Navigation

Navigation

    LAW OF EVIDENCE - Rulings (Courtesy: M.P. MURUGAN)

    1 Indian Evidence Act
    Citations on
    Indian Evidence Act, 1872
    Compiled By:
    M.P.Murugan,M.A.LL.B.,
    Judicial Magistrate No.II,
    Thanjavur, Tamil Nadu.
    M.P.Murugan M.A.,LL.B., J.M.No.II, Thanjavur
    2 Indian Evidence Act
    M.P.Murugan M.A.,LL.B., J.M.No.II, Thanjavur
    3 Indian Evidence Act
    The prosecution must stand or fall on its own legs and it cannot derive any strength
    form the weaknesses of the defence. – (Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of
    Maharashtra, 1984 (4) SCC 116)
    M.P.Murugan M.A.,LL.B., J.M.No.II, Thanjavur
    4 Indian Evidence Act
    M.P.Murugan M.A.,LL.B., J.M.No.II, Thanjavur
    5 Indian Evidence Act
    Honourable Mr.Justice. Chinnappa Reddy, J.
    in Ram Chander vs. The State of Haryana (AIR 1981 SC 1036)
    "The adversary system of trial being what is is, there is an unfortunate tendency
    for a judge presiding over a trial to assume the role of a referee or an umpire
    and to allow the trial to develop into a contest between the prosecution and the
    defence with the inevitable distortions flowing from combative and competitive
    elements entering the trial procedure. If a Criminal Court is to be an effective
    instrument in dispensing justice, the presiding judge must cease to be a
    spectator and a mere recording machine. He must become a participant in the
    trial by evincing intelligent active interest by putting questions to witnesses in
    order to ascertain the truth."
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    2009 (4). M.L.J. 214.
    Dr.Arijit Pasayat and A.K.Ganguly,JJ. 6.2.2009. Arjun Singh vs.State of H.P.
    A Magistrate should not be a silent spectator leaving the prosecution and the defence
    to simply fight out the case before the court. lt is the role of the Magistrate to secure
    the presence of the witnesses and there should be periodical Monitoring of service of
    summons. lf there is difficulty in securing the presence of the witness, the higher
    officials in the police department should be addressed through the principal Judge
    concerned and the principal District Judge is also is expected to help the Magistrate in
    this regard.
    M.P.Murugan M.A.,LL.B., J.M.No.II, Thanjavur
    6 Indian Evidence Act
    Presence of other witnesses in court hall while examining other witness.
    Dr. Kasi Iyer Vs. State of Kerala
    The question that arises for decision is whether the Court has got power to order
    unexamined witnesses out of Court until their examination is taken up.
    To ensure a fair trial even in the absence of any specific provision in any
    enactment the Court has inherent power to order that no witness who has to
    give evidence should be present when the deposition of the other witnesses arc
    being taken until he himself is examined as a witness. in criminal trials, a
    prosecutory is entitled to remain in Court only in his capacity as prosecutor and
    if he is witness also, he may be ordered to retire.
    AIR.2004. SC 1280, 2004 (1) ALD (Cri) 447, 2004 Cri.L.J 880, 2004(1)CTC474,
    JT2004(1)SC81, 2004 (1) KLT 1038 (SC), 2004(1)SCALE42, (2004)2SCC447.
    M.P.Murugan M.A.,LL.B., J.M.No.II, Thanjavur
    7 Indian Evidence Act
    Sl.No Contents Page No.
    1 Speedy Trial 11
    2 Respect begets respect 12
    3 guidelines in giving witness protection 13
    4 Playing of video recording in court hall 15
    5 Child witness 15
    6 Test Identification Parade 20
    7 Observation of Criminal Court in civil Proceeding 25
    8 Confession 25
    9 Confession to police officer 30
    10 Confession & Recovery 31
    11 Confession of co-accused 34
    12 Dying Declaration 36
    13 Entries made in public Documents. 45
    14 Expert Opinion 49
    15 Various rules for expert opinion 52
    16 Medical Evidence 58
    17 Judicial Notice 61
    18 Hearsay evidence 62
    19 Succession Act , S. 63 – Evidence Act , S.68 63
    20 Secondary Evidence 65
    21 Marking of Photograph 71
    22 Comparison of signature 74
    23 Burden of proof 75
    24 When the nominees of the missing insured can
    lay a claim to the benefits of the policies and
    what their obligations are. Are they bound to
    continue to pay premium?
    77
    M.P.Murugan M.A.,LL.B., J.M.No.II, Thanjavur
    8 Indian Evidence Act
    M.P.Murugan M.A.,LL.B., J.M.No.II, Thanjavur
    9 Indian Evidence Act
    25 Sample of Blood against will of the accused 80
    26 Presumption as to legitimacy of child 81
    27 Postal receipt and acknowledgement - presume
    due service of notice.
    83
    28 Exception to Adverse inference 83
    29 Estoppel 85
    30 Evidentiary value of former statement 86
    31 Leading question 88
    32 Re-examination 89
    33 Hostile witness 90
    34 F.I.R. - Not substantive piece of evidence 92
    35 Interested witness 95
    36 Sole eye-witness 99
    37 DNA Test 101
    38 Adoption 102
    39 Appreciation of evidence 103
    40 corroboration 107
    41 Unnatural conduct of witnesses. 109
    42 Investigation 110
    43 Circumstantial Evidence 111
    44 Benefit of Doubt 112
    45 Injuries on accused 113
    46 Motive 117
    47 contradictions or discrepancies 118
    48 Credibility of witness 126
    49 Defence witness 128
    50
    Evidence in the form of C.D., V.C.D.
    131
    51 Words & Phrases 132
    M.P.Murugan M.A.,LL.B., J.M.No.II, Thanjavur
    10 Indian Evidence Act
    M.P.Murugan M.A.,LL.B., J.M.No.II, Thanjavur
    11 Indian Evidence Act
    Speedy Trial
    1).All the delay and lack of accountability and half baked schemes amount to
    a daily mockery of the fundamental right to speedy trial. The Supreme
    Court made it clear that "speedy trial is of essence to criminal justice and
    there can be no doubt that the delay in trial by itself constitutes denial of
    justice" (Hussainara Khatoon V. State of Bihar AIR 1979 SC 1364).
    2). "there can be no doubt that speedy trial -- and by speedy trial we mean a
    reasonably expeditious trial -- is an integral and essential part of
    fundamental right to life and liberty enshrined in Art 21" Hon'ble Supreme
    Court in Maneka Gandhi V. Vol, AIR 1978 SC 597.
    3). It is a very important obligation. Even apart from Art. 21 the constitutional
    mandate for speedy justice is inescapable. The preamble of the
    Constitution enjoins the state to secure social, economic and political
    justice to all its citizens. The Directive Principles of State Policy declare
    that the state should strive for a social order in which such justice shall
    inform all the institutions of national life {(Art 38 (1)}. This is elaborated by
    specifically adding that "The State shall secure that the operation of the
    legal system promotes justice..; to ensure that opportunities for securing
    justice are not denied to any citizen by reason of economic or other
    disabilities" (Art 39A). While interpreting this provision the Supreme Court
    has held that "social justice would include 'legal justice' which means that
    the system of administration of justice must provide a cheap, expeditious
    and effective instrument for realization of justice by all section of the
    M.P.Murugan M.A.,LL.B., J.M.No.II, Thanjavur
    12 Indian Evidence Act
    people irrespective of their social or economic position or their financial
    resources" (Babu V. Raghunathji AIR 1976 SC 1734.)
    4).2009. Cri.L.J.1731 (SC) , 2008 (2) MLJ.1051 , 2OO8(2).MLJ.1051,
    2008(2) MLJ 1649 (SC) It is bounden duty of court to avoid unreasonable
    delay to ensure the right to a speedy trial which is one of the important
    constitutional rights of the accused. Hence when there is inordinate delay
    in conducting trial, it vitiates the entire proceedings and will amount to
    abuse of process of law. In the present case after filing the F.I.R. in crime
    number 26 of 1995, until this day there has been no progress and the fate
    of the .F.I.R. is also not explained by the prosecution, it is proper to quash
    the said .F.I.R. to secure the ends of justice.
    5).2008(2).MLJ.1376 ; -If the court comes to the decision that continuance of
    the prosecution would be a harassment to the accused, then the court will
    have to go to the rescue of the accused at any stage of proceedings –
    Proceedings is liable to be quashed.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    6). (2008) 1 MLJ (Crl) 1045 (SC) --State of Gujarat Vs. Turabali
    Gulamhussain Hirani and Another ----- Judicial Dominion - When the
    Court had an occasion to summon a Senior official that too in some
    extreme and compelling situation - He must be given proper respect by the
    Court and he should not be humiliated - Such Senior Officials need not be
    made to stand all the time when the hearing is going on, and they can be
    offered a chair by the Court to sit - They need to stand only when
    M.P.Murugan M.A.,LL.B., J.M.No.II, Thanjavur
    13 Indian Evidence Act
    answering or making a statement in the Court - Respect begets respect -
    Advised.
    7). In the matter of Swaran Singh v. State of Punjab, the Supreme Court
    observed,
    "A witness has to visit the Court at his own cost, every time the case is
    differed for a different date. Nowadays it has become more or less
    fashionable to repeatedly adjourn a case. Eventually the witness is tired
    and gives up."
    8).The guidelines have been issued by Usha Mehra and Pradeep
    Nandrajog., JJ(Delhi High Court, has on 14th October 2003) on a petition
    filed by Neelam Kataria, whose son Nitesh was allegedly murdered by
    Rajya Sabha MP D.P. Yadav's son Vikas and nephew Vishal.
    The Delhi High Court has given the following guidelines in giving witness
    protection:
    1. The Court has also made it compulsory for the investigating officer of a
    case to inform the witness about the new guidelines.
    2. The Court has appointed the Member Secretary of the Delhi Legal
    Services Authority to decide whether a witness requires police protection
    or not.
    M.P.Murugan M.A.,LL.B., J.M.No.II, Thanjavur
    14 Indian Evidence Act
    3. The competent authority shall take into account the nature of security risk
    to him/her from the accused, while granting permission to protect the
    witness.
    4. Once the permission is granted, it shall be the duty of the Commissioner of
    Police to give protection to the witness.
    The High Court said that its order would operate until legislation is passed in this
    regard.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    M.P.Murugan M.A.,LL.B., J.M.No.II, Thanjavur
    15 Indian Evidence Act
    SS.3, 14 Evidence (2) 39, 45 and 65-B– Playing of video recording in court room
    – 2011 (3) SCC Cri. 294 = 2011 (4) SC 454. Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug vs.
    Union of India.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Child Witness
    1). In SURESH vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AIR 1981 SC 1122, it was
    decided that a child as young as 5 years can depose evidence if he
    understands the questions and answers in a relevant and rational manner.
    The age is of no consequence, it is the mental faculties and understanding
    that matter in such cases. Their evidence, however, has to
    be scrutinized and caution has to be exercised as per each individual
    case. The court has to satisfy itself that the evidence of a child is reliable
    and untainted. Any sign of tutoring will render the evidence questionable
    as decided in CHANGAN DAM vs. STATE OF GUJRAT 1994 CrLJ 66 SC.
    If the court is satisfied, it may convict a person without looking for
    collaboration of the child’s witness. It has been stated many a times that
    support of a child’s evidence should be a rule of prudence and is very
    desirable.
    2). A child witness is a privileged witness and he may not have to take an
    oath. In M SUGAL vs. THE KING 1945 48 BLR 138, it was decided that a
    girl of about ten years of age could give evidence of a murder in which she
    was an eye-witness as she could understand the questions and answer
    M.P.Murugan M.A.,LL.B., J.M.No.II, Thanjavur
    16 Indian Evidence Act
    them frankly even though she was not able to understand the nature of
    oath. The same principle has been applied in India too through QUEEN
    vs. SEWA BHOGTA 1874 14 BENG and PRAKASH SINGH vs. STATE OF
    MP AIR 1993 SC 65.
    3). A VOIRE DIRE test (Here, the Court puts certain preliminary questions
    that are unconnected to the case just in order to know the competency of
    the child witness) of a child witness is not essential but desirable. A judge
    may ask a few questions and get them on record so as to demonstrate
    and check the competency of the child witness. It can be presumed that
    this is a duty imposed on all the judges by the Section 118 of the IEA,
    1872. The judge can ask questions also to find out whether the child has a
    rough idea of the difference between truth and falsehood.
    4). In SURESH vs. STATE OF UP case, it was held that a child who is not
    administered oath due to his young years and is not required to give
    coherent or straight answers as a privileged witness can give evidence but
    this evidence should not be relied upon totally and completely.
    5).2010 (I) MLJ 124 (SC)-- Evidence Act- A child of tender age can be
    allowed to testify if he has intellectual
    6).AIR 2007 Supreme Court 2400 – State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Chamru @
    Bhagwandas etc.-- Child witness – Testimony of – Appreciation – Witness
    M.P.Murugan M.A.,LL.B., J.M.No.II, Thanjavur
    17 Indian Evidence Act
    – Witness during investigation not disclosing identity of accused though
    known – Statements in Court disclosing that she knew name of accused –
    Statement that she had seen voltage of bulb lighted 200 yards away –
    Indicates that she was tutored – Most of her statements were
    exaggerations and embellishment – Part of her evidence was also
    contrary to evidence of other eye witnesses – Witness not credible witness
    – Judgment of acquittal does not suffer from any infirmity.
    7).2009 Cr.LJ. 2442 (SC) - Child witness - conviction can be based on it if
    child is found competent to depose and his Evidence is found reliable.
    8).The supreme court in Tahal Singh v. Punjab AIR 1979 SC 1347observed:
    “In our country, particularly in rural areas it is difficult to think of a load of
    13 year as a child. A vast majority of boys around that age go in fields to
    work. They are certainly capable of understanding the significance of the
    oath and necessity to speak the truth.” in this regard a very important
    observation has been made in Jarina Khatun v. State of Assam 1992 Cr LJ
    733, that the Trial Court is the best judge in the matter of deciding the
    competency of such a witness as there, the child himself appears before
    the court. Therefore it has opportunity to see him, notice his demeanors,
    record his evidence and thereafter on scrutiny accepted his testimony.
    9).State v. Yenkappa (2003) CRI LJ 3558:-- Here the accused was convicted
    for the murder of his own wife on the basis of the statements of his
    M.P.Murugan M.A.,LL.B., J.M.No.II, Thanjavur
    18 Indian Evidence Act
    children who were adolescents .admission of such statement was
    challenged on appeal. in this regard the accused produced some evidence
    as to the fact that the children have been tutored and therefore their
    evidence must be rejected. Here the SC observed that it is the setteled
    law that just because the witness happens to be a child witness his
    evidence could not be rejected in toto on that score. ii) However the court
    must be cautious enough to see that an innocent is not punished solely
    acting upon the testimony of child witness , as the children are very easily
    suspect able for tutoring. Iii) Here if one look upon the circumstances of
    the case then , it will be found that the presence of these witnesses in the
    house is the normal situation and their witnessing the incident cannot be
    regarded as unusual or unnatural. therefore, their evidence inspires
    confidence.
    10). 2009 (1). M.L.J. 759 (SC) - The evidence of child witness is not
    required to be rejected per se, but the court as a rule of prudence
    considers such evidence with close scrutiny and only on being convinced
    about quality thereof and reliability can record conviction, based thereon.
    11). 2008 (2) MLJ. 1064 – Sections.118- Evidence Act - Credibility of
    child witness.
