Even strong circumstances cannot take place of proof and guilt have to be proved by prosecution beyond reasonable doubt-EXPLAIN

Supreme Court has, time out of number, observed that while appreciating circumstantial evidence the Court must adopt a very cautious approach and should record a conviction only if all the links in the chain are complete pointing to the guilt of the accused and every hypothesis of innocence is capable of being negatived on evidence.

Whether contents of a memory card being electronic record U/S 2(1)(t) of IT Act can be termed as “document”: SC says yes-29/11/2019.

P. Gopalkrishnan @ Dileep  Versus State of Kerala and Anr.- Whether contents of a memory card being electronic record under Sec 2(1)(t) of IT Act 2000 would qualify as a “document” Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (forby short, ‘the 1872 Act’) and Section 29 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Ramesh Dasu Chauhan and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra-04/07/19

Evidence Act-There is no gainsaying that confession made to a police officer cannot be proved as against a person accused of any offence and no confession made by a person while in police custody except made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate, can be proved against him in view of embargo created by Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act. Section 27 of the Act nevertheless carves out an exception as it provides that when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence while he is in police custody, "so much of such information", regardless of it being a confession or not, may be proved, if it relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered.

Yashwant Sinha & Ors. Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation through its Director & ANR – 10/04/2019

Under the common law both in England and in India the context for material being considered by the court is relevancy. There can be no dispute that the manner in which evidence is got namely that it was procured in…

Expert witness rendering opinion evidence, DNA testing & Superimposition technique

The law of evidence is designed to ensure that the court considers only that evidence which will enable it to reach a reliable conclusion. The first and foremost requirement for expert evidence to be admissible is that it is necessary to hear the expert evidence. The test is that the matter is outside the knowledge and experience of the layperson. Thus, there is a need to hear an expert opinion where there is a medical issue to be settled.

Chance witness

On scrutiny of the below decisions, we find that the Hon'ble Apex Court has specifically observed that presence of witness was doubtful and no reliance can be placed on such chance witness.