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 […]
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,
[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- […]
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 […]
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
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)).
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
In this context Section 296 of the Code can be read: (1) The evidence of any person whose evidence is of a formal character may be given by affidavit and may, subject to all […]
The most clinching evidence regarding conspiracy comes from the recordings of intercepted telephone calls between the terrorists and their co-conspirators and collaborators sitting in a foreign land
While dealing with the CST episode we must take note of two other witnesses. Their evidence is extraordinary in that they did not only witness the incidents but also made a visual record of the events by taking pictures of the two killers in action and also of their victims.
The Mohammed Ajmal Mohammad Amir Kasab was produced before the magistrate as directed, on February 20 at 10.40 AM. The magistrate repeated the entire gamut of explanations and cautions at the end […]
This is because a document in cheque form, on which the customer’s name as drawer is forged, is a mere nullity.
burden of proof lies upon a person who has to prove the fact and which never shifts. Onus of proof shifts.
Substantial evidence consists of evidence of circumstances none of which speak directly to the facts in issue but from which those facts may be inferred. In cases where evidence is of substantial nature circumstances from which conclusion of a fact is to be drawn should in first instance be fully established and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of wrong doer.
If the definition of conclusive proof given in Section 4 of the Evidence Act is applicable to any fact, then both the consequence mentioned above would occur, which means that what is declared to be conclusive proof shall not only be sufficient evidence of the concerned fact, the parties would not have any right to adduce evidence to disprove that fact.
The least that is required of a Court is the capacity to deliver a “definitive judgment” and unless this power vests in a tribunal in any particular case, the mere fact that the procedure adopted by it is of a legal character and it has the power to administer an oath will not impart to it the status of a Court”, and came to the conclusion that the commission appointed under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 is not a Court within the meaning of the Contempt of ‘Courts Act, 1952.
Which Evidence the Court permits or requires to be made before it in a Suit or Proceeding [ Relevant evidence]
Permissible hearsay Evidence [s 1to 16] HERESAY EVIDENCE-Hearsay evidence is that which attempts to prove the event In question, not by the assertion of one who has personal knowledge of it, but […]
EVIDENCE MAY BE GIVEN OF FACTS IN ISSUE AND RELEVANT FACTS — Evidence may be given in any suit or proceedings of the existence or non-existence of every fact in issue and […]
S 3 . EVIDENCE”. “ Evidence” means and includes— (1) all statements which the Court permits or requires to be made before it by witnesses, in relation to matters of fact under […]
VOCABULARY WATCH ACCOMPLICE ADMISSIBILITY ADMISSION AFFIDAVIT ALIBI APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE APPROVER ATTESTING WITNESS BENEFIT OF DOUBT BEST EVIDENCE BURDEN OF PROOF CERTIFIED COPY CHANCE WITNESS CHARACTER ASSASSINATION CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE COMPETENT CONCLUSIVE CONDUCT […]
Evidence Act 1977 INDEX Status information Long title Part 1 Preliminary 1 Short title 2 Act binds Crown 2A Notes in text 3 Definitions 4 Meaning of copy of document etc. 5 […]
Can a trial Court permit lacuna in prosecution evidence filled up ? The conventional concept is that the Court should not do so. But then, what is meant by lacuna in a prosecution case, has to be understood before deciding the said question one way or the other.