    12). (2007) 1 MLJ (Crl) 406 Ananda Sekaran Vs State by Inspector of
    Police, Chennai - Child witness – Evidence by child witness – Such
    M.P.Murugan M.A.,LL.B., J.M.No.II, Thanjavur
    19 Indian Evidence Act
    evidence, without corroboration, not safe to be acted upon to prove
    abetment.
    13). Sec.118 – Competency of witness – evidence of child witness –
    cogent and convincing evidence to be admissible. (Sundar v. State) 2011
    (2) MLJ (crl) 127.
    M.P.Murugan M.A.,LL.B., J.M.No.II, Thanjavur
    20 Indian Evidence Act
    Test Identification Parade.
    1) Evidence Act .sec.9 - Identification parade - Evidence only corroborative in
    nature -It is only a supportive evidence to the substantive piece of eye
    witnesses account to the occurrence. 2009 (4) M.L.J. 608
    2) 2008 .CrLL.J-(III) 3036 (SC) Sec.9- Evidence Act - Test of I/D Parade - Do
    not constitute substantive evidence-identification can only be used as
    Corroborative of statement in court.
    3) 2O08.CrlL.J. 3693.Mad. (D.B) (A) Sec.9 - Evidence Act - I/D parade -
    witnesses not admitting that they have seen photographs of accused prior
    to test I/D parade - Mere admissition of one witnesses to effect that news
    have come in papers before 10 days and facts have also come in papers
    will not mean that he had seen photographs of accused and got his
    memory refreshed- Held, I/D parade proved.
    4) 2008 (2) MWN (Cr) 28 (DB). Date of Judgment: 11.6.2008. Ramesh Vs.
    State by Inspector of Police, Jolarpet, Vellore Dist. Evidence At, S.9 –
    T.I.Parade – conducting of – P.W.s already seen accused before
    conducting of T.I.Parade – conducting of T.I.Parade, held, a futile exercise.
    Case referred:- Budhesan and Another v. state of U.P AIR 1970 SC 1321.
    5) 2009 (3) MWN (Cr.) 438. Date of Judgment: 2.11.2009. Kannan and
    others Vs. State, Inspector of Police, Thoothukudi. The accused was
    exposed to the witnesses before conduction of Idneitfication parade. So,
    M.P.Murugan M.A.,LL.B., J.M.No.II, Thanjavur
    21 Indian Evidence Act
    the Idnetification parade is of no value. Cases referred: i) Ravindra v.
    state of Maharashtra 1998 SCC (Cri,) 1527, ii) Vijayan v. state of kerala,
    1999 SCC Cri. 378 and iii) Rajesh govind jagesha v. state of Maharashtra,
    1999 SCC Cri. 1452.
    6) Showing photograph of accused to the witness before the parade – would
    take away the effect of TI parade (State of M.P vs. Chamru) 2010 (3) SCC
    (crl) 698.
    7) 2008 (3) MLJ Crl 1287. Date of Judgment: 4.9.2008. Krishnamurthy and
    Another v. state, Inspector of Police. Thanjavur Taluk P.S. ++Persons who
    last seen the deceased accompanied by Accused not participated in the
    test identification parade. Effect of.
    8) 2011 (1) MLJ (Crl) 242 SC. Vijay @ Chinee v. State of MP. Dtd: 27.7.2010
    (Judge: Dr.B.S.Chauhan, J). Sec.9 of Evidence Act – test identification
    parade – non-holding of – effect – purpsose of holding – principles
    reiterated.
    9) 2006 (1) L.W. (Crl) 166 Alumalai & 5 others Vs. State rep. by Inspector of
    Police, Hasanur P.S. – Failure to hold Test Identification parade does not
    make the evidence of identification in Court admissible. Identification of an
    accused by the witness for the first time in Court should not form the basis
    of conviction.
    M.P.Murugan M.A.,LL.B., J.M.No.II, Thanjavur
    22 Indian Evidence Act
    10) Non-holding of Test Identification parade – (vijay @chinee Vs. State
    of M.P) 2011 (1) MLJ 242 SC).
    11) 2002 SAR (Criminal) 185 SC. (N.Santosh Hegde and Doraiswamy
    Raju, JJ.) 7.2.2000. Chander Pal vs. State of Haryana. Identification
    parade – holding of – necessity of – prosecution witness specifically
    stating that he did not know the accused s ince beofre the incident in
    question – non-holding of identification parade would render it rather
    difficult to accept the evidence of such witness.
    12) 2008 (2) I.W 1059:- Criminal Trial Test Identification parade. Field;
    Failure of the Witnesses in the T,I.parade at first instance, can not shake
    the prosecution case - Mere not identification of the accused by the
    prosecution witnesses in the T.I.Parade can not be taken as a ground to
    belier. entire prosecution case since, admittedly, the same prosecution
    witnesses have identified the accused in the open court.
    13) 2009 (3) .M.L.J. 1102 (SC) NOC ;- Whether test identification parade
    is necessary or not would depend upon facts and circumstances of each
    case.
    14) In Pramod Mandal vs. State of Bihar - (2004) 13 SCC 150 in order to
    contend that mere delay in holding the test identification parade will not
    prevent the Court from accepting the evidence when defence failed to
    impute any motive to the prosecution by way of cross examination for
    delay in holding the T.I. parade. In Pramod Mandal (supra) it was held that
    M.P.Murugan M.A.,LL.B., J.M.No.II, Thanjavur
    23 Indian Evidence Act
    delay of one month in holding the T.I. parade was not fatal.
    15) It may be pointed out that identification test is not substantive
    evidence. Such tests are meant for the purpose of helping the
    investigating agency with an assurance that their progress with the
    investigation into the offence is proceeding on right lines. (Matru Alias
    Girish Chandra vs. The State of U. Pradesh - 1971(2) SCC 75 at para 17)
    16) It is also held by this Court that identification test parade is not
    substantive evidence but it can only be used in corroboration of the
    statements in Court. (See Santokh Singh vs. Izhar Hussain and Anr. -
    (1973) 2 SCC 406 at para 11)
    17) In the case of Amitsingh Bhikam Singh Thakur vs. State of
    Maharashtra - (2007) 2 SCC 310 this court held on a consideration of
    various cases on the subject that the identification proceedings are in the
    nature of tests and there is no procedure either in Cr. P.C., 1973 or in the
    Indian Evidence Act for holding such tests. The main object of holding
    such tests during investigation is to check the memory of witnesses based
    upon first impression and to enable the prosecution to decide whether
    these witnesses could be cited as eye witnesses of the crime.
    18) However, the decision of this Court in Soni vs. State of Uttar
    Pradesh - (1982) 3 SCC 368(1) is more relevant to the facts of the case in
    hand. In Soni (supra), the facts have not been discussed in the judgment
    which was rather brief but one thing is made clear that T.I. Parade was
    M.P.Murugan M.A.,LL.B., J.M.No.II, Thanjavur
    24 Indian Evidence Act
    held after a lapse of 42 days from the date of the arrest of the appellant.
    This Court held that such delay in holding the T.I. parade by itself throws a
    doubt on the genuineness of such identification and we respectfully agree
    with the view that it is difficult to remember the facial expression of the
    accused persons after such a long gap in the facts of this case.
    19) 2009 (3) M.L.J. 1072 (SC-NOC) Identification for the first time in
    court is permissible in law. However, the said principle should be applied
    having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case. Courts
    ordinarily do not give much credence to identification made in the court for
    the first time and that too after a long time .
    20) 2007 (1) MLJ (Crl) 190 – Khaja Hussian and others Vs. Inspector of
    Police, Coimbatore ---Indian Evidence Act (1 of 1872), Section 9 –
    Identification parade – Delay in conducting – Mere delay is no ground to
    reject the evidence about the identification of the accused – In the present
    case even assuming that there was delay it has been explained by the
    Judicial Magistrate and Investigation Officer.
    21) When FIR is lodged against unknown persons TI parade is held for
    the purpose of testing the veracity of the witness in regard to his capability
    of identifying persons who where not known to him. (Ravi v. State ) (2010
    3 SCC (crl) 730).
    M.P.Murugan M.A.,LL.B., J.M.No.II, Thanjavur
    25 Indian Evidence Act
    Observation of Criminal Court in civil Proceeding
    1).Civil court is not bound by any observation made by criminal court – I)
    S.Nachimuthu Gounder vs. Chellammal., 1997 Cr.L.J.(NOC) 190. Mad, ii)
    Perumal v. Devarajan, AIR 1974 Mad 14)
    2).An order Under Sec.125 of Cr.P.C does not prove marriage in Civil court,
    but it is a piece of evidence. (Ashk v. usha) AIR 1984 Del.347.
    3).Entries in note books and loose sheets kept in a file are not admissible –
    Central Bureau of Investigation vs. V.C.Shukla) 1998 Crimes 219 (SC),
    AIR 1998 SC 1406, 1998 Cr.L.J 1905 SC.
    4).Admissibility of Judgment of a Criminal Court in civil case – Admission
    made during criminal trial can be used in Civil Case also after giving an
    opportunity to the maker to explain those admissions. (Seth Ramdayal Jat
    vs. Laxmi Prasad) 2009 (11) SCC 545.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Confession
    1) Sec.24 & 27 – confession – evidentiay value – held, confessional
    statement disowned by accused and unsupported by any witness cannot
    be used for judging guilt and must be left out of consideration. 2011 (1)
    SCC (crl) 646 = 2011 (2) SCC 188. (M.Nagehwar Rao vs. State of A.P)
    M.P.Murugan M.A.,LL.B., J.M.No.II, Thanjavur
    26 Indian Evidence Act
    2) confession when recorded according to law and a certificate about his
    voluntary character appended – Magistrate need not be examined – Modi
    Ganga vs. State of Orissa. (AIR 1981 SC 1165, 1981 Cr.L.J.628, 1981
    SCC (Crl) 411, 1981 (2) SCC 224)
    3) Time for reflection to accused – 24 hours time must be given. (Sarwan
    Singh v. State of Punjab. - AIR 1957 SC 637, 1957 Cr.L.J.1014, 1957 SCC
    699)
    4) 2010 (1) .M.L.J. 583; - Extra Judicial Confession - A court can sustain
    conviction on the confession if it inspires the confidence of the court.
    Before doing so, the court must satisfy; the two tests. First, to whom and
    under what circumstances the extra judicial confession was given.
    Secondly, whether such evidence inspires the confidence of the court.
    5) Timing of recording statement — not a ground for retraction :---The
    Supreme Court in the case of Balakrishna v. State of West Bengal, AIR
    1974 SC 120, in the context of S. 107 of the Customs Act, observed that
    the provision is plain that an authorised custom official is entitled to
    examine any person at any time, at any place in the course of enquiry.
    May be, situations arise where failure to question a witness quickly may
    mean irretrievable loss of a valuable material and S. 107 meets this need.
    In view of above, it may not be possible to seek retrac-tion on the basis of
    odd timing of recording statement alone, unless the statute provides
    otherwise.
    M.P.Murugan M.A.,LL.B., J.M.No.II, Thanjavur
    27 Indian Evidence Act
    6) The Madras High Court (Full Bench), in the well-known case of Roshan
    Beevi v. Joint secretary to Govt. Tamil Nadu, Public deptt. — 1983
    L.W. Crl. 289 : (AIR 1984 NOC 103), observed that any confessional
    statement obtained from detainee by keeping him in prolonged custody
    has to be regarded with grave suspicion, because there is always room for
    criticism that such a confession might have been obtained from extorted
    maltreatment or induced by improper means.
    7) In holding that prolonged custody will vitiate the value of statement, the
    Madras High Court referred to the case of Nathu v. State of Uttar Pradesh,
    AIR 1956 SC 56, where the Supreme Court observed that the prolonged
    custody may stamp the confessional statement so obtained as involuntary
    one, and the intrinsic value of such a statement may be vitiated.
    8) The FERA Board, in the case of Kishore Gordhanadas Tanna in Appeal
    No. 69/1984 decided on 27-8-1984, has observed "thus recording late at
    night the statement of persons by the officers of the department ipso facto
    results in the exercise of undue influence and coercion on those persons,
    and in such cases, the question of furnishing details regarding the type of
    coercion or force used by the officers does not arise".
    9) In Pangambam Kalanjay Singh v. State of Manipur, AIR 1956 AIR SC 9, it
    had been earlier observed that if confession is retracted, it has to be corroborated
    on the basis of independent evidence. In Pakani Swami v. State
    of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1956 SC 593, the Court held that corroboration was
    necessary when a suspicion was cast on the genuineness of a confession.
    M.P.Murugan M.A.,LL.B., J.M.No.II, Thanjavur
    28 Indian Evidence Act
    10) In Puran v. State of Punjab, AIR 1953 SC 459, The SC observed that
    it is a settled rule of evidence that unless a retracted confession is
    corroborated in material particulars, it is not prudent to base a conviction in
    a criminal case on its strength alone. In Bharat v. State of Uttar Pradesh,
    (1971) 3 SCC 950, the Court observed that the Courts do not act upon a
    retracted confession without finding assurance from some other source as
    to the guilt of the accused.
    11) In the case of Pyare Lal Bhargava v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1963
    SC 1094, the Supreme Court has summed up the position of retracted
    confessions by observing that it is unsafe to rely upon a confession much
    less on a retracted confession, unless the court is satisfied that the
    retracted confession is true and voluntarily made and has been
    corroborated in material particulars.
    12) 2006 (1) SCC 714 Sivakumar Vs. State by Inspector of Police –
    Extra judicial confession made before the village administrative officer is
    admissible in evidence and this could be relied upon.
    13) (2007) 4 Supreme Court Cases 257 - Crl. Appeal No.1228 of 2004 ,
    Abdul Vahab Abdulmajid Shaikh and others Vs. State of Gujarat, Crl.
    Appeal No. 129 of 2005, Abdul Vahab Abdulmajid Shaikh and others Vs.
    State of Gujarat, Crl. Appeal No. 130 of 2005, State of Gujarat Vs. Yasin
    Ganibhai Haveliwala and Others Crl. Appeal No. 1228 of 2004 with Nos.
    129-30 of 2005, decided on April 24, 2007 --------- S.24 – Confession of
    accused – Voluntary nature of - Determination of – Retraction at later
    M.P.Murugan M.A.,LL.B., J.M.No.II, Thanjavur
    29 Indian Evidence Act
    stage – Effect of – Held, merely because the confession was retracted
    later; that does not mean that the confession was not voluntary in nature –
    Whether the accused was willing to give confession voluntarily or not is to
    be determined from his mental state at the time when he gave the
    confession – In the present case, confession of accused recorded by Dy.
    Commissioner of Police (DCP) under TADA Act – Accused had expressed
    his willingness to make the confession – DCP took all precautions to
    ascertain that the confession was voluntary – Confession recorded after
    complying with all procedural formalities and these facts incorporated in
    confessional statement – Before the Magistrate, accused had no case that
    he was put under pressure or third-degree methods had been used
    against him to extract confession – In view of the said facts, held, the
    above confession was voluntary, truthful and admissible in evidence.
    14) Supreme Court of India --- Criminal Appeal No. 1243 of 2006 ---
    Judge(s): Harjit Singh Bedi & Chandramauli Kumar Prasad --- Date of
    Judgment: 23 July, 2010 --Podyami Sukada Vs.State of M.P. (Now
    Chhatisgar). Extra judicial confession : “evidentiary value of extra
    judicial confession depends upon trustworthiness of the witness before
    whom confession is made.”
    15) Evidence Act – Sec.24- Retracted confession – conviction based
    solely on retracted confession was opposed to law and could not be
    allowed to stand – AIR 1953 S.C 411. Arjuna Lal Misra V. State of Orissa.
