Download Oral Evidence in Indian Law: A Comprehensive Guide and more Study notes Law of Evidence in PDF only on Docsity!
Chapter 1 FACTS WHICH NEED NOT BE PROVED The fundamental object of the evidence is to prove the points in issue and to create some certainty about the existence and nonexistence of the facts in the court the party who raise such point must prove the facts relevant to the point raised by rendering some evidence. The general rule is that every fact on which party point raised by the party must be proved either by oral evidence or documentary evidence. Chapter III containing Section 56 to 58 of the Indian Evidence Act, lays down the provisions relating to facts which need not be proved. However, this general rule is subject to three following exception: i. Facts of which the court takes judicial notice (S.57) ii. Facts admitted (S.58) iii. Facts which the law presumes in favour of a party and need not be proved. JUDICIAL NOTICE Section 56 deals with judicial notice: facts judicially noticeable need not be proved- no fact of which the court will take judicial notice need be proved. The term judicial notice means “it is a recognition of a fact taken by a judge without requiring proof by any evidence. There are some facts which are so authentic and well known to every person may be by the way of general knowledge or through any other proceedings to prove such a fact need no evidence. A judge can depend his own knowledge or may approach any textbooks or documents. He may also either require the parties to assist him or may obtain information from any source. As per Stephen in his introduction observes: “that certain facts are so notorious in themselves or are stated in so authentic manner in well-known and accessible publication that they require no proof. The court if it does not know them, can inform itself upon them without formally taking evidence. These facts are said to be judicially noticed.” Section 57 provides a long list of 12 facts in which the court is capable of taking judicial notice. However the list of facts given in sec 57 is not exhaustive. Sec 57 facts of which court must take judicial notice i. Law in force in territory of India ii. Statutes: the court can take judicial notice of public as well as private statues. Public statutes are those statutes, which would apply to the whole community, so no proof is required to prove public Acts passed by the parliaments. But the private acts are to judicially noticed, that they shall be deemed public Acts and shall be judicially noticed. iii. Articles of war: those are the code of regulations for the administration and discipline of the Army, Navy and Air force. iv. Proceedings of parliament
v. Accession and sign manual of the sovereign vi. Seals: a) Seals of which English Courts take Judicial Notice
b) Seals of court in India and out of India established by the authority of the central govt.
c) Seals of courts of Admiralty and maritime jurisdiction. d) Seals of Notaries Public
e) Seals of a person who is authorised to us by the Act of Parliament or other regulation having the force of law in India.
vii. Accession etc. of public officers viii. Recognition of foreign state and their national flags
ix. Division of time etc x. Territories
xi. Hostilities b/w India & other states xii. Names of the officers in the court
xiii. Rule of road on land & on sea
Sec. 58 conveys the principle that what is admitted need not be proved. No facts need be proved in any proceedings which the parties or there agents agrees to admit at the hearing, or which, before the hearing, they agree to admit by any writing under their hands, or which by any rule of pleading in force at the time they are deemed to have admitted by their pleading.
Admission are of two kinds, viz
a. Formal admission (judicial admission) b. Informal admission( extrajudicial admission) Section 17 lays down informal admission (extrajudicial admissions) which are made by the parties outside the course of judicial proceedings. The section is concerned with formal admission (judicial admission) i.e., admission during the trial, either at or before the hearing. The advantages underlying this section is that the normal procedure of proving the fact need not be followed and thereby precious time and expenses is saved. Classification of judicial admission
- Facts which parties agree to admit at the hearing: facts which any party admit at the time of hearing requires no proof. However the expression “at the time of hearing” as used do not imply at the first hearing when issue are framed. For the purpose of proving such an admission, recording of the admission by the judge may be proved. Where the party have admitted the facts during the course of a litigation, the facts admitted need not be proved.
deaf may testify by signs or by writing Oral evidence, if worthy of credit, is sufficient without documentary evidence to prove a fact or title.
Definition of Oral Evidence: Section.3 of the Indian Evidence Act defines oral evidence. It says - “All Statements which the court permits or requires to be made before it, by witnesses in relation to matter of fact under enquiry, such statements are called Oral Evidence." The evidence of witnesses in general is given orally, and this Means Oral Evidence. Therefore Oral Evidence includes the statement of witnesses before the court which the Court either permits or requires them to make. A witness who can speak may communicate his knowledge of the fact to the court by signs or by writing and it will be treated as oral evidence.
