Documentary evidence means and includes all documents including electronic records produced for the inspection of the Court. Document means any matter expressed or described upon any substance by means of letters, figures or marks, or by more than one of those means, intended to be used, or which may be used for the purpose of recording that matter. In this article we shall discuss primary evidence.
In M. Narsinga Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 2001 SC 318 case, the Supreme Court held that in order to prove the documents original document is to be produced. Contents of it are to be proved so also signature on the same have to be proved. When document appeals to the conscious of the Court that it is genuine, contents of the same need not be proved.
In S. Ravichandra v. M/s. Elements Development Consultants, Bengaluru, 2018 Cri. LJ 4314 (Kar) case, the Court observed that mere marking of a document cannot be said to be the proof of said document. The document has to be proved in accordance with law and the same has to be appreciated in order to ascertain the genuineness of the document with other materials available on record. In that context, both the parties would get ample opportunity to counter those documents as well to submit their arguments with reference to the evidence already recorded by the court.
Section 61 IEA:
Proof of Contents of Documents:
The contents of documents may be proved either by primary or by secondary evidence.
No document can be admitted till that is established as per procedure prescribed in the act.There should be proof as to contents of document. Section 61 provides that the contents of document can be proved either.— (i) by primary evidence, i.e. by producing the document itself (Section 62) or (ii) by secondary evidence (Section 63). When primary evidence is not available secondary evidence may be permitted by the court to prove the contents of document. There is no other method of proving the contents of document.
In G. Subbaraman vs. State, 2018 Cri. LJ 2377 (Mad) case, the Court held that normally, any party who wants to prove the content of the document is required to lead evidence by production of the original document before the court through its author. Under Section 61, the original document can be presented before the Court through the author, who created the document and it can be proved.
Section 62 IEA:
Primary Evidence:
Primary evidence means the document itself produced for the inspection of the Court.
Explanation 1:
Where a document is executed in several parts, each part is primary evidence of the document; Where a document is executed in counterpart, each counterpart being executed by one or some of the parties only, each counterpart is primary evidence as against the parties executing it.
Explanation 2:
Where a number of documents are all made by one uniform process, as in the case of printing, lithography, or photography, each is primary evidence of the contents of the rest; but, where they are all copies of a common original, they are not primary evidence of the contents of the original.
Illustration:
A person is shown to have been in possession of a number of placards, all printed at one time from one original. Any one of the placards is primary evidence of the contents of any other, but no one of them is primary evidence of the contents of the original.
Section 62 of Evidence Act deals with Primary evidence.
In Narbada Devi Gupta v. Birendra Kumar Jaiswal, (2003) 8 SCC7459 case, it was submitted that execution of documents is to be proved by admissible evidence and in a case where the document is produced and signature on the document is admitted, the document has to be read in evidence.
In P. C. Purushothama Reddiar v. S. Perumal reported in AIR 1972 SC 608 case, the Court held the Plaintiff had admitted the signature on the carbon copy, hence, there was no further burden on the Defendant to lead any additional evidence for proof of the contents of the carbon copy.
In Byramjee Jeejebhoy Private Ltd. v. Govindbhai A. Bhatte, and Others, reported in 1994(1) Bom. C. R. 21114 it was submitted that once the factum of the execution is proved, the document stands proved and it is wholly irrelevant whether the contents are proved or not.
In Prithi Chand vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, 1989 (1) SCC 432 case, the Court held that since the carbon copy was made by one uniform process the same was primary evidence within the meaning of Explanation 2 to Section 62 of the Evidence Act. Therefore, the medical certificate was clearly admissible in evidence.
In Md. Yakub Ali vs. State of Tripura, 2004 Cri. LJ 3315 (Guj) case, where the post-mortem report is to be prepared in triplicate by pen-carbon and in the instant case also, the post-mortem report was prepared by pen-carbon in one uniform process and as such, in view of the provisions of Section 62 of the Evidence Act, such carbon copy is primary evidence.
In Surinder Dogra vs. State, 2019 Cri. LJ 3580 (J&K) case, the Court held that documents prepared under the uniform process of either printing or cyclostyle or lithography cannot be mere copies in strict legal sense of the term, in fact, they are all counterpart originals and each of such documents is a primary evidence of its contents under Sections 45 and 47 of the Evidence Act.