Legal Updates: Supreme Court on Evidence

Showing posts with label Supreme Court on Evidence. Show all posts

Monday, April 24, 2023

"Testimony of a Victim in cases of Sexual Offences" : Supreme Court Explains the Legal Aspect

"Testimony of a Victim in cases of Sexual Offences" : Supreme Court Explains the Legal Aspect

An important judgment was passed on 15 December 2016.

It has been commented in State of Himachal Pradesh v Sanjay Kumar @ Sunny [2016] GCtR 273 (SC) thus : -

"By now it is well settled that the testimony of a victim in cases of sexual offences is vital and unless there are compelling reasons, which necessitate looking for corroboration of a statement, the courts should find no difficulty to act on the testimony of the victim of a sexual assault alone to convict the accused. No doubt, her testimony has to inspire confidence. Seeking corroboration to a statement before relying upon the same as a rule, in such cases, would literally amount to adding insult to injury. The deposition of the prosecutrix has, thus, to be taken as a whole. Needless to reiterate that the victim of rape is not an accomplice and her evidence can be acted upon without corroboration. She stands at a higher pedestal than an injured witness does. If the court finds it difficult to accept her version, it may seek corroboration from some evidence which lends assurance to her version. To insist on corroboration, except in the rarest of rare cases, is to equate one who is a victim of the lust of another with an accomplice to a crime and thereby insult womanhood. It would be adding insult to injury to tell a woman that her claim of rape will not be believed unless it is corroborated in material particulars, as in the case of an accomplice to a crime. Why should the evidence of the girl or the woman who complains of rape or sexual molestation be viewed with the aid of spectacles fitted with lenses tinged with doubt, disbelief or suspicion?"

Written by

Vishal

Delhi

Notice : Copyright of above blog and its content including headline vests with Vishal. Above should Not be reproduced in any form in newspapers/websites/Ph.D. thesis/College projects/ law firms' newsletters/law journals/books/book chapters without prior written permission. Fair use should be in terms of Copyright Act, 1957. Any violation will make violator liable for Pecuniary compensation with interest towards the author irrespective of the profit made. All disputes shall be subject to Delhi Jurisdiction. Reproduction of judgment or publication of judgment unless expressly prohibited by Court according is not an infringement of copyright according to S. 52 (1)(q)(iv) of Copyright Act, 1957.

Sunday, April 16, 2023

Admissibility of A Document : Supreme Court Explains the Nuances of Law

Admissibility of A Document : Supreme Court Explains the Nuances of Law

An important Judgment was passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court on 3 October 2008.

Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 uses the terms "stating a fact in issue or relevant fact and made by a public servant in the discharge of his official duty". According to illustration to S.3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, a caricature is a document. [For complete Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - go to https://www.indiacode.nic.in/handle/123456789/2188?sam_handle=123456789/1362]

It has been commented in Babloo Pasi v State of Jharkhand [2008] GCtR 2167 (SC) thus :-

"Section 35 of the said Act lays down that an entry in any public or other official book, register, record, stating a fact in issue or relevant fact made by a public servant in the discharge of his official duty especially enjoined by the law of the country is itself a relevant fact. It is trite that to render a document admissible under Section 35, three conditions have to be satisfied, namely: (i) entry that is relied on must be one in a public or other official book, register or record; (ii) it must be an entry stating a fact in issue or a relevant fact, and (iii) it must be made by a public servant in discharge of his official duties, or in performance of his duty especially enjoined by law."

Kindly note that full text Judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court can be downloaded absolutely free of cost (without any charges except internet data) from the official website at the link

https://main.sci.gov.in/judgments

Then entering the date of Judgment, for example, as 3 October 2008.

Written by

Vishal

Delhi

Wednesday, April 12, 2023

S.27 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 : Supreme Court Explains the Ambit of Provision

S.27 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 : Supreme Court Explains the Ambit of Provision

Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 says that "Provided that, when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police-officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved."

An important Judgment was pronounced by Hon'ble Supreme Court on 4 August 2005.

