The Evidentiary Dichotomy of Certified Copies of Depositions in Indian Law: Admissibility, Procedure, and Probative Value
Introduction
In the adversarial system of justice prevalent in India, the role of evidence, particularly documentary evidence, is paramount in the adjudication of disputes. Among the various forms of evidence, depositions—the sworn testimony of a witness recorded before trial—and their subsequent use in other proceedings through certified copies present a complex area of law. The legal framework governing this practice is a confluence of procedural rules and substantive evidentiary principles, primarily enshrined in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. This article seeks to provide a scholarly analysis of the legal status of certified copies of depositions in Indian jurisprudence. It navigates the critical distinction between the admissibility of such documents and their ultimate probative value, a dichotomy that courts are frequently called upon to resolve. The central thesis is that while Indian law provides a streamlined path for the admission of certified copies of depositions as secondary evidence, their substantive weight is not presumed and remains subject to rigorous judicial scrutiny, contingent upon the purpose for which they are tendered and the context of the case.
The Legal Framework for Depositions and Certified Copies
The Nature of a Deposition in Indian Law
A deposition is the formal, written record of a witness's testimony given under oath outside the courtroom. Its primary purpose is to preserve testimony for trial or to be used for discovery. The Code of Civil Procedure, as amended, facilitates the recording of evidence, including depositions. The Supreme Court in Salem Advocate Bar Association, T.N v. Union Of India (2005) affirmed the validity of amendments to Order 18 Rule 4 of the CPC, which allows for the examination-in-chief to be filed via affidavit and for evidence to be recorded by court-appointed Commissioners. This modern approach to gathering testimony underscores the formal and judicial nature of a deposition. Furthermore, the ambit of recording evidence has been technologically expanded, with the Supreme Court in State Of Maharashtra v. Dr. Praful B. Desai (2003) sanctioning the use of video-conferencing to record depositions, holding that "presence" under the Code of Criminal Procedure does not necessarily mean physical presence, thereby adapting legal procedure to technological advancements.
Secondary Evidence and the Primacy of Certified Copies
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872, prioritizes primary evidence—the original document itself. However, Section 65 of the Act carves out exceptions where secondary evidence, such as copies, may be adduced. Of particular relevance are clauses (e) and (f) of Section 65, which permit secondary evidence when the original is a public document within the meaning of Section 74, or when the original is a document of which a certified copy is permitted by law to be given in evidence. In such cases, the statute is explicit: "a certified copy of the document, but no other kind of secondary evidence, is admissible."
This statutory preference for certified copies over other forms of secondary evidence, like photocopies, is consistently upheld by the judiciary. In J. Yashoda v. K. Shobha Rani (2007), the Supreme Court held that photocopies could not be received as secondary evidence without fulfilling the foundational requirements of Section 65. Similarly, in Kalyan Singh v. Smt. Chhoti And Others (1989), a non-certified copy of a sale deed was deemed inadmissible. The Allahabad High Court in New Okhla Industrial Development Authority v. Kendriya Karamchari Sahkari Grih Nirman Samiti Ltd (2017) reiterated that a decree cannot be granted on the basis of photostat copies. These judgments collectively establish that for documents falling under Section 65(e) and (f), a certified copy is not merely an option but the mandated form of secondary evidence.
Admissibility of Certified Copies of Depositions
Status as a Public Document
A crucial question determining the admissibility of a certified copy of a deposition is whether the original deposition qualifies as a "public document" under Section 74 of the Evidence Act. Section 74(1)(iii) defines public documents as those "forming the acts, or records of the acts... of official bodies and tribunals, and... of public officers, legislative, judicial and executive." A deposition recorded by a judge, magistrate, or a court-appointed commissioner during a judicial proceeding is unequivocally a record of a judicial act. Consequently, it falls within the ambit of a public document. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Jamuna Prasad And Others v. Shivnandan And Others (2011) directly addressed this issue in the context of a sale deed registered with a public officer, concluding that its certified copy was admissible under Section 65(e) without the need to seek specific permission to adduce secondary evidence. The same logic applies with greater force to a deposition, which is an integral part of the court's own record.
The Presumption of Genuineness under Section 80
Section 80 of the Evidence Act provides a significant procedural advantage for tendering certified copies of depositions. It states that whenever any document is produced before a court purporting to be a record or memorandum of evidence given by a witness in a judicial proceeding, and is certified by a Judge or Magistrate or other authorized officer, the court "shall presume" its genuineness. This presumption means the court will assume that the document is authentic, that the statements were indeed made by the deponent as recorded, and that they were taken under the circumstances stated. As noted by the Bombay High Court in Bandekar Brothers Pvt. Ltd. v. M.S V.G Quenim (2009), a certified copy of a deposition can be used as contemplated by Section 80. However, it is critical to understand that this presumption pertains to the authenticity of the record itself, not to the truthfulness of its contents. The court in L. Debi Prasad v. Smt Tribeni Devi And Others (1970) relied on a certified copy of a deposition from a 1917 suit, giving it "considerable evidentiary value" as an admission, implicitly relying on the presumption of its authenticity.
