CDs are documents and can be considered as evidence under law: SC
The Supreme Court has ruled that a compact disc (CD) is a
document under Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The Court
also held that a CD has to be exhibited/played by the trial court to
enable the public prosecutor to admit or deny its genuineness under
Section 294 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
The decision was rendered by a Division Bench of PC Pant
and Dipak Misra JJ. in an appeal against the decision of the High Court
of Punjab and Haryana in the case of Shamsher singh Verma Vs. State of Haryana.
The appellant accused is on trial for molestation of his
niece and is currently lodged in jail. He had sought to rely on the
recording of a conversation between his wife and son, and the father of
the victim. The appellant had moved an application Section 294 of CrPC
to get the CD played in the court for preserving a copy of the text
contained, and therein for further communication to the Forensic
Laboratory for establishing its authenticity. The application had,
however been rejected by the trial judge. The High Court had affirmed
the order passed by a Special Judge.
The question before the Supreme Court was whether the
Special judge was correct in denying the application to play the CD so
that its genuineness could be considered and established. Relying on the
various decisions of the Supreme Court, the Court interpreted Section 3
of the Indian Evidence Act to hold that a CD is a “document” and no need to make an application u/s 294 of Cr. PC.
“In R.M. Malkani vs. State of Maharashtra, this Court has
observed that tape recorded conversation is admissible provided first
the conversation is relevant to the matters in issue; secondly, there is
identification of the voice; and, thirdly, the accuracy of the tape
recorded conversation is proved by eliminating the possibility of
erasing the tape record.
In Ziyauddin Barhanuddin Bukhari vs. Brijmohan Ramdass
Mehra and others, it was held by this Court that tape-records of
speeches were “documents”, as defined by Section 3 of the Evidence Act,
which stood on no different footing than photographs.
In view of the definition of ‘document’ in Evidence Act,
and the law laid down by this Court, as discussed above, Court held that
the "compact disc is also a document.”
The Court then proceeded to hold that since CD is a
document under Section 3 of the Evidence Act, it is not necessary for
the court to obtain admission or denial on a document under sub-section
(1) to Section 294 CrPC personally from the accused or complainant or
the witness. It held that the endorsement of admission or denial made by
the counsel for defence, on the document filed by the prosecution or on
the application/report with which same is filed, is sufficient
compliance of Section 294 CrPC. The court also turned down the
contention of the respondent that the petition has been filed to prolong
the trial.
“In our opinion, the courts below have erred in law in
rejecting the application to play the compact disc in question to enable
the public prosecutor to admit or deny, and to get it sent to the
Forensic Science Laboratory, by the defence. The appellant is in jail
and there appears to be no intention on his part to unnecessarily linger
the trial, particularly when the prosecution witnesses have been
examined.
Therefore, without expressing any opinion as to the final
merits of the case, this appeal is allowed, and the orders passed by the
courts below are set aside.”
Comments
Post a Comment