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
Civil Evidence 
Collecting Evidence for Criminal Court
Electronic Evidence in Indian Law
Commentary on Indian Evidence Act
Common principles
PROVED
P. Satyanaraynamurthy v. District Inspector of Police, State of A.P
Motive
Kiriti Pal v. State of West Bengal
Alibi
Vutukuru Lakshmaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh
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.
Confession and its veracity
Indra Dalal 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 :
“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
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
Secondary evidence (section 65)
Nandkishore Lalbhai Mehta v. New Era Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. (2015) 9 SCC 755
Electronic evidence
Tomaso Bruno v. State of U.P. (2015) 7 SCC
Suspicion
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]
Specialised Norms
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]