    Date of Judgment.30.11.1950.
    M.P.Murugan M.A.,LL.B., J.M.No.II, Thanjavur
    30 Indian Evidence Act
    16) Retracted confession – when may be relied on – Held, the same can
    be relied on if made voluntarily – Burden of proving voluntary nature of
    confession is on prosecution. ( Noor Aga vs. State of Punjab) 2010 (3)
    SCC (cr) 748.
    Sec.25 & 26
    1). Sec .25 - 2008 (2).M.LJ. 326; - Evidence Act - Sec-25- Confession statement
    to police officer - Can not be used during trial - However can be used if infavour
    of the accused.
    2) Confession to police officer – confessional statement of accused can be
    referred in deciding nature of offence committed (Ganesan v. State) 2011 2 MLJ
    Crl 546. Ms. Chitra venkatraman,J)
    3) Distinction between Sec.25 & Sec.26 ; Commissioner of Police v. narender
    Singh . AIR 2006 SC 1800, 2006 (4) SCC 265.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    M.P.Murugan M.A.,LL.B., J.M.No.II, Thanjavur
    31 Indian Evidence Act
    Confession & recovery U/s. 27
    1).The information must come from the accused in custody of police and
    exact information given by the accused while is custody which leads to the
    discovery of the articles have to be proved. (Bodhraj vs. State of J.K.) –
    AIR 2002 SC 3164 = 2002 (8) SCC 45.
    2).Witness to recovery is must – Premchand vs. State of Punjab. 1986
    Cr.L.J. 1131.
    3).2009.(4). MLJ. 1143--- I.P.C. - At the time of further cross examination all
    the witnesses clearly given go bye to entire story of prosecution. -- 'Mere
    recovery of weapons with reference to crime, the conviction can not be
    sustained if they have no evidence to offer.'
    4).2009 Cr.LJ (NOC) 1181 Mad.---- Non recovery of weapon of offence - Not
    fatal to case.
    5).2006 (2) CTC 650 (Mad) – Sampath Vs. The State rep. by Inspector of
    Police, Kallal P.S. --- Failure on the part of the investigating agency to
    recover non-incriminating materials from the scene of occurrence is
    immaterial when there is eyewitness for occurrence.
    6).Confession leading to recovery – material object recovered belatedly after
    charge sheet filed. - whether can be used as a piece of evidence.
    (A.Kuppan vs . State of T.N) 2011 1 MLJ (crl) 628. (M.Chockalingam,J)
    M.P.Murugan M.A.,LL.B., J.M.No.II, Thanjavur
    32 Indian Evidence Act
    7).2008 (2).M.L.J. 1714 - Recovery of incriminating objects -Respectable
    independent witnesses of locality not summoned as witness- only V.A.O's
    Summoned - No manifest error or illegality commited by inspector of
    police-By failure to summon respectable independent witnesses of locality,
    earliar recovery not vitiated - Requirement , Court, to be cautious in
    evaluating the evidence - said PWS not having special interest or have
    anything againt accused - Their evidence acceptable.
    8).AIR 2007 Supreme Court 2531-- Swamy Shraddananda alias Murali
    Manohar Mishra Vs. State of Karnataka - Disclosure Statement – Fact
    discovered – Included place from which object is produced and knowledge
    of accused as to it – Murder case- Deceased buried in a big court-yard –
    Accused pinpointing exact place of burial – Also marking that place –
    Skeleton of deceased exhumed from marked place – This part of
    confessional statement before police – Is admissible.
    9).Section 27 starts with the word `provided'. Therefore, it is a proviso by way
    of an exception to Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act. If the facts
    deposed under Section 27 are not voluntary, then it will not be admissible,
    and will be hit by Article 20(3) of the 38 Constitution of India. [See State of
    Bombay vs. Kathi Kalu Oghad, [AIR 1961 SC 1808].
    10). The Privy Counsel in Pulukori Kottaya vs. King Emperor, [1947 PC
    67] held that Section 27 of the Evidence Act is not artistically worded but it
    provides an exception to the prohibition imposed under the preceding
    M.P.Murugan M.A.,LL.B., J.M.No.II, Thanjavur
    33 Indian Evidence Act
    sections. However, the extent of discovery admissible pursuant to the facts
    deposed by accused depends only to the nature of the facts discovered to
    which the information precisely relates.
    11). 2010 MLJ (Cri) 452 (SC) - Sec.27 - Reliability of materials
    discovered pursuant to facts deposed by accused in police custody. The
    limited nature of the admissibility of the facts discovered pursuant to the
    statement of the accused under Section 27 can be illustrated by the
    following example: Suppose a person accused of murder deposes to the
    police officer the fact as a result of which the weapon with which the crime
    is committed is discovered, but as a result of such discovery no inference
    can be drawn against the accused, if there is no evidence connecting the
    knife with the crime alleged to have been committed by the accused.
    (Musheer Khan v. State of M.P.) Asok Kumar Ganguly,J. 28.1.2010.
    12). Admissibility of recoveries in evidence made pursuant to disclosure
    by accused – No confessional statement made to police was relied upon
    by courts below to convict accused but only objects recovered in
    furtherance of statement of accused were relied upon to complete chain
    events – moreover the said objects were duly identified by owners during
    investigation as well as during trial – hence, recovered objects were
    admissible. ( Sanatan Naskar v. State of W.B) 2010 (3) SCC (crl) 814.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    M.P.Murugan M.A.,LL.B., J.M.No.II, Thanjavur
    34 Indian Evidence Act
    Sec.30
    1).2008 (1) MLJ 427 = 2008 (1) MLJ 193 =AIR 1992 SC 3258 – Unless
    jointly tried, confession of co-accused cannot be used.
    2).2008 (2).M.L.J. 53 – Confession by A-6 Implicating himself and A-l and A-
    2 -Judicial Confession of A-6 Inculpatory in nature- Confession of A-6
    Proved - Can be taken in to consideration against Al- and A-2
    3).2008 (1) MLJ. 142 (SC) (K.G.Balakrishnan and G.P.Mathur,JJ). 24.4.2007.
    Prakash Kumar @ Prakash Bhutto and others and state of Gujarat. -- The
    confession of a co-accused by itself is not sufficient to hold other accused
    guilty: Rule of prudence requires the Court to seek corroboration to test its
    veracity.
    4). (2007) 1 MLJ (Crl.) 279 --- Valarmathi Vs. State – Sec.30 – Extra-judicial
    confession of co-accused – Evidentiary value of – Confession given by coaccused
    cannot be treated as evidence against the other accused unless
    it is proved – It is admissible only as a corroborative piece of evidence.
    5). (2008) 1 MLJ (Crl) 427 – Mohammed Ashan Vs. Senior Intelligence
    Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Chennai-17 ---- Section 30 –
    Allegation that accused No.1 and 2 were found in possession of heroin
    supplied by Accused No.3 – Complaint filed in the year 1993 – Case
    against some accused persons split up and ended in acquittal – Not
    M.P.Murugan M.A.,LL.B., J.M.No.II, Thanjavur
    35 Indian Evidence Act
    challenged – Absconding accused No.3 arrested in a different case at
    Karnataka – Except the retracted confession of the co-accused, no other
    incriminating materials – Quash petition filed – Objection that the accused
    should face trial, cannot be entertained – No material to frame the charges
    – Confession of co-accused cannot be used, unless jointly tried-
    Proceedings quashed – Petition allowed. RATIONES DECIDENDI –
    “When the case against the split up accused ended in acquittal, there is no
    purpose in conducting trial against others on the basis of the confession of
    the co-accused which is inadmissible in evidence unless, jointly tried.”
    ============================================================
    M.P.Murugan M.A.,LL.B., J.M.No.II, Thanjavur
    36 Indian Evidence Act
    Dying Declaration
    1).Dying Declaration and ability to talk – the patient must be able to speak. 1)
    Padman vs. State of Orissa- 1981 SCC (crl) 362. ii) Om Prakash vs. State
    of Punjab, AIR 1992 SC 138, 1992 Cr.L.J. 3935, 1992 SCC (crl) 848., iii)
    Prakash vs. State of M.P., AIR 1992 SC 65, 1992 Cr.L.J. 1127, 1987 92)
    SCC 627, 1987 SCC (crl) 43. iv) Harda vs. State of M.P. , 1989 Cr.L.J.
    1058, v) V.s.More vs. State of M.H., AIR 1978 SC 519, 1978 Cr.L.J 644,
    1978 (1) SCC 622.
    2).Conviction and sentence on sole basis of dying declaration – no doubt
    with regard to truthfulness of dying declaration – conviction of accused
    proper. (Chirra Shivraj v. State of A.P) (Anile R. Dave,J) 2011 1 MLJ (crl)
    812 (SC).
    3).Dying Declaration – necessary condition of death failing which statement
    would be inadmissible. (S.Arul Raja vs. State of T.N) 2010 4 MLJ 67 SC. –
    Supreme court of india -- criminal appeal no.699 of 2008 --judge(s): aftab
    alam,deepak verma----date of judgment: tuesday, december 15, 2009 ---
    sharda versus state of rajasthan. --- Dying declaration - First two dying
    declarations exonerating appellant-mother-in-law, stating death to be
    accidental - First dying declaration corroborated by evidence of PW 31,
    doctor and PW 22, ASI - Both statements recorded on 16.8.1999, date of
    incidence, in quick succession - Third dying declaration made on 19.8.99
    to Magistrate wherein appellant-mother-in-law stated to have set
    deceased ablaze - Both Trial court and High Court on relying upon third
    M.P.Murugan M.A.,LL.B., J.M.No.II, Thanjavur
    37 Indian Evidence Act
    declaration, convicting appellant. Held, the fact that last dying declaration
    has many over-writings and some dates have been scored out to put new
    dates, creates doubt as to its veracity. It was recorded few days later as
    compared to the earlier statements which were recorded on the same day.
    Second dying declaration was signed by father of the deceased but he
    never objected to such statement having not been made by deceased. His
    explanation that at the time of discharge while signing many papers, he
    signed the declaration also without knowing the contents cannot be
    accepted. Further police complaint was made only on 19.8.1999 and he
    kept silent between 16.8.1999 to 19.8.1999. Hence, Exh. P 18 being
    unreliable cannot sustain appellant's conviction.
    4).2009 (4) .M.L.J. 839 - Evidence Act - Sec-32 - Dying declaration - When
    the accused who gave the dying declaration survived, the dying
    declaration can be construed as extra- judicial confession and since it was
    made to the Executive Magistrate himself, it can be construed as made 'in
    the immediate presence of a Magistrate' and as such, the same is
    admissible in evidence.
    5).Admissibility of statements under Section 32, Evidence Act -In Vinay D.
    Nagar v. State of Rajasthan, Criminal Appeal No. 210 of 2007 the
    statement made by the deceased under Section 161 Cr PC indicating the
    involvement of the appellant in the abduction of a boy has no remote
    connection or reference to the death of deceased. It was thus held
    inadmissible under Section 32 of Evidence Act. The court’s observations
    are noteworthy:“The statement recorded by the police although could be
    M.P.Murugan M.A.,LL.B., J.M.No.II, Thanjavur
    38 Indian Evidence Act
    proved as there would not be any bar under Section 162 Cr PC for proof of
    such statement, but it would not be admissible under Section 32 of the
    Evidence Act, and thus it could not have been relied upon by the
    prosecution to prove the motive for commission of the crime by the
    accused appellant.”
    6).The prosecution case was that it was to avoid the deceased giving
    evidence against the appellant in the abduction case that he came to be
    killed. [Vinay D. Nagar v. State of Rajasthan, Criminal Appeal No. 210 of
    2007, decided on March 3, 2008]
    7).Veracity of Dying Declarations:- The court held that it is not necessary that
    the dying declaration should be recorded by a magistrate of course if it is
    so done it will add to its veracity but when two dying declarations were
    consistent they were held to be reliable. [Rajendra & Ors. v. state of
    Maharashtra, Cr. App. No. 1619 of 2005 decided on July 27, 2006.]
    8).Dying declarations in dowry death cases -In Sher Singh & Anr. v. State of
    Punjab, Criminal Appeal No. 646 of 2006 the Supreme Court detailed the
    admissibility of dying declaration thus: “Normally, the court places reliance
    on the medical evidence for reaching the conclusion whether the person
    making a dying declaration was in a fit state of mind, but where the person
    recording the statement states that the deceased was in a fit and
    conscious state, the medical opinion will not prevail, nor can it be said that
    since there is no certification of the doctor as to the fitness of mind of the
    declarent, the dying declaration is not acceptable. What is essential is that
    M.P.Murugan M.A.,LL.B., J.M.No.II, Thanjavur
    39 Indian Evidence Act
    the person recording the dying declaration must be satisfied that the
    deceased was in a fit state of mind. Where it is proved by the testimony of
    the Magistrate that the declarant was fit to make the statement without
    there being the doctor’s opinion to that effect, it can be acted upon
    provided the court ultimately holds the same to be voluntary and truthful. A
    certificate by the doctor is essentially a rule of caution and, therefore, the
    voluntary and truthful nature of a statement can be established
    otherwise.” [Sher Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab, Criminal Appeal No. 646
    of 2006, decided February 15, 2008]
    9).Dying declaration - Not accepted – A dying declaration retracted by the
    maker in Anil Prakash Shukla v. Arvind Shukla, Cr. Appl. No. 830 of 2002
    came to be rejected both by the High Court and the Supreme Court. In this
    case the magistrate who recorded the declaration did not appear to give
    evidence. [Anil Prakash Shukla v. Arvind Shukla, Cr. Appl. No. 830 of 2002
    decided on May 1, 2007]
    10). Ravi Kumar alias Kutti Ravi v. State of Tamil Nadu Cr. App. No. 630
    of 2005 Decided on 22nd Jan, 2006 – The death of a lady was caused by
    pouring kerosene on her and burning. She gave a dying declaration
    naming the accused. The defense argument that her dying statement was
    in Telegu and was translated into Tamil by the doctor hence it may not be
    admissible was set aside by the court. The other argument that in the
    hospital entry register it was initially registered as a cause of suicide was
    also rejected as the doctor put the defense that the deceased’s father was
    not clear about the event when he brought his daughter to the hospital
    M.P.Murugan M.A.,LL.B., J.M.No.II, Thanjavur
    40 Indian Evidence Act
    hence for the sake of entry the doctor registered it as suicide. But after
    getting a clear picture of event, he erased the same and noted
    accordingly. Hence the Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the
    accused.
    11). More than one D.D – In this case there were two dying declarations
    though one was made before the Magistrate. But the forensic expert
    opinion which remained unimpeached raised doubt as regards the
    condition of the deceased to make a voluntary and truthful statement. After
    examining the case law the court came to the conclusion that “the dying
    declaration must inspire confidence so as to make it safe to act upon.
    Whether it is safe to act upon a dying declaration depends upon not only
    the testimony of the person recording dying declaration – be it even a
    magistrate but also all the material available on record and the
    circumstances including the medical evidence” (Emphasis supplied). And
    the court refused conviction on the basis of dying declaration. [Nallapati
    Sivaiah v. Sub-Divisional Officer, Guntur, A.P., Cr. App. No. 1315 of 2005,
    decided on September 26, 2007]
    12). The court held that dying declaration is only a piece of untested
    evidence and must like any other evidence, satisfy the court that what is
    stated therein is the unalloyed truth and that is absolutely safe to act upon
    it. If after careful scrutiny the court is satisfied that it is true and free from
    any effort to induce the deceased to make a false statement and if it is
    coherent and consistent, there should be no legal impediment to make it
    basis of conviction. The court in this case convicted the accused for life
    M.P.Murugan M.A.,LL.B., J.M.No.II, Thanjavur
    41 Indian Evidence Act
    imprisonment under section 302 on the basis of dying declaration. [Smt.
