| Topics |
Headnote |
Judgement |
| INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 |
Evidence Act — S 45 — Expert opinion — Reliability of —No details of the tests undertaken in support of the conclusion as recorded in the report — The samples were not accompanied by the authentication card for DNA test as was necessary. —Evidence of witness — he was not deposing as an expert of DNA but in the capacity of Director, FSL alone — not relied. |
PDF |
| INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 |
Evidence Act — S 45 — Expert opinion — Reliability of — DNA report — without of the particulars of the tests conducted and the results thereof — is not a self contained —one and ipso facto also does not meet the requirements of an expert opinion. |
PDF |
| INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 |
Interpretation of Statute — Evidence Act — Ss 101 & 106 — Held, Section 106 does not absolve the prosecution's burden under Section 101 to prove its case of guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. |
PDF |
| INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 |
Evidence Act — S 45 Expert opinion — Reliability of — DNA report — does not disclose any scientific data on which the conclusion was arrived at— no expertise in the discipline of DNA test/serology — Medical witness himself was not present when the analysis was conducted — Non examination of the technician who conducted the analysis to establish clearly the process that was pursued — The evidence with regard to collection of blood samples was shaky and unconvincing as well. |
PDF |
| INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 |
Evidence Act — S 27 — Discloser statement — material fact — non-discloser in the FIR — Held, there is no corroboration in the form of an early disclosure — fatal to prosecution. |
PDF |
| INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 |
Evidence Act — S 8 — Conduct of witness — Relevant fact —Deposition of witness —did not remember as to whether victim was wearing a saree or a suit— yet he remembered the registration number of the car—Place of incident — secluded one — and on a small link road— suspicion that PW saw the number plate in dark hours of evening of the winter season. |
PDF |
| INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 |
Evidence Act — S 8 — Conduct of Witness — Intimidation allegation of— the witness neither informed about this to the police nor did he take follow up steps in connection therewith. |
PDF |
| INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 |
Evidence Act — S 8 — Motive — Relevance of — In deciding culpability, motive is not a necessary element — but it is an equally important missing link which can be used to corroborate the evidences. |
PDF |
| INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 |
Evidence Act — S 3 — Relevant fact — politically interested & rival groups — testimonies of — case was based on — Held, it was dangerous to place implicit reliance on the prosecution witnesses — and that too, inspite of the glaring infirmities in their evidence — and inspite of a serious doubt about the character of witnesses — Charge not proved — Acquittal. |
PDF |
| INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 |
Evidence Act — S 3 — Relevant fact —Possession of house —Proving of — rent receipts — non production of — entries in the said notebook — no entry regarding the payment during the relevant period — Overwriting in the relevant — possession not proved. |
PDF |
| INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 |
Evidence Act — S 3 — Relevant fact — Previous history of witness — criminal record to their discredit — Both parties belong to — rival political groups — Fatal to prosecution. |
PDF |
| INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 |
Evidence Act — S 3 — Fact in issue — IPC — S 409 — Criminal breach of trust by a Public servant —for the charge under the section the question is substantially one of fact, to be determined with reference to the act complained of and the attendant circumstances; — it seems neither useful nor desirable to paraphrase the language of the section in attempting to lay down hard and fast tests— Dr. Hori Ram Singh v. Emperor—Relied. |
PDF |
| INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 |
Evidence Act — S 3 — Document — Tape recorded conversation — Admissibility of — Held, tape recorded conversation is admissible — provided — first the conversation is relevant to the matters in issue; — secondly, there is identification of the voice; — thirdly, the accuracy of the tape recorded conversation is proved by eliminating the possibility of erasing the tape record — R.M. Malkani vs. State of Maharashtra — relied. |
PDF |
| INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 |
Evidence Act — S 3 — Document — Tape recorded conversation — Admissibility of — Held, tape-records of speeches were “documents”, as defined by Section 3 of the Evidence Act — which stood on no different footing than photographs — and they were admissible in evidence on satisfying the following conditions: — (a) The voice of the person alleged to be speaking must be duly identified by the maker of the record or by others who know it —(b) Accuracy of what was actually recorded had to be proved by the maker of the record and satisfactory evidence, direct or circumstantial, had to be there so as to rule out possibilities of tampering with the record —(c) The subject-matter recorded had to be shown to be relevant according to rules of relevancy found in the Evidence Act —Ziyauddin Barhanuddin Bukhari vs. Brijmohan Ramdass Mehra and others — relied. |
PDF |
| INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 |
Evidence Act — S 3 — Document — Word “document” — Definition of — ‘Document’ means any matter expressed or described upon any substance by means of — letters, figures or marks — or by more than one of those means, intended to be used — or which may be used, for the purpose of recording that matter. |
PDF |
| INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 |
Evidence Act — S 3 — Document — Compact disc — Authenticity of — Held, the compact disc is also a document. |
PDF |
| INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 |
