Criminal Evidence

Law Library-

When I'm checking someone out and they notice me.

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.  


All citations are from Supreme Court attention

Devider

Civil Evidence    ARROW 2

Collecting Evidence for Criminal Court  ARROW 2

Expert Evidence  ARROW 2

Electronic Evidence in Indian Law  ARROW 2

Commentary on Indian Evidence Act  ARROW 2

Devider

Common principles

BULLET 2    PROVED

P. Satyanaraynamurthy v. District Inspector of Police, State of A.P


BULLET 2         Motive

Kiriti Pal v. State of West Bengal


BULLET 2    Alibi

Vutukuru Lakshmaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh


BULLET 2  Circumstantial evidence

The normal principle in a case based on circumstantial evidence is that the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn must be cogently and firmly established; that those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused; that the circumstances taken  cumulatively should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and they should be incapable of explanation on any hypothesis other than that of the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with his innocence.

Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra[base judgment]

GANPAT SINGH Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH[19.09.2017]

Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116; Ramreddy Rajeshkhanna Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2006) 10 SCC 172; Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra, (2006) 10 SCC 681; Venkatesan v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2008) 8 SCC 456; Sanjay Kumar Jain v. State of Delhi, (2011) 11 SCC 733; Madhu v. State of Kerala, (2012) 2 SCC 399; Munna Kumar Upadhyaya @ Munna Upadhyaya v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2012) 6 SCC 174; Vivek Kalra v. State of Rajasthan, (2014) 12 SCC 439.


BULLET 2  Confession and its veracity

Indra Dalal v. State of Haryana


BULLET 2Extra judicial confession

Sahadevan v. State of Tamil Nadu


BULLET 2Circumstantial evidence and last seen theory

The settled formulation of law is as follows :
“The last seen theory comes into play where the time gap between the point of time when the accused and deceased were seen last alive and when the deceased is found dead is so small that possibility of any person other than the accused being the author of crime becomes impossible. It would be difficult in some cases to positively establish that the deceased was last seen with the accused when there is a long gap and possibility of other persons coming in between exists. In the absence of any other positive evidence to
conclude that accused and deceased were last seen together, it would be hazardous to come to a conclusion of guilt in those cases”

GANPAT SINGH Versus 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 Punjab (2005) 12 SCC 438; Tipparam Prabhakar v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2009) 13 SCC 534; Rishi Pal v. State of Uttarakhand, (2013) 12 SCC 551; Krishnan v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2014) 12 SCC 279; Kiriti Pal v. State of West Bengal, (2015) 11 SCC 178; State of Karnataka v. Chand Basha, (2016) 1 SCC 501; Rambraksh v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2016) 12 SCC 251; Anjan Kumar Sharma v. State of Assam, 2017 (6) SCALE 556.”

State of U.P. v. Satveer


BULLET 2Dying declaration

Dasin Bai v. State of Chhattisgarh

  • Multiple dying declarations

Lakhan v. State of Haryana (2015) 11 SCC 154


BULLET 2Expert witness

State of M.P. v. Keshar Singh


BULLET 2Discrepancies and improvement of witnesses

Dilawar Singh v. State of Haryana


BULLET 2    Secondary evidence (section 65)

NandkishoreLalbhai Mehta v. New Era Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. (2015) 9 SCC 755


BULLET 2  Electronic evidence

Tomaso Bruno v. State of U.P. (2015) 7 SCC

BULLET 2Suspicion 

Supreme  Court in Sujit Biswas vs. State of Assam (2013)12 SCC 406 had held that suspicion, however grave, cannot take the place of proof and the prosecution cannot afford to rest its case in the realm of “may be” true but has to upgrade it in the domain of “must be” true in order to steer clear of any possible surmise or conjecture. It was held, that the Court must ensure that miscarriage of justice is avoided and if in the facts and circumstances, two views are plausible, then the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused.[ reaffirmed P. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY VERSUS THE DIST. INSPECTOR OF POLICE AND ANR.  SEPTEMBER 14, 2015]

Devider

Specialised Norms

ARROW Matrimonial Matters

Vishwanath Agrawal v. Sarla Vishwanath Agrawal1, wherein this Court has held thus:
“39…….In a matrimonial dispute, it would be inappropriate to expect outsiders to come and depose. The family members and sometimes the relatives, friends and neighbours are the most natural witnesses. The veracity of the testimony is to be tested on objective parameters and not to be thrown overboard on the ground that the witnesses are related to either of the spouse. Exception has been taken by the courts below that the servants of the house should have been examined and that amounts to suppression of the best possible evidence…….” [ Position relied in BHANUBEN AND ANR. Versus STATE OF GUJARAT September 14, 2015]