Section 65 – Secondary evidence -- As a general rule, the parties must prove documents by leading primary evidence except in cases covered by Section 65 of the Act.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 18.05.2022

Section 63, 65 – Secondary evidence -- Roznamcha – Roznamcha is a document maintained by the revenue officials, therefore, the original of this document could have been produced only by the officials concerned – Original document is not available and only the photocopy of the same is available on record, which does not bear the signatures of any competent officer – Nothing to suggest that the photocopy available in the records of the office of the Deputy Commissioner, was ever made or compared with the original -- Photocopy of such a copy would not fall within the ambit of 'secondary evidence' – Order of Trial Court dismissing application for leading secondary evidence, upheld.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 18.05.2022

Section 137 -- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- DDR of accident – Deposition of author of DDR before Tribunal -- Evidential value -- Any statement made by a person, including the DDR, recorded before the police is not on oath and as such, it cannot be kept at the same pedestal as the deposition made by a witness before a Court of law -- On the one hand, it is the case of the appellant-Insurance Company that PW-2 was a planted witness and was not present when the occurrence in question took place, however, in the same breath, learned counsel while placing reliance upon the DDR recorded by PW-2, is trying to demolish the case of the claimants by urging that he had stated therein that the accident in question had happened suddenly and thus no one was at fault -- PW-2, while stepping into the witness-box gave a vivid account of the accident in question -- He was subjected to lengthy cross-examination, however, he stood his ground and the respondents were unable to create any dent in his testimony – Appeal of Insurance company against award passed by Tribunal dismissed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 29.04.2022