Evidence Act — S 3 — Document — Tape recorded conversation — Admissibility of — Held, tape-records of speeches were “documents”, as defined by Section 3 of the Evidence Act — which stood on no different footing than photographs — and they were admissible in evidence on satisfying the following conditions: — (a) The voice of the person alleged to be speaking must be duly identified by the maker of the record or by others who know it —(b) Accuracy of what was actually recorded had to be proved by the maker of the record and satisfactory evidence, direct or circumstantial, had to be there so as to rule out possibilities of tampering with the record —(c) The subject-matter recorded had to be shown to be relevant according to rules of relevancy found in the Evidence Act —Ziyauddin Barhanuddin Bukhari vs. Brijmohan Ramdass Mehra and others — relied. |
PDF |
| INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 |
Evidence Act — S 3 — Document — Tape recorded conversation — Admissibility of — Held, tape recorded conversation is admissible — provided — first the conversation is relevant to the matters in issue; — secondly, there is identification of the voice; — thirdly, the accuracy of the tape recorded conversation is proved by eliminating the possibility of erasing the tape record — R.M. Malkani vs. State of Maharashtra — relied. |
PDF |
| INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 |
Evidence Act — S 3 — Document — Word “document” — Definition of — ‘Document’ means any matter expressed or described upon any substance by means of — letters, figures or marks — or by more than one of those means, intended to be used — or which may be used, for the purpose of recording that matter. |
PDF |
| INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 |
Evidence Act — S 3 — Relevant fact — Recovery of dead body — contraindication between the evidence of witnesses & police investigation. |
PDF |
| INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 |
Evidence Act — S 3 & 8 — Relevant fact & Conduct of witness — Witness did not sought for any help — nor did he inform anybody in the village that a daughter from his village was killed — Conduct unnatural — Non examination of the person who was accompanying the witness. |
PDF |
| INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 |
Evidence Act — S 3 — Relevant fact —Prosecution witness —Deposition of — contradictory to the medical evidence — fatal to prosecution. |
PDF |
| INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 |
Evidence Act — S 3 — Relevant fact —Recovery — Blood-stained clothes of the victims or bullet ridden car parts were not recovered — fatal to prosecution. |
PDF |
| INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 |
Evidence Act — S 3 — Relevant fact — Hearsay evidence — Non examination of the person who disclosed the fact to the witness— the witness neither stated this fact in the FIR — nor in the statement made before the police— but stated after two and half years in his deposition before the Court — not reliable. |
PDF |
| INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 |
Evidence Act — S 3 — Relevant fact —Evidence of PW-4 — relative of the victim — seen the victim lying in the pool of blood — with the accused/respondent standing nearby with a country-made pistol — did not disclose the fact to anybody — Neither he approached the police for help — after 3-4 days he narrated the facts to the father of victim — neither the father nor the PW-4 approached the police to get the statement of the PW-4 recorded — PW4 was summoned after one month of the incident at the Police Station —and his statement was recorded — deposition of PW4 — seems unnatural & untrustworthy. |
PDF |
| INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 |
|
PDF |
| INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 |
Evidence Act — S 3 — Relevant fact — Misdeeds in running train — Held, it is very unlikely that activities would have gone unnoticed by any of the passengers in the packed compartment of a sleeper coach — This is also in view of the short duration runs of the train through the intervening stations. |
PDF |
| INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 |
Evidence Act — S 27 — Recovery — Held, it is not the material recovery which has to be proved, but the disclosure based upon which the recovery is made. |
PDF |
| INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 |
Evidence Act — S 8 — Conduct of the accused — not informing the parents of wife in time & delay in complaint — Held, the fact that individuals react differently at varying situations —it was not unlikely that the accused having found his wife missing from her berth, made frantic searches for her in the train — his version cannot be brushed aside—IPC — Ss 304-B. |
PDF |
| INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 |
Evidence Act — S 3 — Relevant fact — Place of incident — possession of —not supported by any documentary record — proof of possession was gathered only from the oral evidence of prosecution witnesses —Fatal to prosecution. |
PDF |
| INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 |
Evidence Act — S 104 — Burden of proving fact to be proved to make admission admissible — Document produced by the defence/prosecution — proving of — defence/prosecution will have to prove the document if not admitted by the prosecution/defence. |
PDF |
| INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 |
Evidence Act — S 104 — Burden of proving fact to be proved to make admission admissible — Document produced by the defence/prosecution — proving of — In case document is admitted, it need not be formally proved, and can be read in evidence — In a complaint case such an endorsement can be made by the counsel for the complainant in respect of document filed by the defence. |
PDF |
| INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 |
Evidence Act — S 113-B — Presumption under — Requirement under — Essential foundational facts to trigger such presumption have remained unproved — 113B is not available. |
PDF |
| INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 |
Evidence Act — S 113-B — Presumption under — is attracted only in case of suicidal or homicidal death and not in the case of an accidental death. |
PDF |