Proof of Facts by oral Evidence (Section.59): All facts, except the contents of documents, may be proved by oral evidence. (The words or electronic records inserted by IT Act 2000) Importance of Oral Evidence:
This Section lay down that, where written documents exist, they shall be produced as being the best evidence of their own contents and no oral evidence can be adduced to prove as to what is wrong in the document.
FALSUS IN UNO, FALSUS IN OMINIBUS: it means “false in one thing is false in everything”. The oral testimony given would always be a mixture of both truth and falsehood, the question arise is whether the entire oral evidence has to be discarded by applying this maxim. If this maxim is applied in true sense then it is not possible to obtain any oral testimony completely free from embroidery. This maxim neither accepted nor considered by any stretch of imagination as a rule of law.
The SC in Ugar Ahir v. State of Bihar (AIR 1965), has held that the maxim is neither a sound rule of law nor a rule of practice for the reason that hardly one comes across a witness whose evidence does not contain a grain of untruth, or at any rate, exaggeration, embroidery or embellishment. It is the duty of the court to scrutinise the evidence carefully and separate the grain from the chaff.
In Israr v state of UP (2005) the SC stated that the maxim cannot be a mandatory rule but it is merely a rule of caution and therefore if major portion of evidence is found to be deficient in case, residue is sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused notwithstanding acquittal of number of other co-accused, his conviction can be sustained.
In Ranjit Singh v state of MP (AIR 2011) the SC held that the maxim is not applicable in India but the whole evidence of a witness cannot be discarded
unless exceptional circumstances exist to show that it is not possible to separate grain from chaff because they are inextricably mixed up.
Admissibility of tape recorded statement as oral evidence
SC in Pratap Singh v state of Punjab (AIR 1964) held that tape recorded conversation can only be corroborative evidence, but cannot be direct or primary evidence that the third person stated what the other speaker had told. They observed, however that weight to be given to such evidence will depend on the other factors, which may be established in particular case.
A tape recorded conversation is admissible in evidence provided the court is satisfied that there was no tampering, dubbing and imperfect recording.
Evidence given by the witness may be oral or documentary. Section 60 of the Indian Evidence Act says that, oral Evidence to be admissible, it must be direct. It would be direct if it satisfies the following conditions:
a. (^) If it refers to a fact which could be seen, the evidence must be of a witness who himself saw it. For example: A stabbed B. C is the eye witness to this transaction. At the trail of A for murder, the oral evidence given by C is direct and admissible. b. (^) If it refers to a fact, which could be heard, it must be the evidence of a witness who heard it. For example: A has blown up a railway bridge by using some explosive materials, B who resides nearby of that bridge heard the sound of explosion. At the trail of A the evidence given by B is admissible. c. If it refers to a fact, which could be perceived by any other sense or in any other manner it must be the evidence of a witness who himself perceived it by that sense or in that manner. d. (^) It is refer to an opinion or to the ground on which that opinion is held it must be the evidence of the person who holds that opinion on those grounds. For example, in case of murder, the medical experts on the basis of his examinations gives an opinion that the death of the deceased was caused by a particular poison. The oral evidence of such opinion by the medical expert himself would be direct evidence.
HEARSAY EVIDENCE NO EVIDENCE Sec 60 while demanding that oral evidence must always be direct, enacts the general English rule that hearsay is no evidence. Hearsay evidence, which is called as derivative, second hand and unoriginal evidence etc. is the evidence of facts, which the witness has not learnt through his own bodily sense but learnt through the medium of others.
Stephen says ‘sometimes it means whatever a person is heard to say: sometimes it means whatever a person declared on information given by
An extra- judicial admission or a confession which is sought to be proved through the testimony of a witness to whom such admission or confession is made, is admissible as an exception. iii. Statement u/s 32
Statement made by persons who cannot be called as a witnesses, because they are either dead or cannot be found, or have become incapable to give evidence or their attendance cannot be procured without an amount of unreasonable amount or delay in the opinion of the court, are admissible as an exception. iv. Evidence given in the former proceedings (s.33) It is provided that evidence is given by witness in proceeding can be used as an evidence of the truth of the facts stated in any subsequent proceeding between the same parties, provided that the witness has died or is, for some other reasons, not available. v. Statement in public documents (s.35) The statement in public document such as, the Acts of the Parliament, official books and registers can be proved by the production of the documents and it is not necessary to produce before the court the draftsman of the documents. vi. Proviso I to sec 60: Expert opinion (s 45-51)
The opinions of experts expressed in any treaties commonly offered for sale and the grounds on which such opinions are held can be proved by the production of such treaties without calling that expert, provided the author is not available as witness for the reasons analogous in s 32.
vii. Proviso II to sec 60 As per this proviso, the court may require the production of any material things for its inspection, if the oral evidence refers to the existence of that material things.
