SHYAM NARAYAN RAMversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR. ETC.

               [2024] 10 S.C.R. 1726 : 2024 INSC 800

                        Shyam Narayan Ram
                                   v.
                  State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. Etc.
                Crminal Appeal No(s). 4287-4289 of 2024
                              21 October 2024
            [Vikram Nath* and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ.]


                          Issue for Consideration
       Whether the High Court fell in error in remanding the matter to
       Trial Court and giving liberty to the accused to cross-examine a
       prosecution witness and allowing the prosecution to lead further
       evidence in the form of formal witnesses.

                                 Headnotes†
       Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.294 – The High Court
       while allowing the appeal filed by accused persons and
       remanding the matter back to Trial Court recorded – Accused
       did not get a fair trial as their counsel had admitted the
       genuineness of documents filed by the prosecution and had
       dispensed with its formal proof.
       Held: It is not for any error or oversight of defence counsel
       that they had admitted the genuineness of the police papers
       by dispensing formal proof of the same, rather the defence had
       repeatedly confirmed their stand of admitting the genuineness
       of the documents – As per Section 294(3) of CrPC – where the
       genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document
       may be read in evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding
       under CrPC without proof of the signature of the person to whom
       it purports to be signed – It is undisputed that the Defence
       Counsel admitted the genuineness of the documents presented
       by prosecution – While allowing the appeal Hon’ble Supreme
       Court differentiated Munna Pandey vs. State of Bihar (2023) SCC
       OnLine SC 1103, as the issue in the said case was fair trial and
       not application of Section 294 CrPC – Thus, Hon’ble Supreme
       Court held, Hon’ble High Court fell in error by remanding matter
       back to Trial Court for cross-examination of witnesses – Hon’ble

* Author
[2024] 10 S.C.R.                                                         1727

       Shyam Narayan Ram v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. Etc.


     Supreme Court does not find any error in the judgment of the Trial
     Court considering the defence repeatedly continued to admit the
     genuineness of the prosecution documents exempting them from
     formal proof – Appeals allowed, impugned judgment and order of
     the High Court is set aside and the criminal appeals before the
     High Court are restored, to be heard and decided afresh on merits
     on the basis of material on record.

                             Case Law Cited
     Sonu alias Amar v. State of Haryana [2017] 8 SCR 151 : (2017)
     8 SCC 570; Shamsher Singh Verma v. State of Haryana [2015]
     12 SCR 234 : (2016) 15 SCC 485; Akhtar v. State of Uttaranchal
     [2009] 5 SCC 771 : (2009) 13 SCC 722 – referred to.

                               List of Acts
     Penal Code, 1860; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

                            List of Keywords
     Remanding case back to Trial Court; Admission of documents;
     Fair Trial; Section 294 of CrPC.

                           Case Arising From
     CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal Nos.
     4287-4289 of 2024
     From the Judgment and Order dated 01.11.2023 of the High Court
     of Judicature at Allahabad in CRLA No. 4982, 5346 and 5347
     of 2019

                        Appearances for Parties
     Divyesh Pratap Singh, Ms. Shivangi Singh, Amit Sangwan,
     Ms. Sneha Chandna, Advs. for the Appellant.
     Ajay Kumar Misra, A.G./Sr. Adv., Garvesh Kabra, Avanish
     Deshpande, C B Gururaj, Animesh Dubey, Ms. Archita Prajapati,
     K P Singh, M/s. Gururaj & Nayak, Sunil Kumar Singh, Rakesh
     Kumar Srivastava, Sandeep Lamba, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal,
     Advs. for the Respondents.
1728                                                       [2024] 10 S.C.R.

                       Digital Supreme Court Reports


                 Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                 Judgment

      Vikram Nath, J.

1.    Leave granted.
2.    By means of these appeals, the informant-appellant has assailed the
      correctness of the judgment and order dated 01.11.2023 passed by the
      Allahabad High Court in Criminal Appeal Nos.4982/2019, 5346/2019
      and 5347/2019 whereby the High Court allowed the appeals, set
      aside the order of conviction passed by the Trial Court dated 15/16th
      July, 2019 and had remanded the matter to the Trial Court to decide
      the same afresh and that the matter be retried from the stage of
      testimony of PW 2 onwards. Further a direction was issued that the
      authors of the exhibited documents liable to establish the authenticity
      of the same would be cross-examined by the defence, and that the
      trial would proceed on day to day basis and shall conclude on or
      before 31st May, 2024. Further, the appellants before the High Court
      were to be released on bail on furnishing personal bonds and two
      heavy sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court
      concerned. They were further liable to give additional affidavit to the
      Trial Court concerned, that they would remain present on every day
      or as and when required by the Trial Court. It was further directed
      that the fine amount imposed by the Trial Court would remain stayed
      during the period of trial and would remain subject to final verdict to
      be pronounced by the Trial Court.
3.    Brief facts giving rise to the present appeals are:
      3.1 First Information Report1 was lodged on 22.04.1998 at 05.30
          am by the appellant which was registered as FIR bearing
          No.27/1998, Police Station Dhanapur, District Chandauli, U.P.
          under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 18602 and 3(1)
          (v) of the SC/ST Act. According to the prosecution story, on
          the intervening night of 21/22.04.1998 the appellant (PW 1),
          Ram Dular (PW2) who were harvesting crops in the fields, on
          hearing gunshots, rushed to the pumping set from where the


