Compact Disc is “document” under Section 3 of the Evidence Act, 1872

Supreme Court: In the case where the Court was deciding the question regarding the exhibition of Compact Discs filed in defence by the accused and to get the same proved from Forensic Science Laboratory, the bench of Dipak Misra and P.C. Pantt, JJ held that the courts below erred in law in rejecting the application to play the compact disc in question to enable the public prosecutor to admit or deny.

In the case where a female child aged nine years was alleged to be sexually abused by his uncle, considering the fact that the compact disc in question had the conversation between the father of the victim and son and wife of the appellant regarding alleged property dispute, the Court referred to various judgments of this court where it was held that tape recorded conversation is admissible provided first the conversation is relevant to the matters in issue; secondly, there is identification of the voice; and, thirdly, the accuracy of the tape recorded conversation is proved by eliminating the possibility of erasing the tape record. The Court, hence, held that Compact Discs were “documents” under Section 3 of the Evidence Act, 1872.

Regarding Section 294 CrPC, the Court held that the object of Section 294 CrPC is to accelerate pace of trial by avoiding the time being wasted by the parties in recording the unnecessary evidence. Where genuineness of any document is admitted, or its formal proof is dispensed with, the same may be read in evidence. Hence, it was said that the endorsement of admission or denial by the public prosecutor will be sufficient and defence will have to prove the document if not admitted by the prosecution. [Shamsher Singh Verma v. State of Haryana, 2015 SCC OnLine SC 1242 decided on 24.11.2015]