CHAPTER 3
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
Sec 3 defines the expressions ‘documentary evidence’ and ‘document’. Documentary evidence is defined as “all documents produced for the inspection of the court”. The expression ‘document’ is defined as “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”.
The subject of documentary evidence is classified into:-
a. The content of document are to be proved (section 61 to 66) b. To prove the genuinty of the document (section 67 to 78)
c. The presumption about the various documents that can be raised (section 79 to 90)
A. THE CONTENT OF DOCUMENT ARE TO BE PROVED (SECTION 61 TO 66)
A document may be proved either by the way of primary and secondary evidence. In the case of Ram Prasad v. Raghunandan Prasad (1885). The court had observed that the contents of document must be proved either by the production of document which is called as the primary evidence, or by copies or oral accounts of the contents, which are called as secondary evidence and rule means that there is no other document. The most cardinal rule of the law of evidence is that always best evidence must be given. Primary evidence is said to be the best evidence. So the best evidence rule is to produce the original and secondary evidence is not admissible unless the absence of the original is satisfactorily explained.
As per Lord Esher pointing out the distinction between primary and secondary evidence observed: “ primary evidence is evidence which the law requires to be given first; secondary evidence is evidence which may be given in the absence of that better evidence, when a proper explanation of its absence has been given.
PRIMARY EVIDENCE
As per sec. 62 primary evidence mean the document itself produced for the inspection of the court. Primary evidence is the evidence, which the law requires to be given first. If the original document is produced for the inspection of the court, it is called Primary Evidence.
Example: A filed a suit against B for recovery of Rs 10,000/-. A alleged that B borrower the said sum of Rs 10,000/- after executing a promissory note. B denied the execution of the promissory note. When A produced the original document in the court to prove the execution of promissory note and the amount borrowed by B the evidence is called Primary Evidence.
- Execution of a document in several parts- the earlier part of explanation say that where a document is executed in several parts, each part is primary evidence of the document. These refers to what are known as duplicates, triplicates or like originals. When a document is executed in duplicate or triplicate and each party retains one, each instrument is treated as an original and each is primary evidence of others.
For example: A and B entered into a contract. The agreement is reduced to writing in two documents and both the parties signed in the two
the existence, condition and contents of the original and not of its execution.
- Copies made by mechanical process and copies compared with such copies
Copies made from the original by the mechanical process as referred to sec 62 which in themselves insure the correctness, are secondary evidence of the original. A photograph of an original is secondary evidence of its contents, if it is proved that the thing photographed was the original. As per Jai Prakash Singh v State of Bihar (2006), photocopy of an injury report is admissible as secondary evidence, if the original injury report is proved to be genuine by examining the photographer or by means of some other evidence.
- Copies made from or compared with the original
The copy made from the original, though not by mechanical process, being given in evidence as secondary evidence. Also a copy made from a certified copy and has been compared with the original is admissible as secondary evidence. But if it is not compared with the original it is inadmissible. Thus, it is clear that copy of a copy will be inadmissible in evidence.
In Ram Prasad v. Raghunandan Prasad (1885), the original decree is alleged to have been destroyed by fire, a copy of the decree on plain paper purporting to have been transcribed from a certified copy of the decree was held to be inadmissible.
- Counterparts of documents
Counterparts of documents are primary evidence as against the parties executing them u/s 62, whereas under this cause they are secondary evidence as against the parties who sis not execute them.
- Oral accounts of the contents of the document given by the person who has himself seen it
The oral account of the contents of a document given by a person who has merely seen it with his own eyes, but not able to read it is not admissible as secondary evidence. The word “seen” in Sec. 63(5) means something more than the mere sight of the document, and this contemplates evidence of a person who having seen and examined the document is in a position to give direct evidence of the content thereof. No degrees of secondary evidence: the general rule is that there are no degrees in secondary evidence, which means a party is entitled to adduce any of the five kinds in secondary evidence.
