign country, are public documents. Private
documents which are registered in the public offices also become public
documents.

INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872

Section 74 states that the following documents are public documents.-

“(1) documents forming the acts or records of the acts (i) of the
sovereign authority, (ii) of official bodies and Tribunals, and (iii) of
public officers, legislative, judicial and executive, (of any part of India
or of the Commonwealth), or of a foreign country;

(2) public records kept in any State of private documents.”

Section 75 provides that all other documents are private documents.

This embryonic classification of public and private documents as per the

Evidence Act simply describes a private documents as a document
which is other than a public document. Therefore, it has been left to the
Courts to decide which type of documents constitutes a private
document through various judicial interpretations. The courts have also
enumerated under what circumstances a private document can be taken
on as evidence.

WHEN CAN A PRIVATE DOCUMENT BE USED AS EVIDENCE

The court answered the question of when a private document can be

used as evidence in the case of Smt. Rekha Rana And Ors. vs Smt.
Ratnashree Jain (AIR 2006 MP 107)wherein it was held that a
private document cannot be used in evidence unless its execution is
admitted by the party against whom it is intended to be used, or it is
established by proof that it is duly executed. Due execution is proved by
establishing that the signature (or mark) in token of execution was
affixed to the document by the person who is stated to have executed the
document. This is normally done either (i) by examining the executants
of the document; or (ii) by examining a person in whose presence the
signature/mark was affixed to the document; or (iii) by referring the
document to a handwriting expert and examining such expert; or (iv) by
examining a person acquainted with handwriting/signature of the person
who is supposed to have written/signed the document; or (v) by
requesting the Court to compare the signature of the executant in the
document with some admitted signature of the person shown as
executants; or (vi) by proving admission by the person who is said to
have signed the document, that he signed it.

The Court has laid down that a sale deed is a private document in the
cases of Jagannath Pershad Nigam v. Visheshwar Prasad [1977 (1)
MPWN Item 210], Bhagwat Saran v. Man Singh [1986 (1) MPWN
Item 59] and Gopal Sharma v. Savitri Devi Ojha [1994 (1) MPWN
Item 192].However, such a sale deed can be admitted in evidence only
if it has been executed. Similarly a mortgage deed is also a private
document. However, a certified copy of the mortgage deed cannot be
admitted in proof of the transaction or the deed, unless further evidence
is given to prove due execution and attestation of the mortgage. A
Mortgage deed is a document requiring attestation under Section 59 of
the Transfer of Property Act, whereas sale-deed is not a document
requiring attestation.

Justice Charanjit Talwar, of the Delhi High Court, in the case of State vs
Gian Singh, held that a post mortem report is not a public document as
envisaged under the Evidence Act. Further, a post mortem report since it
is not a public document cannot amount to proof of identity of the dead
without producing the doctor in evidence. And such a post mortem
report is merely a substantive piece of evidence.

ACTS OTHER THAN EVIDENCE ACT

Moving outside the scope of the evidence Act, the Food Safety and
Standards Act, 2006also gives recognition to private reports.

Section 44 of the Act deals with “Recognition of organization or

agency for food safety audit” and states that the Food Authority may
recognise any organization or agency for the purposes of food safety
audit and checking compliance with food safety management systems
required under this Act or the rules and regulations made there under.

Thus, under this section any authority recognized by the Food Authority
which gives a report can be admitted as evidence, whether such an
authority is public or private.

In contrast to this, Section 43 of the same Act states that the Food
Authority may notify food laboratories and research institutions
accredited by National Accreditation Board for Testing and Calibration
Laboratories or any other accreditation agency for the purposes of
carrying out analysis of samples by the Food Analysts under this Act.
Thus, implying that only a laboratory accredited as mentioned above can
submit a report for analysis of food thus excluding a private report from
its purview.

The Indian Law Reports Act, 1875 in section 3 provide that a court
is not bound to hear a citation of a legal report “other than a report
published under the authority of any State Government”. So as far as
proof of rulings of Indian courts are concerned, it is a question of
authority and the Indian Law Reports Act mandates the court look into a
report only published by a State Government. Thus, private law reports
are clearly out of the question.

Section 60 of the Registration Act, 1908 deals with the Certificate of

registration. Clause 2 enumerates that the certificate shall be signed,
sealed and dated by the registering officer, and shall then be admissible
for the purpose of proving that the document has been duly registered in
manner provided by this Act.

Code of Criminal Procedure Act, 1973

Section 298, 331 and 337 of CrPC lay down certain cases where
documents will be admissible as evidence.

Section 298 talks about how a previous conviction or acquittal is

proved.

In any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code, a previous

conviction or acquittal may be proved, in addition to any other mode
provided by any law for the time being in force, –

(a) by an extract certified under the hand of the officer having the
custody of the records of the Court in which such conviction or acquittal
was held, to be a copy of the sentence or order, or
(b) in case of a conviction, either by a certificate signed by the officer in
charge of the jail in which the punishment or any part thereof was
undergone, or by production of the warrant of commitment under which
the punishment was suffered, together with, in each of such cases,
evidence as to the identity of the accused person with the person so
convicted or acquitted.

As per sub clause (2) of 331 which deals with “Resumption of

inquiry or trial”when the accused has been released under section 330,
and the sureties for his appearance produce him to the officer whom the
Magistrate or Court appoints in this behalf, the certificate of such officer
that the accused is capable of making his defense shall be receivable in
evidence.

Under Section 337of CrPC if a lunatic prisoner is detained under the

provisions of section 330 (2), and in the case of a person detained in a
jail, the Inspector-General of Prisons, or, in the case of a person detained
in a lunatic asylum, the visitors of such asylum or any two of them shall
certify that, in his or their opinion, such person is capable of making his
defense, he shall be taken before the Magistrate or Court and the
certificate of such Inspector-General or visitors as aforesaid shall be
receivable as evidence.

Section 331 of CrPC thus permits the private report of the officer
certifying that the accused defense can be received as evidence. Even
Section 337 allows a private report of a visitor of an asylum as
admissible as evidence.
To conclude, what constitutes a private document can be understood as
laid down in Section 75 of the Indian Evidence Act. This read together
with judicial precedents in this regard gives an overview of documents
which are private whose evidence can be taken on record. Further, it is
pertinent to bear in mind that a private document can be admissible as
evidence only if it has been executed. Apart from the Evidence Act,
other legislations also specify whether a private report is admissible as
evidence or not.
 LikeEVIDE NTIAL VA LUE OF PRIVATE REPORTS IN COURT OF LA W

 Comment

 ShareS ha re EVIDENTIAL VA LUE OF PRIVATE REPORTS IN COURT OF LA W