1    FIR
2    IPC
[2024] 10 S.C.R.                                                    1729

       Shyam Narayan Ram v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. Etc.


          shots were being fired and saw that the four accused namely
          Radhey Shyam Lal A-1, Pratap A-2, Rajesh Kumar @ Pappu
          A-3 and Jagannath A-4 were assaulting the parents of the
          appellant namely Bodha Devi and Mohan Ram who belonged
          to Scheduled Caste. After brutally assaulting the two deceased,
          they threw their bodies into the well.
     3.2 Upon registration of the FIR, the police came to the site and
         with the help of the villagers, pulled out the two dead bodies of
         parents of the appellant from the well. An inquest was prepared
         and their bodies were thereafter sent for post-mortem. The
         deceased Bodha Devi had suffered seven injuries all over her
         body including a fatal wound on the back of the chest extending
         upto the neck measuring 48 cm x 28 cm. The cause of death
         was recorded as due to the fracture in the vertebra and injury
         to the spinal cord. The post-mortem of the deceased Mohan
         Ram disclosed as many as sixteen injuries which included
         eleven lacerated wounds and the cause of death was reported
         as death due to injuries to spine and spinal cord.
     3.3 The Investigating Officer recovered blood soaked gamcha
         (scarf) belonging to accused Pratap (A-2), licensed SBBL gun
         with two live cartridges. From the place of occurrence, the
         Investigating Officer also recovered three empty-shell-casings
         of 12 bore, 1 live 12 bore cartridge, cardboard and plastic rods,
         tikli and other remnants of spent cartridges, apart from other
         standard recoveries. The recovered articles were sent to the
         forensic laboratory and as per the report one out of the three
         cartridges has been found to have been fired from the seized
         licensed SBBL gun. The FSL report further confirmed that in
         the barrel of the seized SBBL gun, there was residue of firing.
         Further, the presence of lead and nitrate clearly indicated that
         the gun had been recently used.
4.   After completing the investigation charge-sheet was submitted. The
     Magistrate concerned took cognizance and thereafter committed
     the case to the Sessions Court for trial. The charges were read out
     to the four accused who denied the same and claimed to be tried.
5.   The prosecution examined the informant-appellant as PW 1 and the
     other eye-witness Ram Dular as PW 2 and also filed the relevant
     documents. Counsel for the defence on 28.04.2005 admitted the
1730                                                      [2024] 10 S.C.R.

                     Digital Supreme Court Reports


      genuineness of the prosecution documents and dispensed with its
      formal proof. The Public Prosecutor had filed an application under
      section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19733 for summoning
      the formal witnesses which was opposed by the defence. The
      Trial Court, after recording the submissions and the admission of
      the prosecution documents by the defence counsel, exhibited the
      prosecution papers which had not been exhibited. Further, the Trial
      Court closed the prosecution evidence and fixed 4th May, 2005 for
      recording the statement of the accused under section 313 CrPC.
      The statements of all the accused were recorded under section 313
      CrPC on 4th May, 2005 and later on because of a few incriminating
      circumstances which were not put to the accused, a supplementary
      statement was also recorded under section 313 CrPC. Despite the
      statement under section 313 CrPC was recorded as far back as
      May, 2005, the trial could not proceed further, apparently as the
      same was stayed by the High Court. The trial, however, further
      commenced in 2019.
6.    At this stage also the Public Prosecutor pressed upon the court for
      consideration of their applications 29 kha and 30 kha for summoning
      Dr. S.K. Srivastava, who had conducted the autopsy on the dead
      bodies of the two deceased, and the Investigating Officer to prove
      the recovery memos etc. These applications were also seriously
      objected to by the defence.
7.    The Trial Court, vide judgment and order dated 15/16th July, 2019
      convicted all the four accused and sentenced them to life imprisonment
      under section 302 IPC and other ancillary sentences for the rest of
      the offences and all of them to run concurrently. The accused were
      taken into custody on the date of the judgment.
8.    Aggrieved by their conviction and sentence, the four accused preferred
      three separate appeals before the High Court. Appeal No.4982/2019
      was preferred by Rajesh Kumar @ Pappu, 5346/2019 was preferred
      by Radhey Shyam Lal and 5347/2019 was preferred by Pratap and
      Jagannath. The High Court, by the impugned judgment and order
      dated 1st November, 2023 recorded that the accused did not get a fair
      trial as their counsel had admitted the documents of the prosecution
      and had dispensed with its formal proof. This resulted into a serious


