| Topics |
Headnote |
Judgement |
| INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 |
|
PDF |
| INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 |
Criminal Jurisprudence — Evidence Act — S 3 — Relevant fact —Circumstantial evidence — Case based upon — Held, chain of circumstances should be complete to fasten the guilt on the accused. (Para 5) |
PDF |
| INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 |
Evidence Act — S 24 — Extra- judicial confession — made to the sister of the deceased — Relationship between the maker of confession & the person before whom the confession was made — Held, making confession to such an inimical person is most unlikely —fatal to prosecution. (Para 6) |
PDF |
| INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 |
Evidence Act — S 24 — Extra- judicial confession — Circumstance of making — Made when the witness had gone in search of the deceased to the house of the accused — it is most unlikely that the confessional statement would be made to her readily — It is not that the appellant had gone to the house of P.W.4 to make the confession —fatal to prosecution. (Para 6) |
PDF |
| INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 |
Criminal Jurisprudence — Evidence Act — S 24 — Extra- judicial confession — Standard of proof — Duty of the Court —Extra-judicial confession is weak piece of evidence — Before acting upon it the Court must ensure that the same inspires confidence — & it is corroborated by other prosecution evidence. (Para 7) |
PDF |
| INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 |
Criminal Jurisprudence — Evidence Act — S 24 — Extra- judicial confession — Standard of proof — Extra-judicial confession requires great deal of care and caution before acceptance — There should be no suspicious circumstances surrounding it. (Para 7) |
PDF |
| INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 |
Criminal Jurisprudence — Evidence Act — S 24 — Extra- judicial confession — Reliability of — depends upon the veracity of the witnesses to whom it is made. (Para 7) |
PDF |
| INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 |
Criminal Jurisprudence — Evidence Act — S 24 — Extra- judicial confession — Standard of proof — Witness must be unbiased and not even remotely inimical to the accused. (Para 7) |
PDF |
| INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 |
Criminal Jurisprudence — Evidence Act — S 24 — Extra- judicial confession — Standard of proof —Main features of confession are required to be verified. (Para 7) |
PDF |
| INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 |
Criminal Jurisprudence — Evidence Act — S 24 — Extra- judicial confession — Retraction from — relying on — Held, in the case of retracted confession it is unsafe for the Court to rely on it. (Para 7) |
PDF |
| INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 |
Evidence Act — S 27 — Recovery —Recovered article not in possession of the appellant & was recovered from the place where it was supposed to be— Does not connect to accused — fatal to prosecution case. (Para 9) |
PDF |
| INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 |
Evidence Act — S 27 — Recovery — Cause of death not established — Held, recovery of alleged weapon is of no value — as the prosecution has not been able to link the same with the commission of the offence. (Para 10) |
PDF |
| INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 |
Evidence Act — S 9 — Identification — of articles of the deceased by accused — no evidence led by prosecution that the accused was ever required to identify the articles of the deceased — fatal to prosecution. (Para 12) |
PDF |
| INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 |
Evidence Act — S 9 — Identification —of deceased — Contradiction in the version of witness — fatal to prosecution. (Para 12) |
PDF |
| INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 |
Evidence Act — S 3 — Relevant fact —allegation of dragging — Hard surface — Victim did not suffer any scratches —fatal to prosecution. (Para 16) |
PDF |
| INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 |
Evidence Act — S 3 — Relevant fact — Conduct of prosecutrix — not shouted — Neither clawed accused nor bit him—removal of own as we as of prosecutrix clothes by the Accused— Held, would require the Accused using both his hands — difficult to accept that at such times neither the Accused is physically pushed nor the Victim tries to get away or shout so as to attract attention, or claw or bite the Accused — No evidence of physical beating or threat or intimidation — doubtful conduct — fatal to prosecution. (Para 17) |
PDF |
| INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 |