    Shakuntala v. State of Haryana, Cr. Appeal No. 376 of 2002 decided on
    July 27, 2007]
    13). Inconsistencies in Dying Declarations - Benefit of doubt to be given
    to accused -The accused in Mehiboobsab Abbasabi Nadaf v. State of
    Karnataka, Criminal Appeal No. 130 of 2006 was given benefit of doubt
    because of the inconsistencies in the different dying declarations made by
    the deceased.
    14). About the acceptability of dying declaration the Court's observation
    are illustrative. The Court said:--"Conviction can indisputably be based on
    a dying declaration. But before it can be acted upon, the same must be
    held to have been rendred voluntarily and truthfully. Consistency in the
    dying declaration is the relevant factor for placing full reliance thereupon.
    In this case, the deceased herself had taken contradictory and
    inconsistent stand in different dying declarations. They, therefore, should
    not be accepted on their face value. Caution, in this behalf, is required to
    be applied." [Mehiboobsab Abbasabi Nadaf v. State of Karnataka, Criminal
    Appeal No. 130 of 2006 decided on August 1, 2007]
    15). Dying Declaration not to be disregarded easily.-- The Supreme Court
    held that the high court found fault with the dying declaration only because
    he did not mentioned PW3 i.e. his son was also there. The court felt the
    high court erred in this and restored life imprisonment given by trial court.
    [Heera Lal Yadav v. State of M.P. & Ors. Cr. App. No. 546 of 2000 decided
    M.P.Murugan M.A.,LL.B., J.M.No.II, Thanjavur
    42 Indian Evidence Act
    on July 4, 2006]
    16). 2010 (1) M.L.J. 460 Evidence Act - When the defacto complaint died
    subsequent to the registration of the case and before the trial was started,
    the statement given by him can be sought to be introduced in evidence by
    virtue of sec.32 of the Indian evidence Act, provided it falls within any one
    of the eight categories enumerated in the said section . When it does not
    fall within those categories, convicting a person merely relying on an
    averment made in the complaint without the same having been proved by
    reliable evidence shall not be in accordance with law.
    17). 2007 (1) MLJ (Crl) 222 Ravikumar @ Kutti Ravi Vs. State of Tamil
    Nadu --- Dying declaration reveals accused lit fire on the deceased –
    Accident Register indicates self-immolation – Contradictions – Effect of –
    Doctor who made entry, explained his position that such entry was made
    on presumption since cause of injuries was not informed him at that time –
    It was erased when he knows the correct state of affairs – Evidence of
    Magistrate and Doctor is absolutely clear and unambiguous – Defence
    version of suicide cannot be accepted on the face of two dying
    declarations of the deceased recorded by Magistrate and Police Head
    Constable.
    18). (2008) 2 SCC 516 (SC) Vikas and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra
    Dying declaration – Bride burning – Contradictory dying declarations –
    Credibility of evidence recorded by Magistrate over other dying
    declarations – Evidentiary value of dying declaration recorded by a
    M.P.Murugan M.A.,LL.B., J.M.No.II, Thanjavur
    43 Indian Evidence Act
    competent Magistrate having no animus and not being an interested
    witness, reiterated, would stand on a much higher footing.
    19). 2006 (3) SCC 161 P. Mani Vs. State of Tamil Nadu - Conviction can
    be recorded on the basis of the dying declaration alone but the same must
    be wholly reliable. In a case, where suspicion can be raised as regards the
    correctness of dying declaration, the court before convicting the accused
    on the basis therefore would look for some corroborative evidence. If
    evidence brought on records suggests that such dying declaration does
    not reveal the entire truth, it may be considered only as a piece of
    evidence, in which event conviction may not be rested only on the basis
    thereof.
    20). Executive Magistrate recorded the dying declaration, not obtaining
    certificate from medical officer but ascertaining from PW-7 doctor that
    deceased was in a fit state of mind to give statement – held, certification
    by doctor can be a rule of caution and therefore, vouluntary and truthful
    nature of declaration can be established otherwise. (Govindappa vs. State
    of Karnataka) 2010 (3) SCC (crl) 184.
    21). Non-examination of doctor before whom declaration recorded and
    certified the condition of the victim – effect – explanation for nonexamination
    – importance of. (nallapati sivaiah vs. SDO, 2010 (3) SCC
    (crl) 560.
    M.P.Murugan M.A.,LL.B., J.M.No.II, Thanjavur
    44 Indian Evidence Act
    22). Question -answer form – question were asked to which deceased
    gave replies but statement of deceased was not recorded in question and
    answer form – held, dying declaration need not be in question -answer
    form. (amarsingh Munnasingh Suryawanshi vs. State of M.H) 2010 (3)
    SCC (crl) 553.
    23). Maker of Dying declaration not dying – admissibility of such
    statement – Held, for statement to be admissible in evidence as dying
    declaration, person making statement should no longer alive. (S.Arul Raja
    vs. State of T.N) 2010 (3) SCC (crl) 801.
    24). Statement before Magistrate in anticipation of death – statement
    recorded under S.32 – injured witness survived – Held, in such eventuality
    statement so recorded has to be treated as of superior quality / higher
    degree than a statement recorded under S.161 Cr.P.c can be used as
    provided Under Sec. 157 of Evidence Act. (Ranjit singh and others vs.
    State of M.P) 2011 (2) SCC (crl) 227 = 2011 4 SCC 336.
    25). Dying declaration – credibility – police personnel, if may record –
    Held, there is no mandatory requirement that dying declaration has to be
    recorded by any designated or particular person – it is only to eliminate
    chances of any doubt or false implication by prosecution, that such
    declaration should be recorded by a Magistrate or by a doctor – DD
    recorded by Head constable after declared that the victim is fit to make
    statement by doctor – reliable. (2011 (1) SCC (crl) 352 = 2010 (12) scc
    277. (Dhan singh vs. State of haryana)
    M.P.Murugan M.A.,LL.B., J.M.No.II, Thanjavur
    45 Indian Evidence Act
    Sec.35 -Entries made in public Documents.
    The entries made in public documents are a relevant fact and thus admissible in
    a court of law subject to the following three conditions:
    1. That the entry must be one in any public or official book, register or record;
    2. It must be an entry relating to a fact in issue or relevant fact;
    3. It must be made by a public servant in the discharge of his official duty
    specifically enjoined by law.
    As no definition is given in the Act, for expressions 'public' or 'official book',
    reference can be given to Sec.74 of the Act, which states, what are public
    documents. Birth and death registers, marriage register, school registers,
    electoral roll, record of rights, revenue records, mutation entries, gazetteer,
    F.I.R. and case diary, charge sheet, etc are examples for public documents,
    register/records. A document admissible in evidence under this provision would
    automatically not be credible simply because it had been admitted as evidence.
    Such document would be considered subject to relevancy and by assessing the
    evidence as a whole and not in isolation.
    Now the moot question is what is the probative value of entries made in public
    documents? It has to be clearly understood that the probative value of a
    document is different from its admissibility. In fact, the courts, while testing the
    veracity of entries made in public documents, must find out its probative value
    also. For example, an entry regarding date of birth made in the school register is
    relevant and admissible under Sec.35 of the Evidence Act. But it would have
    M.P.Murugan M.A.,LL.B., J.M.No.II, Thanjavur
    46 Indian Evidence Act
    probative value only when it is made on the information given by parents or
    some one having special knowledge of the fact. Truly speaking, it will have no
    evidentiary value unless the person who made the entry or who had given the
    information about the date of birth is examined. The failure to rebut the entries
    made in public documents cannot increase the evidentiary value of those
    entries.
    The legal position in this regard is being settled by a Division Bench decision of
    Supreme Court in Birad Mal Singhvi v. Anand Purohit, 1988 (Supp) SCC 606
    para 14 (E.S.Venkataramiah and K.N.Singh, JJ). The Court observed:
    "....The entries regarding dates of birth contained in the Scholar's register and
    the secondary school examination certificate have no probative value, if no
    person on whose information the date of birth of the candidate was mentioned in
    the school record is examined. The entry contained in the admission form or in
    the scholar's register must be shown to be made on the basis of information
    given by parents or a person having special knowledge about the date of birth of
    the person concerned. If the entry is made on the basis of information given by a
    stranger or by someone else who had no special means of knowledge of the
    date of birth, such entry will have no evidentiary value....".
    The principle enunciated through this decision is being followed in a catena
    decisions of the Apex Court. A few of such decisions are Desh Raj v. Bodh Raj
    (2008) 2 SCC 186 Para 25and 26, State of Punjab v. Mohinder Singh, (2005) 3
    SCC 702, Maduri Patil v. Addl.Commr.Tribal Development, (1994)6 SCC 241.
    Moreover, evidentiary value of entries in public documents will not be presumed
    to be correct if they are shown to be not correct by the evidence produced.
    M.P.Murugan M.A.,LL.B., J.M.No.II, Thanjavur
    47 Indian Evidence Act
    The point law in this aspect is discussed by Apex Court in Sita Ram Bhau Patil
    v. Ramchandra Nago Patil, AIR 1977 SC 1712, para 20, (A.N.Ray, M.H.Beg and
    P.S.Kailasam JJ). The Court observed: " ....There is no abstract principle that
    whatever will appear in the record of rights will be presumed to be correct when
    it is shown by evidence that the entries are not correct...."
    1).Birth Register extract obtained from municipality is a valuable piece of
    evidence as regards age of victim. (anandhan vs. State) 1995 Cr.L.J. 632.
    2).Sec.35- Evidence Act - Sec.363 and 366(A) .I.P.C - Offence of kidnapping
    a minor -Proof of age of minor - Entry in school register - Admissible in
    evidence- Due weight should be given it. 2008 (3).M.L.J. 905 (SC)
    3). Relevance of entry in public records – entry in respect of age – Register of
    Municipal corporation, Government Hospital, nurshing home should be
    relied and entry in the school record is to be discarded – admissibility of
    entry of school register / certificate to be proved in accordance with law.
    (Satpal Singh v. State of Haryana) 2010 4 MLJ 685 SC = 2010 (3) SCC
    (crl) 1081.
    4).Relevancy of entry in public record – determination of age – school
    transfer certificate to be admissible in evidence – Evidenciary value given
    only on examination of person who made or gave such entry. ( alamelu vs.
    State) 2011 2 MLJ (crl) 78 (SC). Surinder singh Nijjar,J.
    M.P.Murugan M.A.,LL.B., J.M.No.II, Thanjavur
    48 Indian Evidence Act
    Sec.41
    1).2009 (4) .M.L.J. 1045 (SC)-- Indian Evidence Act - Pendency of two
    proceedings whether Civil or Criminal would not attract the provisions of
    sec.41 of the Evidence Act. A judgment has to be pronounced. The
    genuiness of the will must be gone into. ii) A Criminal proceeding will have
    primacy over the civil proceeding. Precedence to a Criminal proceeding is
    given having regard to the fact that disposal of a civil proceeding ordinarily
    takes a long time and in the interest of justice the former should be
    disposed of as expeditiously as possible.
    2).2008-2-L.W. 447 Thiruvengada Pillai Vs. Navaneethammal & another -
    Agreement/Genuineness, dispute as to, power of Court to compare thumb
    impressions, Scope, Specif Performance, Practice, Evidence Act(1872),
    Section 45/Expert opinion, Section 73, (Indian) Stamp Act (1899), Section
    54/Stamp paper, Use of, within six months whether necessary, Expiry
    date, Section 35, 37/Admissibility of agreement in payment of duty and
    penalty. – ii) (Indian)Stamp Rules (1925) applicable to Tamil Nadu –
    Rules do not contain any provision that the stamp papers of required value
    should be purchased together from the same vendor with consecutive
    serial numbers – Rules merely provide that where two or more sheets of
    paper on which stamps are engraved or embossed are used to make up
    the amount of duty chargeable in respect of any instrument, a portion of
    such instrument shall be written on each sheet so used – Document
    cannot be termed as invalid merely because it is written on two stamps
    papers purchased by the same person on difference dates.
    M.P.Murugan M.A.,LL.B., J.M.No.II, Thanjavur
    49 Indian Evidence Act
    Expert Opinion
    1).2010 (1) .M.L.J. 429 – when hand writing expert is not well versed in the
    language mentioned in documents it would be better that documents are
    compared by a handwriting expert who knows the said language.
    2).Expert witness is a weak type of evidence. The court do not consider it as
    conclusive. It is not safe to rely upon it without seeking independent and
    reliable corroboration. (S.gopal Reddy vs. State of A.P.) 1996 Cr.L.J. 3237
    (SC).
    3).Conviction solely on experts opinion – particularly on handwriting experts
    is not permissible. (Magan Behari Lal vs. State of Punjab) AIR 1977 SC
    1091 = 1977 Cr.L.J. 711 (SC).
    4).2010 (1) CTC 424 (Justice S.Nagamuthu) R. Jagadeesan Vs N.Ayyasamy
    and another – Section 45 – Expert Opinion – Age of writing – Duty of Court
    – Non-availability of scientific method – Sending documents for opinion in
    respect of age of writing is only futile – Direction not to send documents
    henceforth unless new methods are invented to find out age of writings
    was issued.
    5).2008) 8 MLJ 299 – R. Elango Vs. K. Dhanasekaran and Others – Section
    45 - Comparison of signature - Opinion of handwriting expert- If the
    request for comparison of signatures, is made before commencement of
    M.P.Murugan M.A.,LL.B., J.M.No.II, Thanjavur
    50 Indian Evidence Act
    trial, the request shall be accorded - Party may state his/her own choice of
    expert - Opinion of handwriting expert is of weak value and it shall be
    considered along with other evidence and materials An experts' opinion
    does not impinge the power of the Court to compare the signatures -
    Expert should be summoned to Court and he shall take photographs for
    comparison - It is not lawful to send the documents away from the custody
    of the Court - CRPs allowed.
    6).2010 (1) CTC 424- R. Jagadeesan Vs N.Ayyasamy and another ---Section
    45 – Expert Opinion – Age of writing – Duty of Court – Non-availability of
    scientific method – Sending documents for opinion in respect of age of
    writing is only futile – Direction not to send documents henceforth unless
    new methods are invented to find out age of writings was issued. --- In
    view of all the above, in my considered opinion, sending the documents for
    opinion in respect of the age of the writing on documents should not be
    resorted to hereafter by the Courts unless, in future, due to scientific
    advancements, new methods are invented to find out the age of the
    writings.
    7).2009 (2) CTC 65. --- R.Regupathi,J. V.Srinivasan vs. E.S.Gunasekar.
    3.2.2009. --- Sec.45 – proceedings pending under section 138 of N.I.Actaccused
    seeking to send cheque to handwriting expert – defemce not
    taken during initial questioning or during Sec.313, Cr.P.C questioning or in
    reply to statutory notice – application, held, belated and liable to be
    dismissed.
