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 […]
Refreshing the memory of a witness
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 […]
Ownership and easement right are inconsistent and cannot coexist in the same person.
As existence of both a dominant tenement and servient tenement is essential to the creation and existence of an easement it is difficult to conceive of a position where a person can claim easement by prescription when he owns both the tenements. It may be permissible in the plaint to advance an inconsistent plea of ownership and easement alternatively, but it is necessary that the plaintiff should press one of them only either at the stage of evidence or a subsequent stage. When the dominant and servient tenement are in the ownership and possession of the same person acts done by him on the servient tenement are clearly referable to his possession of that tenement and hence there cannot be any easement by prescription,
Evidence in Yajnavalkya Smriti [Sanskrit]
[५. साक्षिप्रकरणम्] तपस्विनो दानशीलाः कुलीनाः सत्यवादिनः । धर्मप्रधाना ऋजवः पुत्रवन्तो धनान्विताः ॥ २.६८ ॥ त्र्यवराः साक्षिणो ज्ञेयाः श्रौतस्मार्तक्रियापराः । यथाजाति यथावर्णं सर्वे सर्वेषु वा स्मृताः ॥ २.६९ ॥ स्त्रीबालवृद्धकितव- मत्तोन्मत्ताभिशस्तकाः । रङ्गावतारिपाखण्डि- […]
Law of Evidence in the UK
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 […]
Strict rules of Evidence and standard of proof in it do not apply to departmental proceedings or domestic tribunal.
It is thus well settled law that strict rules of the Evidence Act, and the standard of proof envisaged therein do not apply to departmental proceedings or domestic tribunal. It is open […]
Policy to reopen evidence once closed by the order of Court in a Civil suit.
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.
Witnesses can be summoned under Section 311 Cr.P.C. in spite of order closing prosecution Evidence
“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
The scope and ambit of Sec. 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
Power under Section 319 of the Code can be exercised by the Court suo motu or on an application by someone including accused already before it, if it is satisfied that any person other than accused has committed an offence and he is to be tried together with the accused. The power is discretionary and such discretion must be exercised judicially having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. Undisputedly, it is an extraordinary power which is conferred on the Court and should be used very sparingly and only if compelling reasons exist for taking action against a person against whom action had not been taken earlier. The word “EVIDENCE” in Section 319 contemplates EVIDENCE of witnesses given in Court. Under sub-section (4)(1)(b) of the aforesaid provision, it is specifically made clear that it will be presumed that newly added person had been an accused person when the Court took cognizance of the offence upon which the inquiry or trial was commenced. That would show that by virtue of sub-section (4)(1)(b) a legal fiction is created that cognizance would be presumed to have been taken so far as newly added accused is concerned. (See Lok Ram v. Nihal Singh and Anr. (AIR 2006 SC 1892)).
How is it possible to rectify or undo the lapse if it pertains to a vital piece of evidence?
A three-judge bench of Supreme Court has observed in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade vs. State of Maharashtra (1973) 2 SCC 793 that such an omission does not ipso facto vitiate the proceedings unless prejudice was established by the accused
