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

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.  

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

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.