Tag: Evidence Law

Advocatetanmoy Digest of Evidence Act

Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade and Another Vs State of Maharashtra (1973) 2 SCC 793 where the observations were made:
“Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between ‘may be’ and must be’ is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions.”

Effect of not holding a prior test identification parade

It is trite to say that the substantive evidence is the evidence of identification in Court. Apart from the clear provisions of S. 9 of the Evidence Act, the position in law is well settled by a catena of decisions of this Court. The facts, which establish the identity of the accused persons, are relevant under S.9 of the Evidence Act. As a general rule, the substantive evidence of a witness is the statement made in Court.

K.K. Velusamy Versus N. Palanisamy -30/03/2011

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA JUDGMENTS

Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Order 18, Rule 17 read with Section 151—Recall of witness—Ideally, recording of evidence should be continuous, followed by arguments, without any gap—Courts should constantly endeavour to follow such time schedule—Amended Code expects them to do so—If that is done, applications for adjournments, re-opening, recalling, or interim measures could be avoided.

Burden of proof in election cases

Appreciation of evidence and burden of proof in election cases-In our country, election is a fairly costly and expensive venture and the Representation of People Act has provided sufficient safeguards to make the elections fair and free. In these circumstances, therefore, election results cannot be lightly brushed aside in election disputes.

Understand Hearsay

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 […]

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,

Burden of proof

The expression “burden of proof” really means two different things. It means sometimes that a party is required to prove an allegation before judgment can be given in, its favour ; it […]