When secondary evidence is admissible
Sec. 65 enumerates seven cases in which the secondary evidence is permissible under the Act. The principle is that so long the original exists, it being the best evidence must be proved. If the original cannot be produced for any of the reasons given in sec. 65, the secondary evidence becomes admissible.
Section 65 permits secondary evidence to be given for the purpose of proving the contents of a document either in civil or criminal proceedings. However before secondary evidence is let in u/s 65, two conditions are required to be satisfied. They are:
i. It must be shown that there is or was a document in existence capable of being proved by secondary evidence; and
ii. Proper foundation must be laid for the reception of such evidence.
It is designed only for the protection of persons who, inspite of best efforts are unable, for circumstances beyond their control to place before the court primary evidence as required by law. In M. Chandra v. M Thangmuthu (AIR 2011), SC held that the purpose of permitting secondary evidence to prove the contents of a document is intended to provide relief to the party genuinely unable to produce the original although no fault of that party.
Objection of admissibility of secondary evidence
Secondary evidence when produced is not objected to at the earliest opportunity, i.e., at the time when it is tendered in evidence, at a later stage in an appellate proceedings the same cannot be objected. But where the document is per se inadmissible the admission of secondary evidence is liable to be objected at any stage of the proceedings.
Cases in which secondary evidence is admissible:
a. This clause specifies three situation for the admissibility of secondary evidence.
i. Where the original is in possession of adversary – when the original is shown or appears to be in the possession of the adversary against whom it is to be proved, who with hold it at the trial after a notice to produce has been duly served, entitles the party, seeking to prove it, to give secondary evidence of it. In Rajesh Kumar Bhati v. Additional District judge, Jodhour (AIR 2009), where the defendant adduced a photocopy of a will to prove its contents on the ground that the plaintiff having the possession of the original is deliberately avoiding to produce the original, the court can permit secondary evidence in such case.
s. 74 defines a public document. It enables to give secondary evidence of the original document when the original is a public document within the meaning of s.74. It is necessary in the public interest to protect the original public documents from the danger to which they are likely to be exposed by their frequent production in evidence. f. When the original is document of which certified copy is permitted by law to be given in evidence It refers to nay document other than a public document of which a certified copy is permitted by this Act or by any other law which is in force in India to be given in evidence. The word “to be given in evidence” mean to be given in evidence in the first instance without having been introduced by other evidence (Harrish v Prosunno (1874)).
g. When the original consists of numerous accounts or other documents It refers to those cases where there are numerous documents, whether books of accounts or other documents, which are available to the court but not convenient for the court to examine them. It has no application to the documents which are not available. The main object of this provision is to save the precious public time.
ADMISSIBILITY OF ELECTRONIC RECORDS
Electronic record is defined under section 2(1)(t) of Information Technology Act. It defines that data, record or data generated, image, or sound stored, received or sent in an electronic form or micro film or computer generated micro fiche” [microfiche is a card made of transparent film used to store printed information in miniaturized form.
Meaning: If things mentioned in the definition i.e. “data, record or data generated, image, or sound” is either “stored” or “received” or “sent”, is in “an electronic form” or “micro film” or “computer generated micro fiche”, it is electronic record. Therefore most important consideration to term a thing as electronic record is that it has to be stored, received or sent in an electronic form or micro film or computer generated micro fiche.
Electronic Form The term “electronic form” is defined under section 2(1) (r) of the Information and Technology Act. Electronic form with reference to information, means any information generated, sent, received or stored in media, magnetic, optical, computer memory, micro film, computer generated micro fiche or similar device.
Section 4 of the Information and Technology Act gives legal recognition to the Electronic records on two conditions,
i. Rendered or made available in an electronic form and ii. Accessible so as to be usable for a subsequent reference.
Mode to prove and make admissible electronic record:
Section 65A of the Indian Evidence Act is a special provision. Wordings of section 65A are very much important. “Contents of electronic records may be proved in accordance with the provisions of section 65B.” In simple words, electronic record may be proved, if compliance of section 65B is made.
Section 65B Admissibility of electronic record
Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, any information contained in an electronic record which is printed on a paper, stored, recorded or copied in optical or magnetic media produced by a computer (hereinafter referred to as the computer output) shall be deemed to be also a document, if the conditions mentioned in this section are satisfied in relation to the information and computer in question and shall be admissible in any proceedings, without further proof or production of the original, as evidence or any contents of the original or of any fact stated therein of which direct evidence would be admissible.
