Section 35 Of Evidence Act
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 29 April 2011
This query is : Resolved
Dear members including the experts: Can anyone explain me about the following:
If statement of PW was recorded in the trial court but somehow the original last statement of PW was found missing and only carbon copy available.
In his previous statement PW admitted that he mentioned the name of accused on the behest of interested party means the complainant, police or the prosecution whereas in the last statement he re-tracted his earlier version and deposed that he knew the accused very well but its original was found missing.
Now the question is: Does that carbon copied last statement of PW would be admissible as evidence wherein in earlier statement he denied it as mentioned above?
I am enclosing Sec 35 of Evidence Act for reference of the learned members because I am fully confused as to whether Statement recorded in the court, signed by PW and attested by the Trial judge would become a Document under this section or it is something else which no act, law and court can define and if that be so then why reliance on that document to convict an accused?
