We are treating the law of evidence as it is gradually developing and the approach of the apex court towards a particular arena. Law is dynamic, however, interpretation is ever changing for delivering a better justice. ย
All citations are from Supreme Courtย
Civil Evidence ย ย 
Collecting Evidence for Criminalย Court ย
Electronic Evidence in Indianย Law ย
Commentary on Indian Evidence Act ย
Common principles
ย ย ย PROVED
P. Satyanaraynamurthy v. District Inspector of Police, State ofย A.P
ย ย ย ย ย Motive
Kiriti Pal v. State of West Bengal
ย ย Alibi
Vutukuru Lakshmaiah v. State ofย Andhra Pradesh
ย Circumstantial evidence
The normal principle in a case based on circumstantial evidence isย that the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought toย be drawn must be cogently and firmly established; that thoseย circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointingย towards the guilt of the accused; that the circumstances taken ย cumulatively should form a chain so complete that there is no escapeย from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime wasย committed by the accused and they should be incapable ofย explanation on any hypothesis other than that of the guilt of theย accused and inconsistent with his innocence.
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v.ย State of Maharashtra[base judgment]
GANPAT SINGHย Versusย THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH[19.09.2017]
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116; Ramreddy Rajeshkhanna Reddyย v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2006) 10 SCC 172; Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra, (2006) 10 SCCย 681; Venkatesan v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2008) 8 SCC 456; Sanjay Kumar Jain v. State of Delhi, (2011) 11 SCCย 733; Madhu v. State of Kerala, (2012) 2 SCC 399; Munna Kumar Upadhyaya @ Munna Upadhyaya v. State ofย Andhra Pradesh, (2012) 6 SCC 174; Vivek Kalra v. State of Rajasthan, (2014) 12 SCC 439.
ย Confession and its veracity
Indra Dalalย v. State of Haryana
Extra judicial confession
Sahadevan v. State of Tamil Nadu
Circumstantial evidence and last seen theory
The settled formulation of law is as follows :
โThe last seen theory comes into play where the time gap betweenย the point of time when the accused and deceased were seen lastย alive and when the deceased is found dead is so small that possibilityย of any person other than the accused being the author of crimeย becomes impossible. It would be difficult in some cases to positivelyย establish that the deceased was last seen with the accused whenย there is a long gap and possibility of other persons coming inย between exists. In the absence of any other positive evidence to
conclude that accused and deceased were last seen together, itย would be hazardous to come to a conclusion of guilt in those cases”
GANPAT SINGHย Versusย THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH[19.09.2017]
See Bodh Raj @ Bodha v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, (2002) 8 SCC 45; Jaswant Gir v. State of Punjabย (2005) 12 SCC 438; Tipparam Prabhakar v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2009) 13 SCC 534; Rishi Pal v. State ofย Uttarakhand, (2013) 12 SCC 551; Krishnan v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2014) 12 SCC 279; Kiriti Pal v. State ofย West Bengal, (2015) 11 SCC 178; State of Karnataka v. Chand Basha, (2016) 1 SCC 501; Rambraksh v. Stateย of Chhattisgarh, (2016) 12 SCC 251; Anjan Kumar Sharma v. State of Assam, 2017 (6) SCALE 556.โ
State of U.P. v. Satveer
Dying declaration
Dasin Bai v. State of Chhattisgarh
- Multiple dying declarations
Lakhan v. State of Haryana (2015) 11 SCC 154
Expert witness
State of M.P. v. Keshar Singh
Discrepancies and improvement of witnesses
Dilawar Singh v. State of Haryana
ย ย Secondary evidence (section 65)
Nandkishore Lalbhai Mehta v. New Era Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. (2015) 9 SCC 755
ย Electronic evidence
Tomaso Bruno v. State of U.P. (2015) 7 SCC
Suspicionย
Supreme ย Court in Sujit Biswas vs. State of Assamย (2013)12 SCC 406 had held that suspicion, however grave,ย cannot take the place of proof and the prosecution cannotย afford to rest its case in the realm of โmay beโ true but hasย to upgrade it in the domain of โmust beโ true in order toย steer clear of any possible surmise or conjecture. It wasย held, that the Court must ensure that miscarriage ofย justice is avoided and if in the facts and circumstances,ย two views are plausible, then the benefit of doubt must beย given to the accused.[ reaffirmed P. SATYANARAYANA MURTHYย VERSUSย THE DIST. INSPECTOR OF POLICEย AND ANR. ย SEPTEMBER 14, 2015]
Specialised Norms
ย Matrimonialย Matters
Vishwanathย Agrawal v. Sarla Vishwanath Agrawal1, wherein thisย Court has held thus:
โ39โฆโฆ.In a matrimonial dispute, itย would be inappropriate to expectย outsiders to come and depose. Theย family members and sometimes theย relatives, friends and neighboursย are the most natural witnesses. The veracity of the testimony isย to be tested on objectiveย parameters and not to be thrownย overboard on the ground that theย witnesses are related to either ofย the spouse. Exception has beenย taken by the courts below that theย servants of the house should haveย been examined and that amounts toย suppression of the best possibleย evidenceโฆโฆ.โ [ Position reliedย inย BHANUBEN AND ANR.ย Versusย STATE OF GUJARAT September 14, 2015]