    M.P.Murugan M.A.,LL.B., J.M.No.II, Thanjavur
    51 Indian Evidence Act
    8).Expert Opinion assists the Court in the matter of scientific nature. Expert
    gives opinion for the matter after assessing it. This opinion is not binding in
    nature and is merely advisory. Only an opinion is to be given and not a
    conclusion of matter by an expert. It should be of corroborative nature to
    facts and circumstances of the case. If opinion contradicts an
    unimpeachable eye witness or documentary evidence then it will not have
    an upper hand over direct evidences. Expert opinion helps a Judge to form
    an independent opinion in every mater. Section of the Act does not provide
    for any specific attainment, study of experience for an expert. Experts are
    admissible as witness but, they are not to make conclusion as it is a
    judicial function. Experts have to state the facts, which he has seen, heard
    or perceived through his/ her sense. They are not helpful to Court in the
    interpretation of law. It is weak evidence.[ Field’s, Commentary, “Law of
    Evidence”, Delhi Law House, 12th Edition, Volume 3]
    9).To be appointed as expert one must have attainment in professional
    qualification. Some professional experience or should have made special
    study in subject. He must prove himself as an expert before Court. Some
    training must have been practiced by expert into that scientific field or has
    special knowledge of that field. Or, if he has made some observation in
    that field.[ Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, “The Law of Evidence”, Wadhwa &
    Wadhwa Company, 21st Edition, Lawyers Edition]
    10). Opinion is sought so that the court is able to assess evidence with a
    reasonable degree by relying on its own experience. But in some cases
    the Court is not able to come to a conclusion on the basis of its experience
    M.P.Murugan M.A.,LL.B., J.M.No.II, Thanjavur
    52 Indian Evidence Act
    as because Court is ill equipped. And, for that opinion of an expert is being
    sought.
    11). It is for Court to decide that if case partakes character of science or
    art and possessing knowledge of that specific subject is a must for that
    case to be adjudged then expert opinion is to be sought. So when subject
    matter of courts inquiry is of such a scientific nature then the Court takes
    the Technical assistance in that field. Once the opinion is admitted by the
    Court then it is no more an Expert’s opinion but the opinion of Court. And
    these opinions are not authoritative in value but they are persuasive.
    [Bachraj Factories Ltd v. Bombay Telephone Co. Ltd., AIR 1939 Sind 245].
    12). When there is a conflict between the opinion evidence and oral
    testimony of the evidence, then evidence can be assessed in two ways.
    The first method can be applied only in those cases where the oral
    evidence is above reproach and creates confidence and there is no false
    no appreciable reason for the false application of any accused. Where the
    evidence is not of that character and the opinion evidence is not open to
    any doubt or suspicion, the only safe and judicial method of assessing
    method is the second method.[ Thakurs and others v. State AIR 1955 all
    189]
    13). Various rules for expert opinion are: - The first rule is of Experts
    educational background. That means even the doctor is examined and is
    subjected to scrutiny and cross examination. And if his opinion and
    observations contained in his statement are supported then the report can
    M.P.Murugan M.A.,LL.B., J.M.No.II, Thanjavur
    53 Indian Evidence Act
    be looked at otherwise not. So even the examination of Doctor becomes
    essential.[Dhobi Yadav v. State of Bihar AIR 1989 (2) , Cr. L.C., 629 at p
    641 (patna) ] ii) The second test is of the exhibits and the illustrations
    that the expert brings with him or makes. He should not base his opinion
    on the basis of memory and abbreviated notes. But he should have the
    opinion of such a level that even if there is an expert evidence of the
    opposite party then also he is able to defend his stand. Iii) The third test
    is of readiness to detail his techniques and procedures. As an expert
    should not be of skipful nature as to outlining his procedures that he has
    followed. And he should be so confident that no qualms can say that he
    has skipped procedures in reaching to his conclusions.[From Evidence to
    proof, by Marshall Honts, pp.130, 131] iv) And the conclusive test is
    that an Expert is conservative and is cautious. And phrases his conclusion
    that in all probabilities the offence was committed by the accused only.
    [From Evidence to proof, by Marshall Honts, pp.130, 131]
    14). It is a well settled principle that the opinion of an Expert should be
    taken with a great caution and moreover the decision should not be based
    simply on the basis of the opinion of an Expert, without a substantial
    corroboration, as it is unsafe otherwise. Opinion of an Expert by its very
    nature, weak, and infirm and in itself cannot of itself form the basis for a
    conviction and should be taken with a great caution[Magan Bihari Lal v.
    State of Punjab AIR 1977 SC 1091].
    15). It is their duty of court not to occupy the role of an expert by
    themselves and S.C. has always deprecated the courts to take the role of
    M.P.Murugan M.A.,LL.B., J.M.No.II, Thanjavur
    54 Indian Evidence Act
    an expert. But, before applying the opinion of an expert the court has to
    see to apply its own admitted or proved things and compare them with the
    disputed ones. And they have to verify the premises of the expert in one
    case and value the opinion in the other case[ Joginder Prasad v. Joy kanta
    Roy AIR 1971 Assam 168].
    16). When the direct evidence is well corroborated by the circumstantial
    evidence and conforms to probabilities, there is no reason why it should
    not be accepted. The mere fact that the expert has come to a different
    conclusion on a particular point would not render that part of his story
    open to doubt especially when the data on which the expert has come to
    that conclusion is insufficient. The data on which the expert weigh must
    weigh with the Court and the opinion of the expert must be judged in the
    light thereof.[Brij Basi v. Moti Ram AIR 1982 All 323 at p 321]
    17). (2008) 8 MLJ 299 ---R. Elango Vs. K. Dhanasekaran and Others
    ---Indian Evidence Act (1 of 1872), Section 45 - Comparison of signature -
    Opinion of handwriting expert- If the request for comparison of signatures,
    is made before commencement of trial, the request shall be accorded -
    Party may state his/her own choice of expert - Opinion of handwriting
    expert is of weak value and it shall be considered along with other
    evidence and materials An experts' opinion does not impinge the power of
    the Court to compare the signatures - Expert should be summoned to
    Court and he shall take photographs for comparison - It is not lawful to
    send the doc u ments away from the custody of the Court – CRP’s
    allowed. RATIO DECIDENDI --"If a party to a suit seeks opinion of the
    M.P.Murugan M.A.,LL.B., J.M.No.II, Thanjavur
    55 Indian Evidence Act
    handwriting expert, before commencement of trial, the same shall be
    accorded. Party can suggest his choice of expert. Expert opinion is of
    weak evidentiary value and can be considered along with other evidence.
    An expert never supplants the view of the Court. Original documents
    should not be sent out of the custody of the Court. Expert can be
    summoned to take photographs for comparison. "
    18). 2006 (4) CTC 850 --- N. Chinnasamy Vs. P.S. Swaninathan –
    Sections 45 & 73 – Principles regarding Examination of Documents by
    Handwriting Expert or other Experts – Section 73 authorises Court to
    compare disputed signature with admitted signature and arrive at own
    conclusion regarding genuineness of signature but it is always safe to take
    aid of handwriting expert to scientifically compare such handwriting with
    reasons – Documents should be examined in Court premises in presence
    of responsible officer of Court and sending original document in custody of
    Court to Handwriting Expert is bad procedure and where it is necessary to
    send it to expert Application under Section 73 or 45 should be treated as
    Application for appointment of Commissioner and expert should be
    directed to conduct examination of document in presence of
    Commissioner and expert could be given photo copies of documents if he
    inspects same in Court premises in presence of responsible officer of
    Court – Applications filed belatedly is objectionable – Appellate Court
    could seek expert’s opinion even if Trial Court had compared signature
    and arrived at some conclusion – When defendant disputes signature in
    document relied on by plaintiff it is for plaintiff to take steps for examination
    of disputed signature by sending document to handwriting expert –
    M.P.Murugan M.A.,LL.B., J.M.No.II, Thanjavur
    56 Indian Evidence Act
    Defendant filed written statement disputing signature in agreement and
    five years thereafter filed Application to send document for comparison by
    expert with admitted signature without referring to any document
    containing admitted signature – Dismissal of Application by Trial Court
    upheld.
    19). 2009 (4) .M.L.J. 551(SC) - Sec.45 - A court is not found by the
    evidence of the experts. which is to a large extent advisory in nature. The
    court must derive its own conclusion upon considering the opinion of the
    experts which may be adduced by both sides, cautiously and upon taking
    in to consideration the authorities on the point on which he deposes.
    20). (2008) 1 CTC 491 --- S. Gopal Vs. D. Balachandran – Sec. 45 –
    Cheque admittedly signed by drawer cannot be sought to be analysed by
    an expert for opinion as to age of ink used in cheque – Age of ink cannot
    be determined by an expert with scientific accuracy and use of old ink on
    purpose would only dent opinion of expert and result in further confusion.
    Drawer of cheque admitting his signature in the cheque contending that
    the same was a blank one and it was therefore required to be sent to the
    expert for opinion with regard to the age of the ink to prove that the blank
    cheque was misused. Magistrate dismissed the Application on the ground
    that there was no necessity to send the cheque for expert opinion when
    the accused had admitted the signature in the cheque. Held, age of the ink
    cannot be determined by expert with scientific accuracy. Even then, if
    there is use of old ink on purpose, it would result in only further confusion
    and create a dent in the opinion of the expert. No necessity, therefore, for
    M.P.Murugan M.A.,LL.B., J.M.No.II, Thanjavur
    57 Indian Evidence Act
    sending disputed cheque admittedly signed by the drawer, to an expert for
    opinion. Revision dismissed.
    21). (2007) 1 MLJ ( Crl) 1297 -- P.R. Ramakrishnan Vs. P. Govindarajan
    Section 45 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 243 –
    Negotiable Instruments Act 926 of 1881), Section 138 – Trial for alleged
    offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act – Petition by
    accused for sending disputed cheque for expert opinion – Dismissal of,
    only on ground that it being belated one – Held, principle laid down by
    Apex Court in Ms. Kalyani Baskar, (2007) 1 MLJ (Crl) 1020 (SC),
    applicable – As such, disputed cheque, to be sent for comparison, if
    relevant documents, produced.
    M.P.Murugan M.A.,LL.B., J.M.No.II, Thanjavur
    58 Indian Evidence Act
    Medical Evidence
    1). Medical evidence corroborating injured victim's evidence - (2011 (1) SCC
    Crl. 401 = 2011 (1) SCC 793) Kailash and others vs. State of M.H.
    2).Direct testimony of an eyewitness is preferable-- Upholding the
    judgment of the High Court in Shyam v. State of MP through P.S. Bercha,
    Cr. App. No. 215 of 2007, the Supreme Court observed thus:- “Over
    dependence on such opinion evidence, even if the witness is an expert in
    the filed, to checkmate the direct testimony given by an eyewitness is not
    a safe modus adoptable in criminal cases. It has now become axiomatic
    that medical evidence can be used to repel the testimony of eyewitness
    only if it is so conclusive as to rule out even the possibility of the
    eyewitness’s vision to be true.” [Shyam v. State of MP through P.S.
    Bercha decided on February 15, 2007]
    3).Medical evidence when specifically rules out the injury claimed to have
    been inflicted as per the eyewitness' version, then the court can draw
    adverse inference that the prosecution version is no trustworthy. (kapildeo
    Mandal v. State of Bihar) 2010 4 SCC (crl) 203.
    4).20091. M.L.J. 133-- Statements made to the doctor by on injured - witness
    brought before him for treatment, as to the murder of persons involved in
    the offence and their names entered in the accident register- Not relevant
    evidence - May have no evidentiary value.
    M.P.Murugan M.A.,LL.B., J.M.No.II, Thanjavur
    59 Indian Evidence Act
    5).1998 Crl.L.J. 3651 (kerala high court) S.Marimuthu,J. --- P.Johnson and
    others v. state of kerala. ------ offence u/s.321 and 326 –non-examination
    of doctor who took X-ray and non-production of X-ray report - criminal
    liablity under sections 325 and 326 could be said to be not established.
    6).2010. (1) MLJ. 859 (SC) I.P.C - Appreciation of evidence - Discrepancy
    between ocular and medical evidence -In an incident when killing of so
    many persons takes place, it would be difficult for a witness to remember
    with precision the kind of weapon used by a particular Accused, Such
    evidence of witnesses is not liable for rejection an hypothetical so-called
    medical discrepancy.
    7).2009 3 MLJ Crl. 1132 (SC). S.B.Sinha and H.S.Bedi,JJ. 31.3.2008.
    Shivappa and others and State of Karnataka. Medical opinion is
    admissible in evidence like all other types of evidences. There is no hard
    and fast rule with regard to appreciation of medical evidence. It is not to be
    treated as sacrosanct.
    8).Medical Evidence vis-a-vis ocular evidence – if contradictory – effect of –
    principles reiteratted. (2010 (3) SCC (crl) 1262, Abdul Sayeed v. State of
    M.P)
    9).Medical evidence vis-a-vis ocular evidence – contradiction in – acquittal
    confirmed – accused 2 & 4 said to have used stone and stick – trial court
    acquitted as there was no evidence of deceased being hit by stone and
    stick – injuries did not correspond to weapons allegedly used by accused
    M.P.Murugan M.A.,LL.B., J.M.No.II, Thanjavur
    60 Indian Evidence Act
    – acquittal confirmed. ( Chakali maddilety & others vs. state of A.P) 2011
    (2) SCC Cri. 445 = 2010 12 SCC 72.
    10). 2006 (1) MLJ (Cri) 188 S.C Vishnu alias Undraya Vs. State of
    Maharashtra – Medical witness as an expert to assist the court to
    determine the age of the victim in a rape case is not a witness of fact and
    the evidence given by the medical expert is really of an advisory character,
    and if the opinion is accepted by the court, it is not the opinion of the
    expert but a finding of the court.
    11). 2006 (2) CTC 831 (Mad) Ganesan Vs. The State rep. by Inspector of
    Police, Erode Taluk P.S. When ocular evidence is credible and cogent,
    medical evidence to the contrary cannot corrode evidentiary value of
    ocular evidence, especially when in case of rape, prosecutrix has come
    forward with such case sacrificing her future prospects of marriage.
    12). Relying on doctor's version contention that the death was not due to
    any injury but it was due to cardiac arrest and respiratory failure as a result
    of tetanus – Held, doctor's evidence was by way of hypothetical answer
    that the death would not occur because of the injuries received by a shrapedged
    weapon – hence contention rejected. (Ganesh vs. State of
    karnataka) 2010 94) SCC (crl) 474.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    M.P.Murugan M.A.,LL.B., J.M.No.II, Thanjavur
    61 Indian Evidence Act
    S.57 – Judicial notice.
    AIR 2007 Supreme Court 2369
    Smt. Ass Kaur ( Deceased) by L.Rs. V. Kartar Singh (Dead) by L.Rs. & Others
    Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S.57 – Judicial notice – Custom – Court can take
    judicial notice – When custom has been repeatedly recognised by Courts –
    Proof thereof, not necessary.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    (2007) 5 MLJ 1273 (SC)
    Ganmani Anasuya and Others Vs. Parvatini Amarendra Chowdhary and Others
    Indian Evidence Act (1 of 1872), Section 58 – Suit for partition – Admission by a
    party – May be used against such party – Joint business venture – Suit for
    partition – Share of immoveable property and for accounts of joint venture -
    Statement of account by one party – Preparation from books of account –
    Admission to be in his signature – Plea of settlement of accounts – Half share in
    another property of business – Same fraction in the business also – Question of
    settlement of accounts, share in partition and limitation for relief of accounts –
    Not considered in the judgment under appeal – Remanded for decision on all
    points.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    M.P.Murugan M.A.,LL.B., J.M.No.II, Thanjavur
    62 Indian Evidence Act
    Hearsay Evidence
    1) Sec.60 – Evidence of Police officer as to receipt of information to him
    given by some other person – that some other person when is not
    examined, the evidence about information is not admissible. (Bhugdomal
    vs. State of Gujarat. (AIR 1983 SC 906, 1983 Cr.L.J. 1276, 1984 (1) SCC
    319.