Conditions [Section 65 B(2)]
(a) The computer output containing the information was produced by the computer during the period over which the computer was used regularly to store or process information for the purposes of any activities regularly carried on over that period by the person having lawful control over the use of the computer;
(b) During the said period, information of the kind contained in me electronic record or of the kind from which the information so contained is derived was regularly fed into the computer in the ordinary course of the said activities;
(c) Throughout the material part of the said period, the computer was operating properly or, if not, then in respect of any period in which it was not operating properly or was out of operation during that part of the period, was not such as to affect the electronic record or the accuracy of its contents; and
(d) The information contained in the electronic record reproduces or is derived from such information fed into the computer in the ordinary course of the said activities.
The method to make a statement in evidence in regard to electronic record admissible [Section 65 B(4)]
(4) In any proceedings where it is desired to give a statement in evidence by virtue of this section, a certificate doing any of the following things, that is to say,
Before restoring to secondary evidence u/s 65(a), a notice to produce the original must be served on the person in whose power and possession the original is. S.66 provides the ruled relating to the notice. The purpose of this notice is to give the adverse party adequate opportunity to produce the original in whose possession it is and thereby to procure the best evidence to prove the contents. S. 66 enumerates six circumstances in which notice is dispensed with in order to render secondary evidence admissible. They are:
- When the document to be produced is itself a notice;
- When from the nature of the case, the adverse party must know that he will be required to produce it;
- The court may permit secondary evidence without a notice, if it feels that either from the appearance of the circumstances or by positive proof that the adverse party has gained the possession of the original by fraud or force.
- When the adverse party or his agent has the original in court.
- When the adverse party or his agent admitted the loss of the document.
- When the person in possession of the document is out of the reach of and not subject to the process of the court.
MODE OF PROOF OF THE EXECUTION OF A DOCUMENT (section 67-73)
Under sec 61-66 the evidence either in the form of primary or secondary evidence may be given for the purpose of proving the existence, condition or contents of a document. But that will not serve the purpose unless the genuine execution of the document is also proved. S.67 lays down that whenever a document is alleged to have been signed or to have been written wholly or in part by any person, the signature or the handwriting of the said person must be proved to be in his handwriting. In Bank of India v A. Mohammed (2008), SC has stated that for proving the execution of document specified evidence must be available to show that the signature purporting to be that of the executant is in the handwriting of the executant. The general rule is that no writing can be admitted in evidence, unless its execution and genuineness is proved. Execution means the last act or acts which complete a document and this includes signing, sealing and delivering. The person signing the document is known as executant of the document. What the section requires is that the signature of person, who is alleged to have signed or made the document, must be proved. The following are the modes for the purpose of proving a signature or writing provided in the Act:
- By calling a person who signed or wrote a document.
- By calling a person in whose presence the document was signed or written.
- By calling a handwriting expert. (s. 45)
- By calling a person acquainted with the handwriting of the person by whom the document is supposed to be signed or written (s. 47)
- By comparing in court the disputed signature or writing with some admitted signature or writing (s 73)
- By proof of an admission by the person who is alleged to have signed or written the document that he signed or wrote it.
- By the statement of a deceased professional scribe, made in the ordinary course of business, that the signature on the document is that of a particular person.
- A signature is proved to have been made if it is shown to have been made at the request of a person by some other person, e.g., the scribe who signed on behalf of the executant.
- By other circumstantial evidence.
As per s. 67-A proof as to digital signature- except in the case of a secure signature, if the signature of any subscriber is alleged to have been affixed to an electronic record the fact that such signature is the signature of the subscriber must be proved.
Where a document is required by law to be attested by one or more witnesses, unless the document comes within the exception contained in the proviso of S. 68, the execution of the document must be proved by calling at least one attesting witness, if alive and is subject to the process of the court and is capable of giving evidence. If this is not complied with the document cannot be received in evidence. Strict compliance of this rule contained in s. 68 can be relaxed only in case provided in the Act itself. Attestation of a document is a common formality and in some cases it is mandatory. The object of the attestation is only to afford proof of the genuineness of the document.
