Case Note & Summary
The case involves a criminal trial registered as a sessions trial in 2002 for an offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial had been protracted for over 13 years due to several legal filibusters. During the trial, the court record was torn, leading to its reconstruction by the court office. The prosecution filed an application (Exh.202) seeking permission to lead secondary evidence, as the original record was lost. The learned trial Judge rejected the application, holding that the reconstructed record would constitute primary evidence. The applicants (accused) challenged this order before the High Court. The High Court, per Justice A.B. Chaudhari, held that the reconstructed record cannot be treated as primary evidence. The court noted that the order rejecting Exh.202 had not been challenged by the prosecution, but the court could still deal with the issue in the context of the applicants' challenge. The court observed that the loss of court record and its reconstruction is an act of the court, and applying the principle 'actus curiae neminem gravabit' (an act of the court shall prejudice no one), the court was duty-bound to exercise its inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in the interest of justice. Consequently, the court partly allowed the criminal application, setting aside the trial court's order and allowing the prosecution's application Exh.202 for leading secondary evidence. The court directed the trial court to proceed with the trial expeditiously.
Headnote
A) Evidence Law - Primary vs Secondary Evidence - Reconstructed Record - The issue was whether a reconstructed court record, after the original was torn, could be treated as primary evidence - The trial court had held that the reconstructed record would become primary evidence, but the High Court disagreed, holding that reconstructed record cannot be primary evidence - The court allowed the prosecution's application (Exh.202) to lead secondary evidence, invoking Section 482 CrPC and the principle 'actus curiae neminem gravabit' (Paras 2-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether after reconstruction of the torn court record, the reconstructed record would become primary evidence?
Final Decision
Criminal Application No.745/2015 is partly allowed. The order of the trial court rejecting Exh.202 is set aside. The application Exh.202 for leading secondary evidence is allowed. The trial court is directed to proceed with the trial expeditiously.
Law Points
- Reconstructed court record is not primary evidence
- Secondary evidence may be led when original record is lost
- Actus curiae neminem gravabit (an act of the court shall prejudice no one)
- Inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC can be exercised to allow secondary evidence in the interest of justice
