Case Note & Summary
The State of Gujarat filed a criminal revision application under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenging an order dated 25.11.2014 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Navsari, in Sessions Case No.26 of 2011. The case involved offences under Sections 302, 306, 323, and 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code. During trial, the prosecution sought to exhibit a copy of the dying declaration (Mark 8/12) as secondary evidence because the original was not traceable in the office of the Executive Magistrate. The trial court, however, passed an order exhibiting only the signature of the Executive Magistrate, Pravinkumar Nagardas Parmar, on the copy, rather than admitting the entire document. The State contended that this order was erroneous and prejudicial to the prosecution's case, as the dying declaration was a crucial piece of evidence. The High Court heard arguments from the learned APP for the State and the learned advocate for the respondent-accused. The court held that when the original document is lost, secondary evidence is admissible under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and the entire copy of the dying declaration should be exhibited, not just the signature. The court allowed the revision application, set aside the impugned order, and directed the trial court to exhibit the entire copy of the dying declaration as secondary evidence.
Headnote
A) Evidence Law - Secondary Evidence - Dying Declaration - Section 65, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - When the original dying declaration is lost or not traceable, secondary evidence in the form of a copy is admissible under Section 65 of the Evidence Act. The court must exhibit the entire document, not merely the signature of the recording officer, as the document is the best evidence of its contents. (Paras 1-3)
B) Criminal Procedure - Revision - Interference with Interlocutory Order - Section 397, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - The High Court can interfere with an interlocutory order if it results in a miscarriage of justice or is patently illegal. Here, the trial court's order exhibiting only the signature was erroneous and caused prejudice to the prosecution. (Paras 1-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court erred in exhibiting only the signature of the Executive Magistrate on the copy of the dying declaration instead of admitting the entire secondary evidence of the dying declaration.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the criminal revision application, set aside the impugned order dated 25.11.2014 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Navsari, and directed the trial court to exhibit the entire copy of the dying declaration (Mark 8/12) as secondary evidence.
Law Points
- Secondary evidence of a dying declaration is admissible under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act
- 1872 when the original is lost or not traceable
- and the entire document must be exhibited
- not merely the signature of the recording officer.
Case Details
2026 LawText (GUJ) (03) 438
R/Criminal Revision Application (Against Order Passed by Subordinate Court) No. 75 of 2015
Mr. Rohan Raval (APP for applicant), Mr. Zubin F. Bharda (for respondent)
Sanjay Chintanbhai Mishra
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal revision application against an interlocutory order in a sessions case.
Remedy Sought
The State sought to set aside the trial court's order exhibiting only the signature of the Executive Magistrate on the copy of the dying declaration, and to direct the trial court to exhibit the entire copy as secondary evidence.
Filing Reason
The trial court passed an order exhibiting only the signature of the Executive Magistrate on the copy of the dying declaration, instead of admitting the entire document as secondary evidence, which was contrary to law.
Previous Decisions
The trial court (Principal Sessions Judge, Navsari) passed the impugned order dated 25.11.2014 in Sessions Case No.26 of 2011.
Issues
Whether the trial court erred in exhibiting only the signature of the Executive Magistrate on the copy of the dying declaration instead of admitting the entire secondary evidence.
Whether secondary evidence of a dying declaration is admissible under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 when the original is lost.
Submissions/Arguments
The learned APP argued that the trial court's order was erroneous and prejudicial to the prosecution, as the dying declaration is a crucial document and the entire copy should be exhibited as secondary evidence.
The learned advocate for the respondent opposed the revision, but the judgment does not detail the respondent's specific arguments.
Ratio Decidendi
When the original dying declaration is lost or not traceable, secondary evidence in the form of a copy is admissible under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The entire document must be exhibited, not merely the signature of the recording officer, as the document is the best evidence of its contents.
Judgment Excerpts
By way of present criminal revision application the applicant – State of Gujarat has assailed the order dated 25.11.2014, passed below Exhibit 71 in Sessions Case No.26 of 2011, by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Navsari, whereby, the learned Sessions Judge has been pleased to pass the order exhibiting the secondary evidence produced at Mark – 8/12 (copy of Dying Declaration) and exhibited only the signature of the witness – Pravinkumar Nagardas Parmar, Executive Magistrate.
Therefore, the Dying Declaration becomes an important document and hence the District Public Prosecutor has produced list of documentary evidence at Exhibit 8 and primary evidences were produced out of which Mark 8/12 is the copy of Dying Declaration as the copy of original Dying Declaration is not traceable in the Office of Executive Magistrate for the reason that...
Procedural History
The trial court (Principal Sessions Judge, Navsari) passed an order on 25.11.2014 in Sessions Case No.26 of 2011, exhibiting only the signature of the Executive Magistrate on the copy of the dying declaration. The State filed a criminal revision application before the High Court of Gujarat challenging that order. The High Court heard the matter and delivered judgment on 13.03.2026.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): 302, 306, 323, 498(A)
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872: 65
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): 397