It has been commented in State (NCT of Delhi) v Navjot Sandhu @ Afsan Guru [2005] GCtR 3059 (SC) thus : -

"Some of the High Courts have taken the view that the wording “a person” excludes the applicability of the section to more than one person. But, that is too narrow a view to be taken. Joint disclosures, to be more accurate, simultaneous disclosures, per se, are not inadmissible under Section 27. “A person accused” need not necessarily be a single person, but it could be plurality of the accused. It seems to us that the real reason for not acting upon the joint disclosures by taking resort to Section 27 is the inherent difficulty in placing reliance on such information supposed to have emerged from the mouths of two or more accused at a time. In fact, joint or simultaneous disclosure is a myth, because two or more accused persons would not have uttered informatory words in a chorus. At best, one person would have made the statement orally and the other person would have stated so substantially in similar terms a few seconds or minutes later, or the second person would have given unequivocal nod to what has been said by the first person. Or, two persons in custody may be interrogated separately and simultaneously and both of them may furnish similar information leading to the discovery of fact. Or, in rare cases, both the accused may reduce the information into writing and hand over the written notes to the police officer at the same time. We do not think that such disclosures by two or more persons in police custody go out of the purview of Section 27 altogether. If information is given one after the other without any break, almost simultaneously, and if such information is followed up by pointing out the material thing by both of them, we find no good reason to eschew such evidence from the regime of Section 27. However, there may be practical difficulties in placing reliance on such evidence. It may be difficult for the witness (generally the police officer), to depose which accused spoke what words and in what sequence."

Kindly note that full text Judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court can be downloaded absolutely free of cost (without any charges except internet data) from the official website at the link

https://main.sci.gov.in/judgments

Then entering the date of Judgment, for example, as 4 August 2005.

Written by

Vishal

Delhi

Friday, April 7, 2023

Injured Witness and His Evidence : Supreme Court Outlines the Legal Aspects

Injured Witness and His Evidence : Supreme Court Outlines the Legal Aspects

An important Judgment was passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court on 4 July 2011.

It has been commented in Bhajan Singh @ Harbhajan Singh v State of Haryana [2011] GCtR 2977 (SC) thus : -

"The evidence of the stamped witness must be given due weightage as his presence on the place of occurrence cannot be doubted. His statement is generally considered to be very reliable and it is unlikely that he has spared the actual assailant in order to falsely implicate someone else. The testimony of an injured witness has its own relevancy and efficacy as he has sustained injuries at the time and place of occurrence and this lends support to his testimony that he was present at the time of occurrence. Thus, the testimony of an injured witness is accorded a special status in law. Such a witness comes with a built-in guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and is unlikely to spare his actual assailant(s) in order to falsely implicate someone. “Convincing evidence is required to discredit an injured witness”."

Kindly note that full text Judgments of Hon'ble Delhi High Court can be downloaded absolutely free of cost (without any charges except internet data) from the official website at the link

https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/judgment

Then entering the date of Judgment, for example, as 4 July 2011.

Written by

Vishal

Delhi

Monday, April 3, 2023

S.106 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 : An Important View of Supreme Court

S.106 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 : An Important View of Supreme Court

Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 says that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. If one goes to Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 it says that one fact is said to be relevant to another when the one is connected with the other in any of the ways referred to in the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act relating to the relevancy of facts.

In Satpal v State of Haryana [2018] GCtR 2953 (SC) it was commented thus : -

"Criminal jurisprudence and the plethora of judicial precedents leave little room for reconsideration of the basic principles for invocation of the last seen theory as a facet of circumstantial evidence. Succinctly stated, it may be a weak kind of evidence by itself to found conviction upon the same singularly. But when it is coupled with other circumstances such as the time when the deceased was last seen with the accused, and the recovery of the corpse being in very close proximity of time, the accused owes an explanation under Section 106 of the Evidence Act with regard to the circumstances under which death may have taken place. If the accused offers no explanation, or furnishes a wrong explanation, absconds, motive is established, and there is corroborative evidence available inter alia in the form of recovery or otherwise forming a chain of circumstances leading to the only inference for guilt of the accused, incompatible with any possible hypothesis of innocence, conviction can be based on the same. If there be any doubt or break in the link of chain of circumstances, the benefit of doubt must go to the accused. Each case will therefore have to be examined on its own facts for invocation of the doctrine."

Kindly note that full text Judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court can be downloaded absolutely free of cost (without any charges except internet data) from the official website at the link

https://main.sci.gov.in/judgments

Then entering the date of Judgment, for example, as 1 May 2018.

Written by

Vishal

Delhi

Saturday, April 1, 2023

Police Officers as Witness : Supreme Court Explains the Law

Police Officers as Witness : Supreme Court Explains the Law

An important Judgment was passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court on 15 May 2013.