Where the genuineness of a will is questioned, the execution of the will has to be proved in accordance with the provisions of law, establishing that it was executed in the presence of at least two witnesses. (B. Venkatamuni v. C J Ayodhya Ram Singh (AIR 2006))
If one attesting has been called proves the execution, calling of other attesting witness can be dispensed with, but the attesting witness who has been so called fails to prove the execution, not calling the other witness
makes a departure from the English rule according to which the attesting witness must be called, even though the deed be one, the execution of which is admitted by the party to it (Shib Chandra v Gour Chandra (1922)).
- Sec 71- It permits other evidence for the purpose of proving the execution of document in a case where the attesting witness who has been called denies or does not recollect the execution of the document. The section can only be requisitioned when the attesting witnesses, who have been called, fail to prove the execution of the document by reason of either denying their own signatures, or denying the signature of the testator, or having no recollection as to the execution of the document (Vishnu Ramkrishna v Nathu Vithal (AIR 1949)).
PROOF OF DOCUMENT NOT REQUIRED BY LAW TO BE ATTESTED
According to sec 72 a document which is not required by law to be attested, even if attested may be prove as if it was unattested. It is very common that certain documents even though not required by law to be attested, are attested because of the over cautiousness of the parties.
D. Mohanti v. J B Mohanti (1875), even where the attesting witnesses to a sale deed or a bond, which is not required to be attested, are alive, the document can be proved without calling the attesting witness. It may be proved by other evidence.
COMPARISON OF SIGNATURE, WRITING OR SEAL WITH OTHERS ADMITTED OR PROVED
S 73 provides another mode of proving the signature, handwriting and seal in addition to other modes. This sec contains two parts:
The first part provides that a signature, handwriting or the finger impression purporting to have been written or made by a person may be compared with any other signature writing or finger impression which is admitted or proved to the satisfaction of the court to be the signature, handwriting or finger impression of that person.
The second part of the session empowers the court to direct any person present, to write words or figures so as enable it to compare the words or figures so as enable it to compare the words or figures so written by that person, whose signature or handwriting is in dispute.
By whom comparison is to be made?
U/s 45 the signature or handwriting can be proved with the help of handwriting expert. S 47 enables any person to prove the signature or handwriting other person, whose signature or handwriting is in dispute by reason of his acquaintance of the signature or handwriting of that person. This section
enables an expert, jury or judge to compare the disputed signature, writing or seal with the proved or admitted signature, writing or seal. In Brinda kumar v E, the court remarked that the expression ‘purports’ in section means that the writing itself must state or indicate that it was written by a person. A court is competent to compare with the admitted or the proved writing not only writing, which purports to be in the alleged writer’s handwriting, but also a writing, which is alleged to be in his handwriting without expressly purporting it to be so.
Under this section it is not that any two writings can be compared, but that writing with which the disputed writing can be compared must be admitted or proved to be writing of the alleged writer of the disputed writing. Also a disputing signature can be compared only with a proved or admitted signature but a comparison of a disputed signature with one, which not proved or admitted is beyond the scope of this provision.
Article 20(3) of the constitution: Whether a court’s direction to an accused person to give specimen handwriting or thumb impression would infringe article 20(3) of constitution, which guarantees a FR that no person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. Calcutta HC in Sailendranath Sinha v State (1995) held that directing the accused u/s 73 to give specimen handwriting for comparison does not offend the FR against self-incrimination guaranteed by Art. 20(3). Art. 20(3) does not say that the accused shall not be a witnesses. The SC in M P Sharma v Satish Chandra (1954), held that the word ‘to be witness’ in Art. 20(3) means to furnish evidence either orally or by production of a thing or a document or in any other mode. Hence, a forced production of an incriminating document by an accused person will amount to testimonial compulsion. In CBI v Abdul Karim Ladsab T (2005), the Bombay HC held that where the accused persons are required to lend their voice samples to the investigating agency, this does not amount to testimonial compulsion. PUBLIC AND PRIVATE DOCUMENTS
All documents may be classified into two. They are Private document and Public document. Section 74 defines what public document is. Public Document- the following documents are public document:
- Documents forming the acts, or records of the act- 1.a. Of the sovereign authority; 1.b. Of official bodies and tribunals, and; 1.c. Of public officers, legislative, judicial and executive; Public records kept (in any State) of private documents. The public documents are admitted in evidence as exception to hearsay rule as the facts contained in them are of public evidence. A public document is one which is made where there is a judicial or quasi- judicial duty to inquire, for the purpose