3    CrPC
[2024] 10 S.C.R.                                                      1731

       Shyam Narayan Ram v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. Etc.


     and fatal illegality and as such in order to extend to the accused a
     fair trial, it was expedient to remit the matter back to the Trial Court
     for further trial from the stage of recording of evidence of PW 2
     (he had not been cross-examined by the defence), after affording
     liberty to cross-examine PW 2. The prosecution would produce its
     formal witnesses and the defence would have liberty to cross-examine
     them also and only thereafter the trial may be concluded and decided.
9.   Aggrieved by the said order of remand, the informant has preferred
     the present appeals.
10. The submission advanced on behalf of the appellant is to the effect
    that the High Court fell in error in remanding the matter and giving
    liberty to the accused to first cross-examine PW 2 and thereafter
    allow the prosecution to lead further evidence in the form of formal
    witnesses to prove the police papers and only thereafter proceed
    further with the trial, maybe by recording a further statement under
    section 313 CrPC.
11. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, if the judgment of
    the High Court is allowed to stand, it would render the provisions of
    section 294 CrPC redundant and otiose. It was also submitted that
    it is not for any error or oversight of defence counsel that they had
    admitted the genuineness of the police papers by dispensing formal
    proof of the same, rather they had repeatedly confirmed their stand
    of admitting the genuineness of the documents and had opposed the
    recall of witnesses by the Public Prosecutor on two occasions, once
    in 2005 and again in 2019. It was thus submitted that the High Court
    ought to have decided the appeal on merits on the basis of evidence led
    during the trial and there was no justification for remanding the matter.
12. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-State of U.P.
    has supported the case of the appellant and submitted that despite
    the Public Prosecutor having repeatedly requested the Trial Court to
    allow them to produce the formal witnesses but on account of strong
    opposition by the counsel for defence, the Trial Court had rejected
    the said request as such there was no justification for remitting the
    matter back to the Trial Court for a further trial from the stage of
    recording of evidence of PW 2.
13. Learned counsel for the respondents accused in the three appeals
    supported the judgment of the High Court. There is no denial by the
1732                                                       [2024] 10 S.C.R.

                     Digital Supreme Court Reports


     learned counsel that the stand taken by the defence counsel before
     the Trial Court was any different from what has been submitted by
     the counsel for the appellant. He only submitted that considering the
     principles of fair trial, this Court may not interfere with the impugned
     judgment and order.
14. Section 294 of the CrPC reads as follows:
          “Section 294 – No formal proof of certain documents
          1.    Where any document is filed before any Court by the
                prosecution or the accused, the particulars of every
                such document shall be included in a list and the
                prosecution or the accused, as the case may be, or
                the pleader for the prosecution or the accused, if any,
                shall be called upon to admit or deny the genuineness
                of each such document.
          2.    The list of documents shall be in such form as may
                be prescribed by the State Government.
          3.    Where the genuineness of any document is not
                disputed, such document may be read in evidence in
                any inquiry trial or other proceeding under this Code
                without proof of the signature of the person to whom
                it purports to be signed:
                Provided that the Court may, in its discretion, require
                such signature to be proved.”
15. A bare reading of the aforesaid provision, in particular, sub-section (3)
    provides that where the genuineness of any document is not disputed,
    such document may be read in evidence in any inquiry, trial or
    other proceeding under this Code without proof of the signature of
    the person to whom it purports to be signed. That is to say that if
    the authors of such documents does not enter the witness box to
    prove their signatures, the said documents could still be read in
    evidence. Further, under the proviso the Court has the jurisdiction in
    its discretion to require such signature to be proved. In the present
    case, the documents filed by the investigating agency were all
    public documents duly signed by public servants in their respective
    capacities either as Investigating Officer or the doctor conducting the
    autopsy or other police officials preparing the memo of recoveries
    etc. As such the Trial Court had rightly relied upon the same and
[2024] 10 S.C.R.                                                          1733

        Shyam Narayan Ram v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. Etc.


