Section 164 of CrPC lays down provisions of recording of statements and confessions by any Metropolitan Magistrate or judicial magistrate.
The photocopy of the statements in absence of original shall be considered as a secondary evidence. As per section 63 of the evidence act, Secondary evidence means and includes –
1.Certified copies given under the provisions hereinafter contained;
2.Copies made from the original by mechanical process which in themselves ensure the accuracy of the copy, and copies compared with such copies;
3.Copies made from or compared with the original;
4.Counterparts of documents as against the parties who did not execute them;
5.Oral accounts of the contents of a document given by some person who has himself seen it.
A Photostat copy of a letter is a piece of secondary evidence, and it can be admitted in case original is proved to have been lost or not immediately available, for given reason, it is not conclusive proof in itself of the truthfulness of the contents contained therein. Photostat copies of documents should be accepted in evidence after examining the original records as genuineness of a document was a fundamental question. The witness can be shown and questioned as regards the Xerox copy of the document on records and the same will not amount to admission of the said document in evidence. If the witness admits the signature thereon, an objection can be raised at that time before the court that the document, being a copy, could not be exhibited. In a case where the Photostat copy of the original was produced, and there was no proof of its accuracy or of its having been compared with, or its being true reproduction of the original it was held that the Photostat copy cannot be considered as secondary evidence, as necessary foundation for its reception was not laid. A Photostat copy of a document is not admissible as secondary evidence unless proved to be genuine or the signatory accepts his signature.