EMPEROR Vs. AHILYA MANAJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) [His Lordship after setting out the facts of the case proceeded-] My learned brother raised one point on the evidence which is none the less valuable because it is technical. I refer to the certificate, which was admitted in evidence, of the Professor of Anatomy at the Grant Medical College as to the bones. That is Ext. 36 and it is referred to by the learned Sessions Judge at page 49 line 35 of his judgment. The technical point is whether that certificate as such is admissible in evidence. What took place is this: that certain articles which were found in the place I mentioned such as sack, dhoti, rags, gunny bag, etc., were sent to the Chemical Analyser. The Chemical Analyser was not called but merely his certificate was put in. That is correct. The person who was called was the Sub-Assistant Surgeon and his evidence was: "The Sub-Inspector of Police, Akola, had sent to me some articles. They are all before the Court. All the articles except bones were sent to the Chemical Analyser, Bombay. The bones were sent to the Professor of Anatomy, Grant Medical College, Bombay. The certificates from these officers were received and they are these shown to me. The articles were also received back and were then sent by me to the Sub-Inspector of Police, Akola." There was no cross-examination of the Sub-Assistant Surgeon. The point is whether the certificate which he thus produced was evidence without the Professor of Anatomy being himself called. The Government Pleader has said that there is a High Court Circular giving directions in this class of cases that bones are to be sent to the Professor of Anatomy, Grant Medical College. That of course is a right and proper course, but the certificate of the Professor is not per se admissible in evidence apart from special authority like Section 510 of the Criminal P. C.. It seems to me then that without some special authority on that behalf a certificate from a third party like this is only hearsay evidence and is not admissible in the absence of any statutory authority. [His Lordship then dealt with the merits of the case and confirmed the convictions and sentences. Crump J. delivered a separate judgment agreeing with the above order.]