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 […]
The role of an expert witness rendering opinion evidence before the Court may be explained by referring to the following observations of this Court in Ramesh Chandra Agrawal v. Regency Hospital Limited […]
The Supreme Court has explained the meaning of “discovery of fact” in consequence of information received from the accused laid down in Section 27 of the Evidence Act in paragraph 35 of “State of Maharashtra V. […]
Regarding law on the circumstance of last seen, the observation of Supreme Court in Mohibur Rahman and Another Vs. State of Assam, are relevant: The circumstance of last seen together does not […]
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.
A “statement” is: 1. An oral or written assertion; or 2. Nonverbal conduct of a person if it is intended by the person as an assertion. A “declarant” is a person who makes a […]
When a witness uses a writing or other item to refresh memory while testifying, an adverse party is entitled to have such writing or other item produced at the hearing, to inspect […]
The elementary Rule under Section 101 of the Evidence Act, is inflexible. Ordinarily, the burden to prove the fact rests on the party who substantially asserts affirmative of the issue and not […]
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ( Before : S. B. Sinha, J; P. K. Balasubramanyan, J ) ANIL RISHI — Appellant Vs. GURBAKSH SINGH — Respondent Civil Appeal No. 2413 of […]
The law with regard to the appreciation of the testimony of a prosecutrix is well-settled. In State of Maharashtra Vs. Chandraprakash Kewalchand Jain, it was held that the testimony of a victim […]
The pristine rule that the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused should not be taken as a fossilised doctrine as though it admits no […]
(30 of 1939) [26th September, 1939] An Act to amend the Law of Evidence with respect to certain commercial documents. Whereas it is expedient to amend the Law of Evidence with respect […]
परार्थानुमानम् परार्थानुमानलक्षणम् त्रिरुपलिङ्गाख्यानं परार्थानुमानम्। अन्वयव्यतिरेकपक्षधर्मतासंज्ञकानि त्रीणि रुपाणि, येन वचनेन प्रख्याप्यन्ते तद्वचनमुपचारादनुमानशब्देनोच्यते॥ तस्य द्वैविध्यम् तद् द्विविधम् साधर्म्यवद्वैधर्म्यवच्च। साध्यधर्मिदृष्टान्तधमिणोर्हेतु सत्ताकृतं सादृश्यं साधर्म्यम्। तद्यस्यास्ति तत् साधर्म्यवत् साधनवाक्यम्। साध्यधर्मिदृष्टान्तधर्मिणोर्हेतुसत्ताकृतं वैसादृश्यं वैधर्म्यम्। तद्यस्यास्ति तद्वैधर्म्यवत साधनवाक्यम्। स्वभावहेतोस्साधर्म्यवत्प्रयोगनिरुपणम् , […]
स्वार्थानुमानम् अनुमानस्य द्वैविध्यम् स्वार्थानुमानलक्षणम् अनुमानं द्विविधम् – स्वार्थं परार्थं च। स्वस्मै यत्तत् स्वार्थमनुमानं ज्ञानात्मकम्। पर्वतादौ धर्मिणि धूमादिकं दृष्ट्वा यस्य प्रतिपत्तुः वह्निज्ञानमुत्पद्यते, स एव तेन ज्ञानेन परोक्षमर्थं प्रतिपद्यते नान्य इति स्वार्थानुमानमुच्यते। परस्मै यत्तत् […]
From तर्कभाषा प्रत्यक्षम् मङ्गलाचरणम् गुरुं प्रणम्य लोकेशं शिशुनामल्पमेधसाम्। धर्मकीर्तिमतं श्रुत्यै तर्कभाषा प्रकाश्यते॥ प्रमाणसामान्यलक्षणम् [ Proof] इह खलु प्रेक्षापूर्वकारिणोऽर्थिजनाः सर्वपुरुषार्थसिद्धिनिमित्तं प्रमाणमनुसरन्तीति प्रमाणमादौ व्युत्पाद्द्यते। प्रमाणं सम्यग्ज्ञानमपूर्वगोचरम्। प्रमीयतेऽर्थोऽनेनेति प्रमाणम्। तदेव सम्यग्ज्ञानम्, सन्देहविपर्यासदोषरहितत्वात्। अविसंवादकं ज्ञानं लोके […]
State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad & Ors., (1962) 3 SCR 10, wherein it was held: “To be a witness’ may be equivalent to `furnishing evidence’ in the sense of making […]
The law relating to testimony of the child witness is discussed in the case of State of U.P. Vs. Krishna Master and Others, the relevant paras of the same is reproduced below:- […]
“Witness” means a person (other than a defendant)— (4)(a)who has witnessed conduct in relation to which he may be or has been called to give evidence in relevant proceedings; (b)who is able […]
Before the Family Court, an application under Section 125, Cr.PC has been filed by the respondents for maintenance. In the said proceedings, the respondents filed their affidavit in evidence and petitioner has been directed to cross-examine on the affidavit. At this stage, petitioner raised an objection in writing that in the proceedings, evidence can not be taken on affidavit, but the respondent should be examined in the Court in the presence of petitioner or his Counsel. Family Court relying on Section 10(3) of the Family Court Act found that the Family Court is having jurisdiction to adopt its own procedure for recording evidence and relying on provisions of Code of Civil Procedure held that the affidavit can be received in evidence and rejected the application of the petitioner. This order is under challenge in this petition.
It has been consistently laid down by Supreme Court that where a case rests squarely on circumstantial evidence, the inference of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating facts and […]
Supreme Court in Sarwan Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab, (1976) 4 SCC 369 and Sucha Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab, (2003) 7 SCC 643, it is not the […]
SUBJECT: EVIDENCE Documentary Evidence Act 1882 Criminal Evidence Act 1898 Evidence Act 1851 Civil Evidence Act 1968 The Electronic Presentment of Instruments (Evidence of Payment and Compensation for Loss) Regulations 2018 Police […]
A plethora of decisions by this Court as referred to above would show that once the statement of prosecutrix inspires confidence and accepted by the courts as such, conviction can be based only on the solitary evidence of the prosecutrix and no corroboration would be required unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate the courts for corroboration of her statement.
we are satisfied that in the interests of justice and to prevent abuse of the process of court, the trial court ought to have considered whether it was necessary to re-open the evidence and if so, in what manner and to what extent further evidence should be permitted in exercise of its power under Section 151 of the Code.
“After all, function of the criminal Court is administration of criminal justice and not to count errors committed by the parties or to find out and declare who among the parties performed better
RECENT DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
