Supreme Court pronouncements touching the question of Evidence- admission of evidence and appreciation of evidence
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 inquiry, such statements are called oral evidence;
(2) all documents including electronic records produced for the inspection of the Court, such documents are called documentary evidence.
COMMENT: Facts allowed by the trial Judge is Evidence and Evidential-facts either to be proved or Disproved. Evidence and Fact are interchangeable words, so technically FACT + PERMISSION = EVIDENCE. An investigator may bring so many things/facts/factor/articles under a ‘List’, but the moment the trial judge pickup a thing/fact/factor/article, it shall get the legal term- ‘Evidence’
Order of Discharge-Sections 120B, 302, 201 r.w. S.34 IPC and Sections 25, 27, 54, 59 of the Arms Act- In the present case, on account of the inconsistency in framing charges by the Sessions Court against the six accused, the trial has got truncated. The trial with respect to three accused i.e. Sachin Bansal, Narendra Mann, and the alleged contract killer – Joginder Singh Sodhi has proceeded in the absence of the other three accused viz. Shiv Charan Bansal, Lalit Mann and Shailendra Singh.
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.
the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned “must or should” and not “may be” established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between “may be proved” and “must be or should be proved”
It is a settled principle of law that when the Courts below have recorded concurrent findings against the accused persons which are based on due appreciation of evidence, this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India would be slow to interfere in such concurrent findings and secondly would not appreciate the evidence de novo unless it is prima facie shown that both the Courts below did not either consider the relevant piece of evidence or there exists any perversity or/and absurdity in the findings recorded by both the Courts below etc.
We have frequently held that in the exercise of our appellate jurisdiction we have power not only to correct error in the judgment under review but to make such disposition of the case as justice requires. And in determining what justice does require, the Court is bound to consider any change, either in fact or in law, which has supervend since the judgment was entered
Cuba developed Soberana 02 against COVID-19 - The Soberana 02 vaccine began its expanded phase II clinical trial this week, which will be extended to 900 people between 19 and 80 years of age, while in February a new test with pediatric population is planned, so that it can also be applied to the kids.
Inaugural Address by President Joseph R. Biden, Jr.- 20/01/2021 - Our history has been a constant struggle between the American ideal that we are all created equal and the harsh, ugly reality that racism, nativism, fear, and demonization have long torn us apart. Through the Civil War, the Great Depression, World War, 9/11, through struggle, sacrifice, and setbacks, our “better angels” have always prevailed.
Review of Climate of India during 2020 - The annual mean land surface air temperature averaged over India during 2020 was above normal. During the year, annual mean land surface air temperature averaged over the country was+0.290C above normal (based on the data of 1981-2010). The year 2020 was the eighth warmest year on record since nation-wide records commenced in 1901.
Zionism is compatible with the Teachings of Judaism-1942 - WE, THE UNDERSIGNED RABBIS of all elements in American Jewish religious life, have noted with concern a statement by ninety of our colleagues in which they repudiate Zionism on the ground that it is inconsistent with Jewish religious and moral doctrine. This statement misrepresents Zionism and misinterprets historic Jewish religious teaching, and we should be derelict in our duty if we did not correct the misapprehensions which it is likely to foster.
Bill of Rights 1689 - Whereas the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons assembled at Westminster, lawfully, fully and freely representing all the estates of the people of this realm, did upon the thirteenth day of February in the year of our Lord one thousand six hundred eighty-eight present unto their Majesties, then called and known by the names and style of William and Mary, prince and princess of Orange, being present in their proper persons, a certain declaration in writing made by the said Lords and Commons in the words following
Constitution of the United States of America [Original version-1789] - We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