    2) Sec.60- hearsay evidence – reliance on contemporaneous newspaper
    publications Exts. P-5 & P-6 for corroborating oral testimony – Held,
    impermissible since reporters of Exts.P-5 & 6 had categorically stated that
    they had no personal knowledge of events published therein. (2011 (1)
    SCC (crri) 423 = 2011 (1) SCC 503. (Joseph M.Puthussery vs. t.S.John)
    3) Hearsay evidence can be used only to corroborate the substantive
    Evidence. (Pawan Kumar vs. State of Haryana) AIR 2003 SC 2987 = 2003
    (11) SCC 241 = 2004 SCC (crl) 109 = 2003 Cr.L.J 3553.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    M.P.Murugan M.A.,LL.B., J.M.No.II, Thanjavur
    63 Indian Evidence Act
    Succession Act (39 of 1925), S. 63 – Evidence Act (1 of 1872) , S.68
    1). 2007 (5) CTC 318 – J. Mathew (died) and Others Vs. Leela Joseph
    ---Section 63 & 68 – Proof of signature on Will and proof of attestation thereof by
    two attesting witnesses may not amount to proof of execution of Will –
    Propounder of Will is required to prove that Testator has signed Will after
    understanding contents thereof or after understanding nature of disposition –
    Execution of Will can be proved by direct evidence such as evidence to effect
    that Testator himself had written Will or Will has been scribed or typed according
    to instructions of Testator or that Will has been read over and explained to
    Testator whereafter he puts his signature – It can also be proved by indirect
    evidence by examining person who was present at time of execution of Will or
    scribe or attesting witness would testify that Testator had given such instructions
    or understood its contents – It can also be proved from other surrounding
    circumstances – Registration of Will has some value but cannot lead to
    inexorable conclusion that due execution of Will is proved and it is genuine –
    Will contained endorsement that it had been prepared by Testator himself and
    he was conversant with English and Testator's friend examined as Defence
    Witness admitted in examination that Testator had talked to him about execution
    of Will that forms the subject matter of Suit – Attestation of Will by person known
    to Propounder and coming from some other place would not impeach execution
    of Will and such circumstance had been explained by Propounder – Nature of
    disposition disclosed no partial disposition – Will held to be proved.
    2) . AIR 2007 Supreme Court 2219 - Apoline D'Souza Vs. John D'Souza-- Will –
    Execution of – Suspicious circumstances – Testatrix 96 years old lady – Scribe
    M.P.Murugan M.A.,LL.B., J.M.No.II, Thanjavur
    64 Indian Evidence Act
    of will not known – Attesting witness not know to testatrix and stated that Will
    was not drafted before her – She had only proved her signature – As per said
    witness document was handwritten one – Whereas Original Will is typed – No
    evidence to show that contents of Will were read over and explained to testatrix
    - Several cuttings and over-writings in Will – Establishing suspicious
    circumstances – Due execution of Will, cannot be said to be proved.
    3) 2006 (5) CTC 351 - Robert Prabhakar Vs. David Ebenezer - Propounder of
    Will examined himself as PW1 in probate proceedings in respect of Will
    executed by his mother and admitted in evidence that his father came to know
    about Will only after death of his mother – Scribe of Will, brother in law of
    propounder of Will and attesting witness, friend of scribe, deposed and asserted
    that father was present at time of execution of Will and also participated in
    preparation of Will – Evidence of PW1 contradicted evidence of Scribe and
    Attesting witness on material aspect – Complaint filed by father against the
    defendant, produced by propounder of Will, though referred to property did not
    refer to execution of Will – Propounder did not establish due execution and
    attestation of Will.
    4) 2006 (5) CTC 733 – K. Kallan (Died) and others Vs. M. Kallan and another –
    Sections 63 & 65 – Admissibility of document – Xerox copy of registration copy
    of sale deed is inadmissible in evidence when there is no explanation offered
    regarding non-filing of original sale deed or even a registration copy of it and to
    let in secondary evidence.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    M.P.Murugan M.A.,LL.B., J.M.No.II, Thanjavur
    65 Indian Evidence Act
    Secondary evidence
    1).2008 (1) MLJ 708 SC – Loss of Original F.I.R. duly Proved - Secondary
    adduced and accepted.
    2). (2009) 3 MLJ 602 – K. SUBRAMANI /Vs/ P. RAJESH KHANNA Any
    document can be marked subject to recording the objection except an
    objection regarding deficiency of stamp duty.
    3).The word "instrument" but not "document" is used in Sec.35 of the Indian
    Stamp Act. The "instrument" as defined in Sec.2(14) includes document.
    The definition is not Exhaustive. Section 63 of the Indian Evidence Act
    speaks for Secondary Evidence but not anything about Instrument.
    Secondary Instrument is unknown to law. Impounding can be made in
    respect of Instrument, but not copy thereof. Procedure on impounding has
    been mentioned from Sec.35 to 40. So when the Original Instrument is not
    admissible in evidence, copy should not be admitted. Ref. may be made to
    Lal Khan Sultan Ahmad Allah Ditta AIR 1950 Lah, 150. Pr. 15 of its runs : "
    But Anr. hurdle is placed in the latter's path by the fact that the original sale
    deeds were admittedly understamped. In such circumstances, even
    secondary evidence would be barred. "
    8. It is clear from the decisions of this Court and a plain reading of Sections
    33, 35 and 2(14) of the Act that an instrument which is not duly stamped
    can be impounded and when the required fee and penalty has been paid
    M.P.Murugan M.A.,LL.B., J.M.No.II, Thanjavur
    66 Indian Evidence Act
    for such instrument it can be taken in evidence under Section 35 of the
    Stamp Act. Sections 33 or 35 are not concerned with any copy of the
    instrument and party can only be allowed to rely on the document which is
    an instrument within the meaning of Section 2(14). There is no scope for
    the inclusion of the copy of the document for the purposes of the Indian
    Stamp Act. Law is now no doubt well settled that copy of the instrument
    cannot be validated by impounding and this cannot be admitted as
    secondary evidence under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.
    http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/1515290/
    As far as the point of impounding 'COPY' is concerned, this may be
    useful........ ....http://www.orkut.co.in/Main#CommMsgs ?
    cmm=49944354&tid=5570516112722611698
    4) Evidence Act sec 63, 65 - secondary evidence
    Admissibility- document in question admittedly photocopies- no
    possibility of said document being compared with the original as
    same is with another person- conditions in sec 65 (a) not satisfieddocument
    cannot be accepted as secondary evidence ( AIR 2007
    SC 1721) xerox copies in absence of original should not be
    permitted to be marked- --- AIR 2007 NOC 1852 Mad
    5) AIR 2011 SC 1492 ( H. Siddiqui V/S A. Ramalingam) Date of disp.
    4/3/2011 ---
    M.P.Murugan M.A.,LL.B., J.M.No.II, Thanjavur
    67 Indian Evidence Act
    6) If the company does not produce the original share certificates, the
    copies of the share certificates produced by the mechanical process
    of obtaining xerox copies/photo copies would be admissible in
    evidence as secondary evidence being copies of the original
    documents taken out by such mechanical process.
    http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/706241/
    7) 2007 (5) CTC 206 – Amutha Beelarmine Corera Vs. Elsie
    Villavarayer – Sections 63 & 65 – Xerox copy of an Approved Plan
    sought to be marked as Secondary Evidence – Application rejected
    by Trial Court – When accuracy of copy viz. Xerox copy is not
    disputed, Xerox copy of Plan falls under category of Secondary
    Evidence – Secondary Evidence is admissible only when loss of
    original is proved – Examination of Building Inspector of Municipality
    who also produced entire file in which original Plan was missing is
    sufficient satisfaction of provisions of Section 65 of Evidence Act –
    Liberty given to Respondent to raise objections available under law
    with reference to said document. (Paras 8, 11 & 14)
    8) Supreme Court, Bench: P Sathasivam, B Chauhan Civil Appeal
    No. 6956 of 2004 H. Siddiqui (dead) by Lrs. ..Versus A.
    Ramalingam. March 4, 2011---- Provisions of Section 65 of the Act
    1872 provide for permitting the parties to adduce secondary
    evidence. However, such a course is subject to a large number of
    limitations. In a case where original documents are not produced at
    any time, nor, any factual foundation has been led for giving
    M.P.Murugan M.A.,LL.B., J.M.No.II, Thanjavur
    68 Indian Evidence Act
    secondary evidence, it is not permissible for the court to allow a
    party to adduce secondary evidence. Thus, secondary evidence
    relating to the contents of a document is inadmissible, until the non
    production of the original is accounted for, so as to bring it within one
    or other of the cases provided for in the section. The secondary
    evidence must be authenticated by foundational evidence that the
    alleged copy is in fact a true copy of the original. Mere admission of
    a document in evidence does not amount to its proof. Therefore, the
    documentary evidence is required to be proved in accordance with
    law. The court has an obligation to decide the question of
    admissibility of a document in secondary evidence before making
    endorsement thereon. (Vide: The Roman Catholilc Mission & Anr. v.
    The State of Madras & Anr., AIR 1966 SC 1457; State of Rajasthan
    & Ors. v. Khemraj & Ors., AIR 2000 SC 1759; Life Insurance
    Corporation of India & Anr. v. Ram Pal Singh Bisen, (2010) 4 SCC
    491; and M. Chandra v. M. Thangamuthu & Anr., (2010) 9 SCC 712).
    9) In State of Bihar and Ors. v. Sri Radha Krishna Singh & amp; Ors.,
    AIR 1983 SC 684, this Court considered the issue in respect of
    admissibility of documents or contents thereof and held as under:
    "Admissibility of a document is one thing and its probative value
    quite another - these two aspects cannot be combined. A document
    may be admissible and yet may not carry any conviction and the
    weight of its probative value may be nil."
    M.P.Murugan M.A.,LL.B., J.M.No.II, Thanjavur
    69 Indian Evidence Act
    10) In Madan Mohan Singh & Ors. v. Rajni Kant & Anr., AIR 2010
    SC 2933, this Court examined a case as a court of fifth instance.
    The statutory authorities and the High Court has determined the
    issues taking into consideration a large number of documents
    including electoral rolls and school leaving certificates and held that
    such documents were admissible in evidence. This Court examined
    the documents and contents thereof and reached the conclusion that
    if the contents of the said documents are examined making mere
    arithmetical exercise it would lead not only to improbabilities and
    impossibilities but also to absurdity. This Court examined the
    probative value of the contents of the said documents and came to
    the conclusion that Smt. Shakuntala, second wife of the father of the
    contesting parties therein had given birth to the first child two years
    prior to her own birth. The second child was born when she was 6
    years of age; the third child was born at the age of 8 years; the
    fourth child was born at the age of 10 years; and she gave birth to
    the fifth child when she was 12 years of age. Therefore, it is the duty
    of the court to examine whether documents produced in the Court or
    contents thereof have any probative value.
    11) Sec.67 of the Evidence Act,: Yashoda, J. v. K.Shobha Rani reported
    in 2007(3) CTC 781 & Naval Kishore, J. v. D.Swarna Bhadran
    reported in 2008(1) CTC 97 ---- unless the non-production of original
    is satisfactorily explained, secondary evidence cannot be looked
    into.
    M.P.Murugan M.A.,LL.B., J.M.No.II, Thanjavur
    70 Indian Evidence Act
    12) J.Yasoda v. K. Shoba Ravi (2007(3)CTC 781) relied on by the
    learned counsel for the respondent, the issue was relating to
    accepatance of secondary evidence being photocopies of the
    original documents. The matter arose from a judgment of the Andhra
    Pradesh High Court and the High Court found that the photocopies
    cannot be received as secondary evidence in terms of Section 63 of
    the Indian Evidence Act, since the documents in question were
    photocopies and as there were no possibility of the document, being
    compared with the original. It was in the said factual context that the
    Apex Court observed that secondary evidence is an evidence, which
    may be given in the absence of that better evidence which law
    requires to be given first, when a proper explanation of its absence is
    given.
    13)In J. Naval Kishore V. I. Swarnabhadran (2008(1) CTC 97) a Division
    Bench of this Court considered the proof of execution of a Will as
    well as the issue relating to the marking of a xerox copy of the
    alleged family arrangement. It was in the said factual context that the
    Division Bench observed that as per Section 67 of the Indian
    Evidence Act, unless the non-production of the original is
    satisfactorily explained, secondary evidence cannot be looked into.
    Since the document sought to be marked in the said case was a
    xerox copy, the Bench observed that the possibility of manipulation
    in xerox copy cannot be ruled out.
    M.P.Murugan M.A.,LL.B., J.M.No.II, Thanjavur
    71 Indian Evidence Act
    14)HIGH COURT AT MADRAS - DATED: 10.07.2008 – JUSTICE
    K.K.SASIDHARAN., C.R.P.(PD)No.3645 of 2007 and M.P.No.1 of
    2007 – P.K.Pandian Vs. Komala --- Certified copy of a document
    could be marked as secondary evidence. The respondent would be
    at liberty to adduce evidence or to prove that there were material
    alterations in the registered document and it is open to her to file
    appropriate application before the trial Court, in case the document
    has to be subjected to expert opinion. It is needless to mention that
    the evidentiary value of the document and the contention advanced
    on the side of the respondent pertaining to alteration of the extent of
    property is a matter to be looked into by the trial Court on the basis
    of evidence and on merits and as per law.
    15) 2006 (5) CTC 36 --- P. Devaraj Vs. V. Geetha --- Section 65 –
    Defendant in Suit sought to file photo copy of lease deed for
    collateral purposes and pleaded that document was mixed up with
    other document and could not be filed earlier along with written
    statement – Affidavit did not contain any averment regarding any
    bone fide search for document – Mixing up of documents cannot be
    construed to mean “lost” occurring in Section 65 – Section 65 further
    contemplates that secondary evidence is not permissible for any
    reason arising from default or neglect of person seeking to produce
    such secondary evidence – Order of Trial Court declining receipt of
    such lease deed upheld.
    M.P.Murugan M.A.,LL.B., J.M.No.II, Thanjavur
    72 Indian Evidence Act
    16) AIR 2006 RAJASTHAN 187 --- Shankar Lal & Ors Vs. The
    Civil Judge (Jr.Divn.), Shahpura & Ors. – Evidence Act (1 of 1872),
    Sec.65 – Stamp Act (2 of 1899), Sec.2 (14) – Registration Act (16 of
    1908), Sec.49 – Secondary evidence – Admissibility – Suit for
    declaration – Plaintiff’s allegation that defendants attempted to
    encroach their plot – Original document filed by plaintiff to prove title
    was insufficiently stamped and unregistered document – And was,
    therefore, inadmissible in evidence – No secondary evidence can be
    allowed to be led to prove title.
    17) 2006 (3) CTC 482 --- The Inspector of Police, CBCID, Dindigul @
    Madurai, in Karimedu PS Cr.No. 261/96 Vs. Mohan, S/o Manickam,
    Madurai. – Sec 65 – Secondary Evidence – Acceptability of –
    Original Dying Declaration and FIR sent to Tahsildar for conducting
    enquiry and same was found to be missing from his custody – Xerox
    copies available in case diary can be received and it is admissible –
    Final report directed to be received by Magistrate along with Xerox
    copies of FIR and Dying Declaration.