Evidence Act — S 3 — Relevant fact —Medical Evidence vis-à-vis deposition of the accused — Claim of prosecutrix — did not suffer any injury on private parts— Evidence of medical officer — one abrasion at fourchette — Held, It shows how negligible the abrasion at the fourchette was, which the doctor noted —fatal to prosecution. (Para 16) |
PDF |
| INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 |
Evidence Act — S 3 — Relevant fact — Resistance from the victim — Busy area — was allegedly dragged for more than 100 ft. without attracting attention of anybody—Held, If there was resistance, it would not be easy to simply drag a Victim —fatal to prosecution. (Para 17) |
PDF |
| INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 |
Evidence Act — S 3 — Relevant fact —Evidence of IO — Seizure Panchanama r/w evidence of the doctor—Contradiction between—fatal to prosecution. (Para 19) |
PDF |
| INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 |
Evidence Act — S 3 — Relevant fact — Circumstantial evidence — Blood group — of victim — matched with the blood stains found on her cloths — this does not take the case of prosecution much further. (Para 20) |
PDF |
| INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 |
Evidence Act — S 3 — Relevant fact —Official record — carrying home — doctor kept consent paper and M.L.C. paper in his personal custody— Held, the doctor having examined young girl may have kept the record with him out of precaution—Not fatal to prosecution. (Para 21) |
PDF |
| INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 |
Evidence Act — S 3 — Relevant fact — Medical record — anomaly — Blank column — Medical officer left the concerned column blank — Deposed — was relying on his memory — Held, as medical officer he must be dealing with multiple cases everyday — would not be appropriate to accept his evidence relying on memory —not reliance placed—Acquittal. (Para 21) |
PDF |
| INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 |
Evidence Act — S 3 — Relevant fact — Nature of Injury — muscle deep & simple — contradiction regarding the manner of infliction — Conduct of complainant — had tried to commit suicide —Suggestion by accused — complainant himself inflicted the injury by blade to his neck— Genesis of incident doubtful — Held, cannot be said to be baseless defence— Acquittal — IPC — S 307 & 324. (Para 15) |
PDF |
| INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 |
Evidence Act — S 3 — Relevant fact — Circumstantial Evidence — Complainant lost civil suit — Crop concerned was raised by the accused — Deposition by complainant party — they had gone to the field in question & asked that the crop may not be cut — Held, the complainant may have been the aggressive party. (Para 16 & 17) |
PDF |
| INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 |
Evidence Act — S 3 & 32 — Relevant fact — Statement of victim — two statements — recoded as dying declarations — Relying on — Nature of injuries —could not be said to be such that maker of statement was in expectation of death — contradiction between the statements — is fatal to prosecution. (Para 18) |
PDF |
| INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 |
Evidence Act — S 3 — Relevant fact — Defective investigation — Panch witness & Investigating Officer — acquaintance between — fatal to prosecution. (Para 19) |
PDF |
| INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 |
Evidence Act — S 3 — Relevant fact — Defective investigation — Panch witness — was specially called from other place to act as panch — fatal to prosecution. (Para 19) |
PDF |
| INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 |
Evidence Act — S 3 & 27 — Relevant fact — Defective investigation — Panch witness — same panch for different discoveries — fatal to prosecution. (Para 19) |
PDF |
| INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 |
Evidence Act — S 27 — Discovery & seizure — of arms & clothes worn by the accused — on different dates — Held, If the accused had been arrested on 24th & the police went with them to their house on 26th, there was no reason why the clothes worn by the accused also were not seized at that time — Defective investigation — Fatal to prosecution. (Para 19) |
PDF |
| INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 |
Evidence Act — S 3 — Relevant fact — wrapping & sealing — of the seized article — Sending the articles to the Chemical Analyser without proper wrapping & sealing — Held, in such situation, the C.A. reports and their results would simply required to be ignored—Defective investigation —fatal to prosecution. (Para 19) |
PDF |
| INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 |
Interpretation — Evidence Act — S 27 — Discovery — interpretation of — Discovery is to be done of some thing which is hidden and which nobody else would know or find other than the person who hides the same. (Para 20) |
PDF |
| INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 |
Evidence Act — S 3 & 27 — Relevant fact & Discovery — Blood stained weapon — hidden near water storage — Accused were arrested after more than 24 hours of the incident — Held, if there was time to hide the axe near water storage, what prevented washing of the same? — Defective investigation — fatal to prosecution. (Para 20) |
PDF |
| INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 |
Evidence Act — S 3 & 27 — Relevant fact & Discovery — Hidden weapon could be found even by simple search — Held, such "discoveries" have no value —Defective investigation — fatal to prosecution. (Para 20) |
PDF |
| INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 |
Evidence Act — S 3 — Relevant fact — Defective investigation — Copy of F.I.R. — delay in sending to Court— Medical Certificates of injured — delay in collection — Held, The investigation does not appear to be truthful— fatal to prosecution. (Para 20) |
PDF |
| INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 |
Evidence Act — S 3 — Relevant fact — Appellant was shown as witness in a charge-sheet against other accused — Held, cannot be said that the applicant is involved in conspiracy with them — IPC — Ss 406, 420, 409, 120B, 504 & 11. (Para 6) |
PDF |
| INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 |
Evidence Act — S 3 — Relevant fact— Conduct of accused —immediately hospitalized the victim & took all proper care — rule out exertion of cruelty leading to death of the deceased — IPC — Ss 304(B), 306 & 498A. (Para 8) |
PDF |
| INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 |
Evidence Act — S 3 — Forged documents —Expert opinion —Report of hand writing expert — not conclusive in nature — Held, rightly discarded —no definite opinion can be formed upon such expert's opinion that the documents in question are forged. (Para 8.1) |
PDF |
| INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 |
Criminal Jurisprudence — Criminal liability — Fixing of — Multiple accused persons — not indicated clearly as to who has committed the offence — Held, so as to fix criminal liability, there cannot be any joint liability & omnibus charge against all the accused —there should be specific allegation and proof thereof concerning each of the accused linking with the alleged crime —Evidence Act — S 101 —Burden of proof. (Para 8.1) |
PDF |
| INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 |
Criminal Jurisprudence — Evidence Act — S 3 — Standard of Proof — Howsoever grave the alleged offence may be — otherwise stirring the conscience of any court — suspicion alone cannot take the place of legal proof— Rajiv Singh versus State of Bihar & Anr — relied. (Para 15) |
PDF |
| INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 |
Criminal Jurisprudence —Evidence Act — S 3— Relevant fact — Standard of Proof — Established cannon — "fouler the crime higher the proof" — Mandate of law — that the prosecution in order to succeed in a criminal trial, has to prove the charge(s) beyond all reasonable doubt— Rajiv Singh versus State of Bihar & Anr — relied. (Para 15) |
PDF |
| INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 |
Criminal Jurisprudence — Interpretation of Statute — Evidence Act — S 3 — Standard of Proof — ‘May be’ & ‘Must be’— Distinction between — Mental distance between "may be" and "must be" is quite large — & divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions— Rajiv Singh versus State of Bihar & Anr — relied. (Para 15) |
PDF |
| INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 |
Criminal Jurisprudence —Evidence Act — S 3— Relevant fact — Standard of Proof — Duty of the Court — to ensure that mere conjectures or suspicion do not take the place of legal proof— Rajiv Singh versus State of Bihar & Anr. — relied. (Para 15) |
PDF |
| INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 |
Criminal Jurisprudence —Evidence Act — S 3— Relevant fact — Standard of Proof — Duty of the Court — ‘May be’ true & ‘Must be’ true — the court must maintain the vital distance between conjectures & sure conclusions — to be arrived at, on the touchstone of dispassionate judicial scrutiny — based upon a complete and comprehensive appreciation of all features of the case— as well as the quality and credibility of the evidence brought on record— Rajiv Singh versus State of Bihar & Anr — relied. (Para 15) |
PDF |
| INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 |
Criminal Jurisprudence —Evidence Act — S 3— Relevant fact — Standard of Proof — Duty of the Court —‘May be’ true & ‘Must be’ true — The court must ensure that miscarriage of justice is avoided — the benefit of doubt — must be given to the accused— Rajiv Singh versus State of Bihar & Anr — relied. (Para 15) |
PDF |
| INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 |
Criminal Jurisprudence —Evidence Act — S 3— Relevant fact — Standard of Proof — Reasonable doubt — judicious value of — is not an imaginary, trivial or a merely probable doubt— but a fair doubt that is based upon reason and common sense— Rajiv Singh versus State of Bihar & Anr — relied. (Para 15) |
PDF |
| INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 |
Criminal trial — Criminal Jurisprudence —Evidence Act — S 3— Relevant fact — Standard of Proof — Commission of crime cannot be presumed— It is to be established—L.D. Satapara versus State of Gujarat — relied. (Para 15) |
PDF |
| INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 |
Criminal trial — Criminal Jurisprudence —Evidence Act — S 3— Relevant fact — Standard of Proof — In order to prove the crime, the prosecution may take aid of substantive evidence & corroborative evidence—L.D. Satapara versus State of Gujarat — relied. (Para 15) |
PDF |
| INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 |
Criminal trial — Criminal Jurisprudence —Evidence Act — S 3— Relevant fact — Standard of Proof — Say of witness before the Court — Standard of — is considered as substantive evidence—L.D. Satapara versus State of Gujarat — relied. (Para 15) |
PDF |
| INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 |
Criminal trial — Criminal Jurisprudence —Evidence Act — S 3— Relevant fact — Standard of Proof — Victim or Eye witness — Version of — would form the basis of the case — & would give shape to the case of prosecution—L.D. Satapara versus State of Gujarat — relied. (Para 15) |
PDF |
| INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 |
Criminal trial — Criminal Jurisprudence —Evidence Act — S 3— Relevant fact — Standard of Proof — Material other than evidence of victim or the eye witness — Standard of — would serve as a corroborative piece of evidence—L.D. Satapara versus State of Gujarat — relied. (Para 15) |
PDF |
| INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 |
Criminal trial — Criminal Jurisprudence —Evidence Act — S 3— Relevant fact — Standard of Proof — Say of the witness — Standard of — sieved through the cross-examination — would form the material for the Court to appreciate—L.D. Satapara versus State of Gujarat — relied. (Para 15) |
PDF |
| INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 |
Evidence Act — S 3— Relevant fact — Case of prosecution — non-supporting of — by complainant — No request to declare hostile — No request to cross-examine —Fatal to prosecution. (Para 16) |
PDF |
| INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 |
Evidence Act — S 3— Non-supportive prosecution witness — Leading question — put forth by prosecution — to refresh the memory of witness — Permitted by trial court without showing any reason — Held, learned APP has put the answers in the mouth of the said witness which was impermissible and which prejudiced the appellant-accused herein is against the provisions of Evidence Act— fatal to prosecution. (Para 16 & 20) |
PDF |
| INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 |
Evidence Act — S 3— Relevant fact — Blood group — Held, simply because blood stains of the blood group of the accused found on the clothes of the deceased as well as on the alleged weapon — cannot be said that the charge has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. (Para 21) |
PDF |
| INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 |
Evidence Act — S 3— Relevant fact — person who had written the complaint — non-examination of — fatal to prosecution. (Para 21) |
PDF |
| INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 |
Evidence Act — S 3— Relevant fact — Complaint —not read over to the complainant — fatal to prosecution. (Para 21) |
PDF |
| INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 |
Evidence Act — S 3— Relevant fact — Recovery — Weapon allegedly used — no deposition by any witness — not shown as recovered as Muddamal— fatal to prosecution. (Para 21) |
PDF |
| INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 |
Criminal trial — Criminal Jurisprudence — Lapse by trial Court during Examination-in-Chief — Explanation at the later stage — an after-thought and against the provisions of — Indian Evidence Act, 1872 —Section 3 — relevant fact. (Para 17) |
PDF |