| Topics |
Headnote |
Judgement |
| INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 |
|
PDF |
| INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 |
Evidence Act — S 3 — Relevant fact — Weapon — Recovery of — the empty cartridges & cartages recovered were same & were actually fired by the gun seized from the accused — Not mentioned that the death of the victim occurred by the bullet released from the seized gun —Fatal to prosecution. (Para 21) |
PDF |
| INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 |
Evidence Act — S 3 — Relevant fact — Ocular Evidence vis-à-vis Medical Evidence — Contradiction between — Evidentiary value— Held, though the ocular testimony of a witness has greater evidentiary value vis-à-vis medical evidence— when medical evidence makes the ocular testimony improbable— that becomes a relevant factor in the process of the evaluation of evidence. (Para 22) |
PDF |
| INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 |
Evidence Act — S 3 — Relevant fact — Ocular Evidence vis-à-vis Medical Evidence — Contradiction between — Evidentiary value— Held, where the medical evidence completely rules out all possibility of the ocular evidence being true — the ocular evidence may be disbelieved. (Para 22) |
PDF |
| INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 |
Evidence Act — S 3 — Relevant fact — Recording of Statement — time gap in — Effect of — Held, it is but natural for human beings to state variant statements due to time gap — but if such statements go to defeat the core of the prosecution then such contradictions are material — & the Court has to be mindful of such statements. (Para 24) |
PDF |
| INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 |
Evidence Act — S 3 — Relevant fact — Credibility of witness — Same person already had deposed for the victim family on a number of previous occasions— that too against the same accused —fatal to prosecution. (Para 18) |
PDF |
| INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 |
Evidence Act — S 3 — Relevant fact — Chance witness — Commotion was only heard by chance witness whereas the rest of the members of the locality did not come for help — Chance witness was an interested witness — causes suspicion and does not inspire confidence. (Para 19) |
PDF |
| INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 |
Evidence Act — S 3 — Relevant fact — Medical Evidence vis-à-vis eyewitness — contradictions regarding the distance and height of the assaulter — non-availability of proper site plan— absence of — fatal to prosecution. (Para 23) |
PDF |
| INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 |
Evidence Act — S 3 — Relevant fact — firing of bullet — with the ceased gun — Authenticated ballistic expert report — absence of — fatal to prosecution. (Para 23) |
PDF |
| INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 |
Evidence Act — S 3 — Relevant fact — Circumstantial Evidence — Chain of — visibly incomplete and incoherent — the prosecution has failed to elevate its case from the realm of “may be true” to the plane of “must be true” — as is indispensably required in law for conviction on a criminal charge — Conviction not sustainable. (Para 11) |
PDF |
| INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 |
Evidence Act — S 3 — Relevant fact — Circumstantial Evidence — Evaluation of — Duty of the Court — Held, in scrutinizing the circumstantial evidence — a court is required to evaluate it to ensure that — the chain of events is established clearly and completely — to rule out any reasonable likelihood of innocence of the accused. (Para 12) |
PDF |
| INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 |
Evidence Act — S 3 — Relevant fact — Circumstantial Evidence — Chain of Circumstances — completion of — Held, whether the chain is complete or not would depend on the facts of each case — emanating from the evidence & no universal yardstick should ever be attempted. (Para 12) |
PDF |
| INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 |
Evidence Act — S 3 — Relevant fact — Specific attribution — lack of — the witness referred to the accused persons as the diesel thieves and the assailant— but did not try to say which of them had stabbed—Fatal to prosecution. (Para 9) |
PDF |
| INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 |
Evidence Act — S 3 — Relevant fact — Specific attribution — lack of — Poor visibility — contradiction between the evidence of eye-witnesses — fatal to prosecution. (Para 9) |
PDF |
| INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 |
Evidence Act — S 3 — Relevant fact — Apprehending the accused — contradictory statement of the witnesses — fatal to prosecution. (Para 10) |
PDF |
| INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 |
Evidence Act — S 3 — Relevant fact — Complainant — Conduct of — Caught the accused persons himself and verified their names from them so as to give supplementary statement to the police — was unable to even correctly refer to the accused persons in evidence — Held, It would be difficult to rely on his identification. (Para 11) |
PDF |
| INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 |
Evidence Act — S 3 — Relevant fact — Injury — Corresponding stains on the clothes — absence of — fatal to prosecution. (Para 13) |
PDF |
| INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 |
Evidence Act — S 3 — Relevant fact — Stab Injury — Corresponding cut on the clothes —absence of —Version of prosecution — the injured was assaulted from the gap of shirt button — Conduct of injured person — Held, , the natural conduct would be to hold on to the injury so that the flow of blood could be reduced — Medical evidence — profuse bleeding — Held, When there are no corresponding blood stains of profuse bleeding on the shirt — it is doubtful if this was the same shirt which was worn at the time of incident — fatal to prosecution. (Para 13) |
PDF |
| INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 |
Evidence Act — S 32 — Dying declaration — Accused persons & the deceased were staying in different cities — Presence of relatives of the deceased — At the time of recording of dying declaration the parents of the deceased were very well present — Held, it can be presumed that the names of the accused were implicated at the instance of her parents. (Para 14) |
PDF |
| INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 |
Evidence Act — S 113B — Statuary presumption — Non-availability of — Cruelty or harassment by the husband or his relative or the person charged — Non-proving by prosecution — Held, if the prosecution fails to prove such fact — the person accused of 304-B & 498-A cannot be held guilty — by taking refuge only of the presumption to cover up the shortfall in proof — IPC — Ss 304-B & 498-A. (Para 33) |
PDF |
| INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 |
Interpretation of Statute — Evidence Act — S 113B — Statuary presumption — availability of — Held, Proof of cruelty or harassment by the husband or his relative or the person charged is the sine qua non to inspirit the statutory presumption. (Para 33) |
PDF |