    18) 2007 (3) CTC 781 --- J. Yashoda Vs. K. Shobha Rani ------Sections
    63 & 65 – Secondary Evidence – Admissibility of Photo Copies of
    Documents - Secondary evidence as a general rule is admissible
    only in absence of primary evidence – If original itself is found to be
    inadmissible, party to Suit is not entitled to introduce secondary
    evidence of its contents – In order to enable a party to produce
    secondary evidence it is necessary for party to prove existence and
    M.P.Murugan M.A.,LL.B., J.M.No.II, Thanjavur
    73 Indian Evidence Act
    execution of original document – Secondary evidence of contents of
    a document cannot be admitted without non-production of original
    being first accounted for in such a manner as to bring it within one or
    other of cases provided for in Section 65 of the Evidence Act – Only
    when conditions prescribed in Section 65 are satisfied, documents
    can be admitted as secondary evidence – Original was found to be
    in existence – Secondary evidence not admissible.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Marking of Photograph.
    2006 (2) CTC 43 (Mad.) Rama Srinivasa Rao Vs. Dr. N. Ragavan
    It is not proper to mark photographs in cross-examination even though the
    witness admits it. The photograph has to be marked only through the person
    who took photographs or through person at whose instance it was taken.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    (2007) 1 MLJ 87 --- Damodaran Vs. Poogavanam Ammal
    Secs.65,66 – Revision petitioner’s application for grant of leave to receive and
    mark Xerox copy of certificate, dismissed – On ground, revision petitioner not
    complied with statutory requirements under Section 65 of the Act – No notice
    given either, as per Section 66 – Revision petitioner has not established that he
    has complied with statutory requirements under the Act – Not established that
    notice under Section 66 was sent to respondents – No illegality or infirmity in
    impugned order – No grave injustice caused to petitioner to warrant
    interference.
    M.P.Murugan M.A.,LL.B., J.M.No.II, Thanjavur
    74 Indian Evidence Act
    Comparison of signature.
    1). 2006 (4) MLJ 1744 – P. Gopalasamy Vs. Dishnet Wirless Ltd., formerly
    known as Dishnet D.S.L. Ltd., Chennai and another – Section 73 –
    Comparison of signature – Application seeking comparison of the signature of
    the second defendant in the vakalat with that of his admitted signature –
    Allegation of fraud against the second defendant and appearance of second
    defendant in Court sought for – Application dismissed on the ground that the
    issue raised had no connection with the issue involved in the suit – Revision
    against that order – Presence of the second defendant for the purpose of getting
    his signature is not required – Admitted signature of the second defendant could
    be produced for the purpose of comparison – Allegation of fraud can be
    considered at the time of trial of the suit – Revision allowed.
    2) (2008) 6 MLJ 220-- Ganapathy Thevar Vs. Shankuga Thevar.
    Indian Evidence Act (1 of 1872), Sections 73, 101 and 102 – Burden of proof –
    Sections 73, 101 and 102 – Burden of proof – Section – Comparison of
    signature or writing – Court comparing disputed handwriting with admitted
    handwriting – Though Court has power to compare handwritings, it must be
    done with caution – No reasons given for arriving at subjective satisfaction in
    favour of defendant – The plaintiff discharged the initial burden of proof – The
    burden then shifted to the defendant who failed to discharge same.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    M.P.Murugan M.A.,LL.B., J.M.No.II, Thanjavur
    75 Indian Evidence Act
    Burden of Proof
    1). 2006 (4) CTC 766 -- Tulsi and others Vs. Chandrika Prasad and others ---
    Section 91 – Forbids proving of contents contained of writing otherwise than by
    writing itself and it merely lays down “best evidence rule” – Where document in
    issue is capable of being construed differently parties can let in evidence to
    show how they understood same. I) Sections 101 to 103 – Non-examination of
    party to transaction – Mortgagor pleaded that amount due under mortgage was
    tendered to mortgagee in presence of her husband – Mortgagee should have
    examined herself to deny such tender of mortgaged amount.
    2). 2005 SCC (Cri) 1213 (Arijit Pasayat and S.H.Kapadia,JJ) Harbans Kaur
    and another Vs. State of Haryana. 1.3.2005. Evidence Act, S.101 and 103 –
    Criminal trial – witnesses – related witness – plea of partiality – reason for
    falsely implicating the accused must be shown by the person raising the plea.
    3). 2007 (1) CTC 367 ---- Lakshmi Priya Vs. K.V. Krishnamurthy
    Sections 101 to 103 – Burden of proof – Matrimonial Disputes – In matrimonial
    disputes normally husband and wife are best person to give evidence but when
    wife made particular reference to mother in law as reason for non
    consummation of marriage mother in law ought to have been examined.
    4) (2008) 4 SCC 54 --- Krishna Janardhan Bhat Vs. Dattatraya G. Hegde
    Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Ss. 315 (1) proviso (b) & 313 – Burden of
    proof on accused – Mode of discharging – Held, an accused need not examine
    M.P.Murugan M.A.,LL.B., J.M.No.II, Thanjavur
    76 Indian Evidence Act
    himself. He may discharge his burden on the basis of the materials already
    brought on record.
    Hence, view taken by the courts below that for proving the defence the accused
    is required to step into the witness box and unless he does so he would not be
    discharging his burden, held, not sustainable – Constitution of India – Act 19(1)
    (a) – Freedom of speech and expression – Right to be silent – Evidence Act,
    1872 – Ss. 101, 103 & 3 D. Criminal Trial – Appreciation of evidence – Standard
    of proof required on the part of an accused and that of the prosecution –
    Distinction between – Held, whereas prosecution must prove the guilt of an
    accused beyond all reasonable doubt, the standard of proof required on the part
    of an accused is “preponderance of probabilities” – Inference of preponderance
    of probabilities can be drawn not only from the materials brought on record by
    the parties but also by reference to the circumstances upon which the accused
    relies – Evidence Act, 1872 – Ss. 101, 103, 105 & 3 – Negotiable Instruments
    Act, 1881, S. 138.
    4). (2007) 2 MLJ 382 -- R.Sivasubramanian Vs. S. Krishnaveni ---- Secs. 101
    to 103 – Hindu Marriage Act (25 of 1955), Section 13 (1) (1-a) – Petition by
    husband for dissolution of marriage – On ground – non-consummation of
    marriage – Later amending it to one of cruelty – Wife denying all allegations –
    Submission, she a dutiful wife – Petitioner demanded Rs.1 lakh from her parents
    and ill-treated her – Petitioner demanded evidence does not establish, he
    suffered cruelty, much less, mental cruelty at wife’s hands – Burden on petitioner
    to prove wife treated him cruely – Petitioner not proved his case by acceptable
    evidence – Trial Court finding petitioner’s evidence highly unreliable and without
    due corroboration – No reason to interfere with trial Court’s order.
    M.P.Murugan M.A.,LL.B., J.M.No.II, Thanjavur
    77 Indian Evidence Act
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    AIR 2004 SC 2070 Bench: R Lahoti, A Lakshmanan --- L.I.C. Of India vs
    Anuradha on 26/3/2004.---- Section 108 :- When the nominees of the missing
    insured can lay a claim to the benefits of the policies and what their obligations
    are. Are they bound to continue to pay premium? If so how long are they bound
    to make payment, and when does the law presume the death of such an
    insured?
    One Mr. Sham Prakash Sharma, the late husband of Mrs. Anuradha
    (Respondent before Supreme Court) had taken a Life Insurance policy (the
    Petitioner before Supreme Court). The policy was commenced with effect from
    February 8, 1986. The premium was payable every six months and was paid for
    two years. The respondent’s husband suddenly disappeared from Bombay on
    July 17, 1988 and thereafter he was not traceable and his whereabouts were not
    known. The respondent logged a First Information Report (FIR) with the Police.
    On July 11, 1988 LIC sent a communication address to Mr. Sham Prakash
    Sharma, delivered at his residence, informing that the Insurance Policy had
    lapsed for non-payment of premium. On June 29, 1996, the respondent
    approached the LIC for release of benefits under the policy proceeding on an
    assumption that Mr. Sham Prakash was dead as he had not been seen and
    heard for seven years. The LIC turned down the claim of the respondent relying
    on Rule 14 of Insurance Manual which reads as under:
    “Where a person is reported missing, it is to be advised to the claimant the life
    insured will be presumed to be dead after seven years of production of decree
    M.P.Murugan M.A.,LL.B., J.M.No.II, Thanjavur
    78 Indian Evidence Act
    from the court of law and in the meantime the policy is to be kept in force by
    making the payment regularly.”
    The respondent, aggrieved by rejection approached the State Consumer
    Disputes Redressal Commission complaining of deficiency of service on the part
    of Petitioner. The Petitioner, namely LIC, refuted the contention of deficiency and
    contended that the policy had lapsed, since it was not kept alive, and the claim
    was not maintainable. The State Commission accepted to the Respondents
    claim and held that the Rule 14 relied on by the Petitioner had no relevance in
    view of statutory presumption arising under Section 108 of the evidence Act. The
    Petitioner namely, LIC, preferred an appeal before the High Court and which
    was also dismissed.
    The Petitioner, LIC, filed an appeal before the Supreme Court against the
    judgment of High Court and during the course of hearing an appeal, it was
    submitted for the council of LIC that in case it had no objection to the release of
    payment due under the policy to the Respondent as ex-gratia payment to honor
    the judgment of High Court and it was only interested to settle the law in this
    area.
    The Supreme Court held that both High Court and the Commission held wrong
    in holding that after the lapse of seven years, when the matter came before the
    court, not only death can be presumed but also time of death could be assumed,
    which would be the time when the fact of missing was first noticed, the Supreme
    Court held under Section 108, only death can be presumed and not the time of
    M.P.Murugan M.A.,LL.B., J.M.No.II, Thanjavur
    79 Indian Evidence Act
    death. This fact has to be proved by the direct or circumstantial evidence, it
    further held that High Court and Commission went wrong in holding “that on
    expiry of seven years by the time issue raised in Consumer Forum or Civil
    Court, an evidence was addressed that the person was not heard of for a period
    of seven years by wife and/or family members of the person then only the death
    can be presumed but it could also be assumed that the presumed death had
    synchronized with the date when he was reported missing, or date and time
    could be correlated to the point of time coinciding with the commencement of
    calculation of seven years from the backward of initiation of legal proceedings.
    The Supreme Court further held that in order to successful maintain the claim for
    the benefit under the insurance policy, it is necessary for the policy to kept alive
    by punctual payment of premium under the claim was made. The Apex court
    also held that the Petitioner namely, LIC, was justified in turning down the claims
    by pleading that the policy had lapsed and the all that could be paid to the
    Claimants was the paid up value of the policy.
    The inferences are:
    1. After the lapse of seven years, ONLY and only death could be presumed
    by the court.
    2. There is no presumption of the time of death under Section 108 of Indian
    Evidence Act, 1872.
    M.P.Murugan M.A.,LL.B., J.M.No.II, Thanjavur
    80 Indian Evidence Act
    3. Time of death has to be proved by independent evidence.
    4. The Claimant in order to successfully maintain the claim in such cases,
    has to continue to pay premium till the claim is made, failure to payment of
    premium shall lead to lapse of policy and disentitle the nominee or the
    Claimant to pay the entire amount payable under the policy.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    2007 (3) TLNJ 425 (Civil) -- J.M. Jeyachandran Samuel Vs. G.S.S. Masilamani
    Section 109 – Burden of Proof – The presumption is if the tenant continue to be
    a tenant it is for him to prove that he continues to be a tenant and in case of
    surrender of possession by the tenant, it is for the Land Lord to prove whether
    the tenant has surrendered his possession or not.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Sample of Blood against will of the accused
    Goutam Kundu vs. State of West Bengal, (1993) 3 SCC 418 where their
    Lordships of the Supreme Court held that no person can be compelled to
    give sample of blood for analysis against his or her will and no adverse
    inference can be drawn for such refusal. At paragraph 26 of the judgment
    their Lordships held as follows:-"From the above discussion it emerges
    (1) that courts in India cannot order blood test as a matter of course;
    (2) wherever applications are made for such prayers in order to have
    M.P.Murugan M.A.,LL.B., J.M.No.II, Thanjavur
    81 Indian Evidence Act
    roving inquiry, the prayer for blood test cannot be entertained.
    (3) There must be a strong prima facie case in that the husband must
    establish non-access in order to dispel the presumption arising under
    Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
    (4) The court must carefully examine as to what would be the consequence
    of ordering the blood test; whether it will have the effect of branding a
    child as a bastard and the mother as an unchaste woman.
    (5) No one can be compelled to give sample of blood for analysis."
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    (2007) 2 MLJ (Crl) 386
    Shanmugam Vs. Samundeeswari and Another
    Indian Evidence Act (1 of 1872), Sections 4, 112 – Presumption as to legitimacy
    of child – Proof of access or non-access – Rebuttable presumption of law –
    Which can only be displaced by a strong preponderance of evidence and not by
    a mere balance of probabilities – whether the result of DNA – RNA test is
    conclusive in nature – It is not enough to escape from the conclusiveness under
    the Section – If a husband and wife were living together during the time of
    conception but the DNA test revealed that the child was not born to the
    husband, the conclusiveness in law would remain irrebutable – Held: The
    question regarding degree of proof of access for rebutting the conclusiveness
    must be answered in the light of what is meant by access or non access.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    M.P.Murugan M.A.,LL.B., J.M.No.II, Thanjavur
    82 Indian Evidence Act
    (2007) 2 MLJ (Crl) 1420 (SC) --- Hatti Singh Vs. State of Haryana
    Section 114 – Presumption under – Recovery of articles belonging to
    deceased – Application of such presumption is limited – How for – Such
    presumption may be in respect of commission of theft or receipt of stolen
    property, if a person is found in possession of the property belonging to the
    deceased – On such presumption alone, the appellant could not have been
    convicted for the charge of murder particularly when on the same evidence
    other persons had been given benefit of doubt.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    (2008) 7 MLJ 336 --- Saraswathi and Others Vs. Chinna Rengay Gounder
    (died) and Others ----- Section 112 – Birth – Conclusive proof of legitimacy –
    Whenever a child is born out of a wedlock, there is a conclusive presumption of
    legitimacy, unless it is rebutted by reliable evidence – There was a legal
    marriage between the first plaintiff and one Dharmaraj – No rebuttal evidence to
    show that the parties to the marriage had no access to each other –
    Presumption under Section 112 has to be necessarily raised – Plaintiffs 2 and 3
    are presumed to be the legitimate children born out of the lawful wedlock of the
    first plaintiff and Dharmaraj – Non- Production of birth certificate would not raise
    any doubt or affect the paternity of plaintiffs 2 and 3.
    (C) Hindu law – Family arrangement – No importance can be attached to an
    unregistered family arrangement – Non-registration militates against the validity
    of the family arrangement.
    (D) Indian Evidence Act (1 of 1872), Section 114 – Marriage – Presumption as to
    – First plaintiff and one Dharmaraj are shown to be married according to custom
    M.P.Murugan M.A.,LL.B., J.M.No.II, Thanjavur
    83 Indian Evidence Act
    – Hence legal and valid marriage documents must be preserved – Nonproduction
    of family card and marriage invitation, does not affect the
    photographs, verified on oath – Second appeal allowed.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    2006 (4) MLJ 1758 -- Pandurangam Vs. Annammal
    Sections 35, 114 – Relevancy of entries made in public records – Proof of
    parentage – Relevancy of birth extract – No amount of evidence can be raised
    in respect of a plea not raised – Birth extract which was not pleaded, was
    obtained during the pendency of the suit – It has no sanction of pleadings to test
    its veracity – Proof of parentage cannot be inferred from the birth extract –
    Adverse inference drawn against the plaintiff for non-examination of his vendor,
    whose status is questioned – Only when the initial burden is proved, question of
    rebuttal would arise – But the plaintiff has not discharged the initial burden – No
    presumption can be drawn in favour of the birth certificate – Suit for partition is
    not maintainable – Perverse findings of the lower Courts, set aside – Second
    appeal allowed.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    2008 .((2) M.L.J 1016.