Procedural Considerations and the Doctrine of Waiver
The admissibility of a document is a procedural matter that must be addressed at the appropriate stage of the trial. The Supreme Court, in Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Premlata Shukla And Others (2007), laid down a crucial principle of waiver. It held that a party objecting to the admissibility of a document must raise the objection when it is tendered in evidence and marked as an exhibit. If no objection is raised and the document is admitted, the party cannot later "turn round and raise a contention that the contents of the documents had not been proved." This principle applies squarely to certified copies of depositions, precluding belated challenges to their admissibility if they were accepted without protest during the trial.
The Use and Probative Value of Depositions from Prior Proceedings
Distinguishing Admissibility from Probative Value
The most nuanced aspect of this area of law is the distinction between a document's admission into evidence and the weight or value the court assigns to it. The Telangana High Court in Gonepalh Rajamallaiah v. Ragipalli Rajaram (2017) articulated this principle with clarity, stating that according permission to adduce secondary evidence by producing a certified copy "does not absolve the plaintiff of his legal duty to prove his case." The court emphasized that issues concerning the "truth, validity, genuineness and the binding nature" of the document are to be examined at a later stage. Similarly, the Gujarat High Court in State Road Transport Corporation v. Chhotubhai Fakirbhai Patel (2009) observed that a certified copy of a deposition from a parallel criminal case is not a "conclusive piece of evidence" in a motor accident claim, and the claimant must prove their case independently. The purpose for which the deposition is being used is therefore determinative of its probative value.
Substantive Use under Section 33 of the Evidence Act
For a statement in a prior deposition to be used as substantive evidence of the truth of its contents, the stringent conditions of Section 33 of the Evidence Act must be met. This section permits such use only when the witness is dead, cannot be found, is incapable of giving evidence, or is kept out of the way by the adverse party. A further condition is that the proceeding must have been between the same parties or their representatives in interest, and the issues must have been substantially the same. The Calcutta High Court in Brajaballav Ghose v. Akhoy Bagdi (1925) highlighted the difficulty in satisfying these requirements, noting that even if a certified copy is produced, the prerequisites of Section 33 must be independently established, including proving the identity of the deponent.
Use for Contradiction and Corroboration
A more common and procedurally simpler use of a prior deposition is for impeaching or supporting the credibility of a witness who is testifying in the current proceeding.
- Contradiction (Section 145): A witness may be cross-examined as to previous statements made by them in writing. The Supreme Court in Sita Ram Bhau Patil v. Ramchandra Nago Patil (1977) clarified the correct procedure: the witness's attention must be drawn to those parts of the previous deposition which are to be used for the purpose of contradicting them. Merely tendering the certified copy is insufficient.
- Corroboration (Section 157): To corroborate the testimony of a witness, any former statement made by them relating to the same fact may be proved. A certified copy of a prior deposition can serve this purpose, lending consistency and credibility to the witness's in-court testimony. The court in Bandekar Brothers (2009) explicitly mentioned Sections 145 and 157 as valid uses for a certified copy of a deposition.
Use as an Admission
A statement made by a party in a prior deposition can be used against them in a subsequent proceeding as an admission. An admission is a powerful piece of substantive evidence against its maker. In L. Debi Prasad (1970), the Supreme Court placed significant reliance on a certified copy of a deposition from 1918 where a party's ancestor had admitted the paternity of a person, noting that the statement was made at a time when there was no dispute. This context greatly enhanced its evidentiary value. The use of a deposition from a maintenance case in a subsequent criminal proceeding, as seen in Md. Abdul Azeez v. The State Of A.P. (2003), is a practical example of this principle in action.
Conclusion
The jurisprudence governing certified copies of depositions in India reveals a sophisticated and pragmatic legal framework. The law facilitates the admissibility of such documents by classifying them as public documents, for which a certified copy is the prescribed mode of secondary evidence, fortified by a statutory presumption of genuineness under Section 80 of the Evidence Act. This ensures procedural efficiency and recognizes the authenticity of judicial records.
However, the judiciary, through a consistent line of precedents, has drawn a firm line between admissibility and proof. The probative value of a certified deposition is not automatic. It is contingent on the specific purpose for which it is tendered—whether as substantive evidence under the rigorous conditions of Section 33, for contradiction or corroboration under Sections 145 and 157, or as an admission against the deponent. As affirmed in cases like Gonepalh Rajamallaiah (2017), the court retains the ultimate authority to assess the veracity and weight of the statements contained therein. Therefore, while a certified copy of a deposition is a potent evidentiary tool, its successful deployment in litigation depends on strict procedural compliance and a clear strategic purpose, with its ultimate impact remaining a matter of judicial determination on the facts and circumstances of each case.