Tag: Evidencedigest

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’

Hearsay evidence becomes admissible U/S 6 of Indian Evidence Act

In Sukhar v. State of U.P., (1999) 9 SCC 507, The Court has explained the provisions of Section 6 of the Evidence Act, 1872 observing that it is an exception to the general rule whereunder the hearsay evidence becomes admissible. However, such evidence must be almost contemporaneous with the acts and there should not be an interval which would allow fabrication. The statements sought to be admitted, therefore, as forming part of res gestae, must have been made contemporaneously with the acts or immediately thereafter.

State of NCT of Delhi Vs Shiv Charan Bansal & Ors – 05/12/2019


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.

Devi Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan-8/01/2019


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”

Chandra Bhawan Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh-1/05/2019

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.

Surinder Kumar and others Vs Gian Chand and others- 24/09/1957

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