SANJAY PUNDLIK PARKAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sawantwadi, in Sessions Case No. 3 of 1991 on28.2.1996 the appellant- accused has preferred this appeal on the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal as also verbally canvassed before us.

(2.) With the assistance of the learned Advocate for the appellants as also the learned Public Prosecutor we have scrutinized the entire evidence on and reappreciated the same.

(3.) However the learned trial Judge laying very heavy emphasis on section 294 of Criminal Procedure Code proceeded to observe that all the documents produced in the Court by the prosecution were admitted by the accused under section 294 of Criminal Procedure Code and therefore they are bound to be held as proved and have been exhibited. This for the learned Judge was right. He goes further and observes that the contents are also true and have been admitted by the accused. What is provided by section 294 (3) is that where a document is admitted such document may be read in evidence in any trial without proof of the signature of the person to whom it purports to have signed it. All that has been provided by section is that all the documents admitted by the accused are admitted to have been made by the persons who the documents show as makers thereof. That a panchnama or post mortem report as alleged by the prosecution was factually made is held proved by recourse of section 294. The contents thereof are assumed to be true by the learned trial Judge. We need not go into the aspect of whether contents are required to be held true on admission under section 294 of Criminal Procedure Code and assume that the contents are also proved and true.