TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (8) TMI 1114
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Rev. No. 1788 of 2010: The criminal revision petition has been filed against the order dated 8.5.2010 whereby the permission to lead secondary evidence filed by the accused regarding agreement to sell dated 1.9.2008 (Annexure-P6) and Pronote and receipt (Annexure-P7) has been declined. 3. The Petitioner is facing trial for the offences under Sections 302, 201, 120-B and 34 IPC. 4. The FIR (Annexure-P5) has been registered on the statement of Ram Kumar who has alleged that on 3.9.2008 at about 11.00 a.m. he came to know that one dead body of an unknown person was lying in the 'Bani' of the village. On this information, the complainant and many other villagers went to the 'Bani' and saw an unidentified body, which ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... had been properly drafted and the person who had got the said photostat taken, had not appeared before the Court. Otherwise also, the evidence of Balwant Singh (DW- 2) and Chandgi Ram (DW-3) makes it clear that in the circumstances the said application for grant of permission to lead secondary evidence was not liable to be allowed. 7. The learned trial Court after considering the matter observed that photostat copies of the documents i.e. agreement to sell dated 1.9.2008 and pronote and receipt dated 2.9.2008 have been produced. No reason has been given by Balwant Singh (DW-2) and Chandgi Ram (DW-3) as to why photostat copies have been retained after the original had been destroyed. It was also stated that the photostat copies of the do....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d to produce it, and when, after the notice mentioned in Section 66, such person does not produce it; (b) when the existence, condition or contents of the original have been proved to be admitted in writing by the person against whom it is proved or by his representative in interest; (c) when the original has been destroyed or lost, or when the party offering evidence of its contents cannot, for any other reason not arising from his own default or neglect, produce it in reasonable time; (d) when the original is of such a nature as not to be easily moveable; (e) when the original is a public document within the meaning of Section 74; (f) when the original is a document of which a certified copy is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....would normally be unsafe on the mere asking to allow production of photostat copies as secondary evidence. These are admittedly not certified copies of the original and it is not clear as to whether these are copies of the original. The basic principle with respect to evidence that is to be produced is that the best evidence available ought to be produced. Original document is the best and primary evidence. Section 65 provides other alternative methods for producing and proving documents, which for various reasons cannot be produced. Secondary evidence is admissible in respect of conditions mentioned in Clauses (a) to (g) of Section 65. The purpose is to give protection to such persons who despite their intentions and efforts are unable in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ommitted. Besides, the destruction of the instrument may make a party liable for a contract which had either not been agreed to or had been rescinded with the destruction of document. Therefore, secondary evidence in such circumstances where document itself has been destroyed by the person in whom it created an enforceable legal right or an obligation is normally not be allowed. 12. In the present case Balwant Singh (DW-2) had appeared and deposed that he executed the agreement to sell on 1.9.2008 and returned the original amount of Rs. 1 Lac along with interest to Roshan Lal brother of Om Parkash on 20.9.2008. Besides, Chandgi Ram (DW-3) appeared and deposed that the pronote and receipt dated 2.9.2008 had been destroyed by him after mak....