It has been commented at page 9 of Kashmiri Lal v State of Haryana [2013] GCtR 404 (SC) thus : -

"There is no absolute command of law that the police officers cannot be cited as witnesses and their testimony should always be treated with suspicion. Ordinarily, the public at large show their disinclination to come forward to become witnesses. If the testimony of the police officer is found to reliable and trustworthy, the court can definitely act upon the same. If in the course of scrutinising the evidence the court finds the evidence of the police officer as unreliable and untrustworthy, the court may disbelieve him but it should not do so solely on the presumption that a witness from the department of police should be viewed with distrust. This is also based on the principle of quality of the evidence weighs over the quantity of evidence."

Kindly note that full text Judgments of Hon'ble Delhi High Court can be downloaded absolutely free of cost (without any charges except internet data) from the official website at the link

https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/judgment

Then entering the date of Judgment, for example, as 15 May 2013.

Written by

Vishal

Delhi

Wednesday, March 29, 2023

Admissibility of Evidence : Supreme Court Explains the Law

Admissibility of Evidence : Supreme Court Explains the Law

An interesting Judgment was passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court on 8 October 2003.

It has been commented at page 5 and 6 of R. V. E. Venkatachala Gounder Vs Arulmigu Viswesaraswami & V. P. Temple And Another [2003] GCtR 2898 (SC) thus : -

"Ordinarily, an objection to the admissibility of evidence should be taken when it is tendered and not subsequently. The objections as to admissibility of documents in evidence may be classified into two classes: (i) an objection that the document which is sought to be proved is itself inadmissible in evidence; and (ii) where the objection does not dispute the admissibility of the document in evidence but is directed towards the mode of proof alleging the same to be irregular or insufficient."

"In the first case, merely because a document has been marked as "an exhibit", an objection as to its admissibility is not excluded and is available to be raised even at a later stage or even in appeal or revision. In the latter case, the objection should be taken when the evidence is tendered and once the document has been admitted in evidence and marked as an exhibit, the objection that it should not have been admitted in evidence or that the mode adopted for proving the document is irregular cannot be allowed to be raised at any stage subsequent to the marking of the document as an exhibit."

"The latter proposition is a rule of fair play. The crucial test is whether an objection, if taken at the appropriate point of time, would have enabled the party tendering the evidence to cure the defect and resort to such mode of proof as would be regular. The omission to object becomes fatal because by his failure the party entitled to object allows the party tendering the evidence to act on an assumption that the opposite party is not serious about the mode of proof. On the other hand, a prompt objection does not prejudice the party tendering the evidence, for two reasons: firstly, it enables the court to apply its mind and pronounce its decision on the question of admissibility then and there; and secondly, in the event of finding of the court on the mode of proof sought to be adopted going against the party tendering the evidence, the opportunity of seeking indulgence of the court for permitting a regular mode or method of proof and thereby removing the objection raised by the opposite party, is available to the party leading the evidence. Such practice and procedure is fair to both the parties."

Kindly note that full text Judgments of Hon'ble Delhi High Court can be downloaded absolutely free of cost (without any charges except internet data) from the official website at the link

https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/judgment

Then entering the date of Judgment, for example, as 8 October 2003.

Written by

Vishal

Delhi

Friday, March 17, 2023

On Evidence & Legal Issues: A Unanimous View of Supreme Court

On Evidence & Legal Issues : A Unanimous View of Supreme Court

An important Judgment has been passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court on 10 October 2002.

On the issues related to evidence, it has been commented at page 5 of Gangadhar Behera v State of Orissa [2002] GCtR 2782 (SC) thus : -

"Even if a major portion of the evidence is found to be deficient, in case residue is sufficient to prove guilt of an accused, notwithstanding acquittal of a number of other co-accused persons, his conviction can be maintained. It is the duty of the court to separate the grain from the chaff. Where chaff can be separated from the grain, it would be open to the court to convict an accused notwithstanding the fact that evidence has been found to be deficient to prove guilt of other accused persons. Falsity of a particular material witness or material particular would not ruin it from the beginning to end."
"The maxim “falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus” has no application in India and the witnesses cannot be branded as liars. The maxim “falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus” has not received general acceptance nor has this maxim come to occupy the status of rule of law. It is merely a rule of caution. All that it amounts to, is that in such cases testimony may be disregarded, and not that it must be disregarded."

Kindly note that full text Judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court can be downloaded absolutely free of cost from the official website at the link https://main.sci.gov.in/judgments - Then entering the date of Judgment, for example, as 10 October 2002.

Written by

Vishal

Delhi