     exhibited them in view of the specific repeated stand taken by the
     defence in admitting the genuineness of the said documents. In so
     far as the police papers which had been signed by private persons
     like the informant, the same had been duly proved.
16. Thus the only job left for the Court was to appreciate, analyse and
    test the credit-worthiness of the evidence led by the prosecution which
    was available on record and if such evidence beyond reasonable
    doubt established the charges, the conviction could be recorded.
    However, if the evidence was not credit-worthy and worthy of reliance,
    the accused could be given benefit of doubt or clean acquittal.
17. The Trial Court, after appreciating the evidence, found that the
    evidence of PW 1 and 2, eye-witnesses to the account, to have fully
    supported the prosecution story and during the cross-examination, the
    defence could not elicit anything which could discredit their testimony.
18. Coming back to the applicability of section 294 CrPC, reference may
    be had to the following judgments of this Court in the case of Sonu
    alias Amar vs. State of Haryana4 wherein this Court had held in
    para 30 as follows:
            “30. Section 294 of the Cr.P.C. 1973 provides a procedure
            for filing documents in a Court by the prosecution or the
            accused. The documents have to be included in a list
            and the other side shall be given an opportunity to admit
            or deny the genuineness of each document. In case the
            genuineness is not disputed, such document shall be read
            in evidence without formal proof in accordance with the
            Evidence Act.”
19. Further, in the case of Shamsher Singh Verma vs. State of Haryana,5
    this Court held in para 14 as under:
            “14….. 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. The endorsement of admission or denial
            made by the counsel for defence, on the document filed


4   [2017] 8 SCR 151 : (2017) 8 SCC 570
5   [2015] 12 SCR 234 : (2016) 15 SCC 485
1734                                                        [2024] 10 S.C.R.

                          Digital Supreme Court Reports


            by the prosecution or on the application/ report with which
            same is filed, is sufficient compliance of Section 294 CrPC.
            Similarly on a document filed by the defence, endorsement
            of admission or denial by the public prosecutor is sufficient
            and defence will have to prove the document if not
            admitted by the prosecution. In case it is admitted, it need
            not be formally proved, and can be read in evidence.
            In a complaint case such an endorsement can be made
            by the counsel for the complainant in respect of document
            filed by the defence.”
20. Also, this Court in the case of Akhtar vs. State of Uttaranchal6 has
    held in para 21 as under:
            “21. It has been argued that non-examination of the
            concerned medical officers is fatal for the prosecution.
            However, there is no denial of the fact that the defence
            admitted the genuineness of the injury reports and the
            poot-mortem examination reports before the trial court.
            So the genuineness and authenticity of the documents
            stands proved and shall be treated as valid evidence under
            Section 294 of the CrPC. It is settled position of law that
            if the genuineness of any document filed by a party is not
            disputed by the opposite party it can be read as substantive
            evidence under sub-section (3) of Section 294 CrPC.
            Accordingly, the post-mortem report, if its genuineness is
            not disputed by the opposite party, the said post-mortem
            report can be read as substantive evidence to prove the
            correctness of its contents without the doctor concerned
            being examined.”
21. On a plain reading of section 294 CrPC and its interpretation by
    this Court in the above judgments, we do not find any error in the
    judgment of the Trial Court and particularly considering the facts of
    the present case where the defence repeatedly continued to admit
    the genuineness of the prosecution documents exempting them
    from formal proof.



6   [2009] 5 SCC 771 : (2009) 13 SCC 722
[2024] 10 S.C.R.                                                          1735

          Shyam Narayan Ram v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. Etc.


22. In our opinion, the High Court fell in error. Moreover, reliance by
    the High Court on the case of Munna Pandey vs. State of Bihar7
    was misplaced, because in that case the issue was of fair trial and
    not of the application of section 294 CrPC. In the case of Munna
    Pandey (supra), prosecution witnesses were not confronted with their
    statements under section 161 CrPC for purposes of contradiction
    and in such a situation this Court had held that if the same be put to
    witnesses under section 145 of the Evidence Act, 1872 it would have
    a bearing and, therefore, remitted the matter to the Trial Court for
    further examination/cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses.
23. For all the reasons recorded above, we allow these appeals, set
    aside the impugned judgment and order of the High Court and restore
    the criminal appeals before the High Court to be heard and decided
    afresh on merits on the basis of material on record.
24. Considering the fact that the incident is of 1998, we request the
    High Court to make an endeavour to decide the appeals afresh on
    the basis of the evidence led during the trial as early as possible.
25. The private respondents in all the three appeals who stand convicted
    under the order of the Trial Court, would surrender within six weeks
    before the Trial Court and it would be open for them to apply for
    suspension of sentence before the High Court on admissible grounds
    in accordance to law, which application would be considered on its
    own merits uninfluenced by any observations made in this order. We
    further make it clear that the evidence has not been appreciated by us.

     Result of the case: Appeals allowed.



     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Gaurav Upadhyay, Hony. Associate Editor
                                 (Verified by: Shadan Farasat, Sr. Adv.)




7   [2023] 11 SCR 1005 : (2023) SCC OnLine SC 1103