    General Clauses Act, Sec -27 - Indian Evidence Act, Sec.114(e) - Postal receipt
    and acknowledgement - presume due service of notice.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    sec.114 - ADVERSE INFERENCE – EXCEPTION
    The common principle of law is that if the opposite party can be cross
    examination discredit the plaintiff's witness and shows that there is no case left
    for the opposite party to answer, held, the opposite party need not enter the
    M.P.Murugan M.A.,LL.B., J.M.No.II, Thanjavur
    84 Indian Evidence Act
    witness box, it is not open for the plaintiff in such a case to seek an adverse
    inference against the opposite party for not examining itself. (AIR 1986 Cal 61)
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    2006 (8) SCC 629 --- Jagmodhan Mehatabsing Gujaral Vs. Sate of
    Maharashtra --- Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 114 III. (g) – Non-production of
    relevant record by accused for inspection by court – Effect – Said suppression,
    held, gave rise to considerable substance in allegations of prosecution.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    (2007) 1 MLJ (Crl) 373 (SC) --- Kailash Vs. State of M.P.
    Section 113-B read Section 114 – Presumption, under – Can be drawn, when –
    Dowry death – Evidence by witnesses relating to dowry demand, harassment
    and torture – No discrepancy in said evidence – Deceased subjected to cruelty
    and harassment in connection with dowry demand soon before her death – The
    interval between such cruelty and harassment and death, not much – Death of
    deceased not under normal circumstances – Conviction under section 304-B
    I.P.C., not interfered with – But sentence reduced to 8 years.
    M.P.Murugan M.A.,LL.B., J.M.No.II, Thanjavur
    85 Indian Evidence Act
    SEC.115 – ESTOPEL
    The term estoppel is said to have been derived from the French term 'estoup'
    which means 'shut the mouth'. The doctrine of estoppel is a rule of evidence
    contained in Section 115 of the Indian Evidence Act. When one person by his
    declaration , act or omission intentionally caused or permitted another to believe
    a thing to be true and act upon such belief, neither he nor his representative
    shall be allowed in any suit or proceeding between himself and such person or
    his representative to deny the truth of that thing.
    The law recognises different kinds of estoppel. They are as follows:
    (1) Estoppel by Record
    It results from the judgement of a competent court. If a judgement has become
    final, a party to the dispute has no right to say against the judgement. It is
    contained in Sections 40 to 44 of the Indian Evidence Act.
    (2) Estoppel by Deed
    When a person agrees to another in a matter by a deed acknowledging the
    same, the person cannot say against the contents.
    (3) Estoppel in conduct
    This happens with the act or conduct or misrepresentation of one which has
    induced a chage of position in another.
    M.P.Murugan M.A.,LL.B., J.M.No.II, Thanjavur
    86 Indian Evidence Act
    Partition deed acted upon by brother selling property allotted to his share and
    utilising proceeds to himself - he can not plead that deed was nominal (AIR
    2003 S.C. 4444)
    Indian Evidence Act 1872 – Section 115 – Estoppel – The mere dismissal of
    application of a particular party without any discussion would definitely not be
    advantageous to the opposite party and not amounts to an Estoppel.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    2009 (1) L.W. 132 --- Evi Act. Sec. 145, marking of affidavit in earlier
    proceedings.---- Such an affidavit is only a former statement of the said
    witness,Which can be used for contradicting the said witness u/s 145 of the
    Evidence Act, at the time of examination before the lower court.------- It cannot
    be assumed that the witness would not tell the truth resiling from his earlier
    statement - It is made clear that the former statement made by a witness can be
    either used for corroboration or contradiction under the Evidence Act and such
    statement would not fall within the ambit of substantive evidence, unless it falls
    u/s 33 of the Evidence Act. (S.P.D.Karuppaiya Vs. 1.State through The
    Superintendent of Police, Sivagangai District , 2. The Deputy Superintendent of
    Police, Karaikudi, Sivagangai District. 3. The Inspector of Police, Karaikudi
    Town Police Station, Sivagangai District. )
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    2006 (1) CTC 112 (Mad.) Anand Vs. Perumalsamy
    Deposition of witness in earlier criminal proceedings could be produced in
    subsequent civil proceedings and opportunity could be granted to the party to
    recall and further examine witness.
    M.P.Murugan M.A.,LL.B., J.M.No.II, Thanjavur
    87 Indian Evidence Act
    2009-2 L.W. (Crl.) 804 -- State rep. by SPE/CBI/ECW/Chennai Vs.
    M.Gopalakrishnan & 15 others.
    It has been made clear by the Hon’ble Apex court that a clever witness in his
    examination-in-chief faithfully conforms to what he stated earlier to the police or
    in the committing court, but in the cross-examination introduces statements in
    subtle way contradicting in effect what he stated in the examination in chief if his
    designs obvious we do not see why the court cannot, during the course of his
    cross-examination, (sic-reexamination) permit the person calling him as a
    witness to put questions to him which might be put in cross-examination by the
    adverse party. To confine the operation of S.154 of the Evidence Act to a
    particular stage in the examination of a witness is to read words in the section
    which are not there and that if a party calling a witness is permitted to put such
    questions to the witness after he has been cross-examined by the adverse party,
    the adverse party will not have any opportunity to further cross-examine the
    witness, on the answers elicited by putting such questions. In such an event the
    court certainly, in exercise of its discretion, will permit the adverse party to crossexamine
    the witness on the answers elicited by such questions. The ruling of the
    Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above referred decision is squarely applicable to
    the facts and circumstances of this revision petition. It is clear that at any stage
    of the examination of the witness, the court can apply its discretion judiciously,
    treat the witness hostile and permit the party to cross-examine the witness. It
    has been made clear that it is only the judicial discretion of the court, in order to
    meet the ends of justice. It need not be confined to chief examination of the
    witness alone.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    M.P.Murugan M.A.,LL.B., J.M.No.II, Thanjavur
    88 Indian Evidence Act
    Leading Questions
    1). In Varkey Joseph v. State of Kerela [AIR 1993 SC 1892], the Supreme
    Court held that the prosecutor ought not to be allowed to frame questions
    in such a manner, which the witness may answer in ‘yes’ or ‘no’ so as to
    enable him to elicit such answers, which he expects or desires. It also held
    that allowing such leading questions would offend the right of the accused
    to fair trial enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
    2).Whatever answer the witness shall be compelled to give shall not be used
    against him as evidence, except that if the answer is false the witness may
    be prosecuted for giving false evidence.[ Arumuga Nadar v. State of Tamil
    Nadu ,AIR 1976 SC 2588.]
    3). In Prakash v. State of Maharashtra[1975 Cr.LJ. 1297 SC.], it has been
    held that no scandalous question should be put unless there are
    reasonable grounds to believe them to be true. Section 150 is the penalty
    that may ensue against a reckless cross-examination, if the court is of
    opinion that the questions were asked without reasonable grounds.
    4). In Mohinder Singh v. State[] ILR 1970(2) Del 854.], it was held that a trial
    judge shall not permit questions which are scandalous, vexatious or even
    those cantankerous, which elicit irrelevant or inadmissible answers, or
    even those which do not advance the trial, but are calculated to hinder or
    delay in progress.
    M.P.Murugan M.A.,LL.B., J.M.No.II, Thanjavur
    89 Indian Evidence Act
    5). In Fatima Riswana v. State[AIR 2005 SC712.], where concerning
    commission of offences to acts or pornographic material, evidences as to
    the subject-matter of which could cause embarrassment not only to the
    presiding officer, both male and female, but also to the lady
    witnesses/accused as well as to any decent persons the Supreme Court
    held that presiding officer could make adjustments or arrangements in the
    procedure so as to minimize embarrassment to himself or herself and the
    witness.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Re-examination
    2009 (4) .M.L J. 356.
    Evidence Act The Purpose. of re-examination is only to get the clarifications of
    some doubts created in the cross examination. One can not supplement the
    examination in chief by way of re-examination and for the first time start
    introducing totally new facts which have no concern with cross examination.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    2006 (1) SCC 191 Rajan Rai Vs. State of Bihar
    Three injured witnesses were not ready to depose on behalf of the prosecution,
    out of fear of the accused persons, as such merely because they could not be
    examined by the prosecution. The evidence of other witnesses cannot be
    discarded especially when their statement were recorded by police immediately
    after recording of the fardbeyan As such, no adverse inference can be drawn
    against the prosecution for not examining witness.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    M.P.Murugan M.A.,LL.B., J.M.No.II, Thanjavur
    90 Indian Evidence Act
    Hostile witness
    1).Evidence of Hostile witness remains admissible evidence and it is open to
    court to rely upon dependable part of that evidence, which is found to be
    acceptable and duly corroborated by some other reliable evidence
    available on record – 2011 (1) SCC Crl. 593 = 2011 (2) SCC 36.
    (Himanshu @ Chintu vs. state (NCT of Delhi).
    2).2009 (3) M.L.J. 1085 (SC) NOC Hostile witness - Evidence of hostile
    witnesses - part of their statement can be taken in to consideration -
    portion consistent with case of prosecution or defence may be accepted.
    3).2009 (3). M.L.J. 172 Indian Evidence Act.sec.154 - Hostile witness - At
    any stage of the examination of the witness, the court can apply its
    discretion judiciously, treat the witness hostile and permit the party to
    cross- examine the witness and it is only the Judicial discretion , of the
    court, in order to meet the ends of justice. It need not be confined to chief
    examination of the witness alone.
    4).2009 (3) .M.L.J. 172 Evidence Act - Sec.154 - Hostile witness - petition
    filed before court below seeking permission to treat PW-2 as hostile
    witness since he did not support prosecution case and to cross- examine
    him - Impugned order dismissing same - Revision petition- P.W2 in cross -
    examination changed his version in favour of accussed without any basis
    for reasons best known to him which can not be justified- There is clear
    error apparent an part of court below in overlooking legal position, based
    M.P.Murugan M.A.,LL.B., J.M.No.II, Thanjavur
    91 Indian Evidence Act
    on material facts available on record - Court below failed in exercising its
    discretion judiciously - Impugned order set aside permitting revision
    petitioner to treat P.W.2 as hostile and to Cross Examine him.
    5).2011 (1) MLJ Crl Page.1. (M.chockalingam and M.Sathyanarayanan, JJ).
    3.9.10. State rep.by I.P, Cuddalore District Vs Basheer and Others--
    Testimony of a hostile witness can be relied on y the Court for the purpose
    of proving the guilt of the accused and it cannot be rejected in toto. -- In
    the sentencing process, court is required to consider relevant facts and
    circumstances of each case, nature of gravity and the manner in which the
    offences are committed.
    6).Evidence of hostile witness – reliability of. (Paramjeet Singh vs. State of
    Uttrakhand) 2010 4 MLJ 481(SC).
    7).2008 (1) MLJ. 637 I.P.C.395,395- witnesses to prove confession turned
    hostile - I/D parade conducted belatedly- Not fatal.-- The witnesses
    identifying the accused for the first time before the court without having
    participated in the test I/D parade and identifying the accused is totally
    inadmissible.
    8). 2006 (1) MLJ (Cri) 253 (Mad.) Periyakutty alias Kutty alias
    Kalyanasundaram and another Vs. Inspector of Police, P-6, Kodungaiyur
    P.S. – The Court need not ignore the entire evidence of a witness, who
    turned hostile. The Court can always look into any portion of the evidence
    of the witness turning hostile to find out whether it can be relied on and
    M.P.Murugan M.A.,LL.B., J.M.No.II, Thanjavur
    92 Indian Evidence Act
    whether it contains any material, either in favour of the state or in favour
    of the accused.
    9). (2007) 4 MLJ 984 A. Bommusamy Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu –
    Hostile witness, evidence of – Admissibility - Disciplinary enquiry –
    Evidence of hostile witness inadmissible – Tribunal wholly relied on
    evidence of hostile witness while confirming dismissal order – Reliance on
    such evidence contrary to law – Tribunal's finding to that extent, illegal and
    perverse.
    10). Court may , in its discretion, permit the person who calls a witness to
    put any question to him which might be put in cross-examination by the
    adverse part. – 161 statement to be looked into whether the witness was
    actually resiling from the position taken during investigation. - 2011 (1)
    L.W. (Crl) 615. (R.Srinath vs. State., Cr.O.P.No.25787/2010., T.Mathivanan
    ,J. Date of Judgment: 11.3.2011).
    11). Hostile witness - duty of prosecution – non-examination of
    investigating officer – Effect of. (2011 (1) L.W. (crl) 544) R.Mala,J.
    7.3.2011. (Kumaresan vs. State & Anbunathan vs. State)
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    AIR 2007 S.C. 2594-- Asharam & Anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
    Criminal P.C. (2 of 1974), S. 156 – F.I.R. - Not substantive piece of evidence –
    cannot contradict evidence of eye-witness.
    M.P.Murugan M.A.,LL.B., J.M.No.II, Thanjavur
    93 Indian Evidence Act
    (2007) 5 MLJ 1232 - M.Subramani Vs. P. Shanmugam and Others
    Recitals in documents – Recitals as to boundaries in documents not inter
    parties not admissible in evidence unless executants examined as held in
    Amiappa Nainar Vs. Annamalai Chettiar (1972) 1 MLJ 317 – Minor discrepancy
    in document cannot be considered for throwing out plaintiff's claim, relying on
    improved documents on other side – Defendants themselves not proved
    documents they relied on – Said documents inadmissible in evidence –
    Appellate Court not considered issue in proper perspective.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Sec.165
    The power of judge to put questions has been conferred by Section 165 of
    the Indian Evidence Act. It reads thus:
    The judge may, in order to discover or to obtain proper proof of relevant facts,
    ask any question he pleases, in any form, at any time, of any witness, or of the
    parties, about any fact relevant or irrelevant; and may order the production of
    any document or thing; and neither the parties nor their agents shall be entitled
    to make any objection to any such question or order, nor without the leave of the
    Court, to cross-examine any witness upon any answer given in reply to any such
    question.Thus the power of a judge is very wide in putting questions. The
    conditions to be followed while putting questions is laid down in various judicial
    pronouncements. Some conditions as laid down in judgements and in the Act
    are as follows:
    Judge cannot compel any witness who has entitlement to refuse to answer by
    virtue of the privileges envisaged in Ss. 121 to 131.
    • His questions must be within the bounds fixed in S. 148 or S. 149 of the
    M.P.Murugan M.A.,LL.B., J.M.No.II, Thanjavur
    94 Indian Evidence Act
    Evidence Act.
    • Questions which help the court to discover or to obtain proper proof of
    relevant facts can be asked.
    • Questions must be so asked as there is no partisanship and without
    frightening or bullying witnesses.
    • The judge shall not dispense with primary evidence of any document
    except in cases specifically exempted in the Act.
    2006 (4) MLJ 1641 --- Durairaj, Proprietor, SPM Poultry Farm and another Vs.
    S.K.M. Animal Feeds and Foods India Ltd., Erode, rep. by its Managing Director,
    S.K.S. Maeilanandhan
    Indian Evidence Act (1 of 1872), Section 165 – Civil Procedure Code (5 of
    1908), Section 24 – Judge – Power to put questions – Petitions seeking transfer
    of two suits – Allegation, that the Judge had put questions to the witness – Any
    clarification sought for by the Judge only helps the Court to clear the disputed
    questions in the case – Judge has the power to put questions to the witness –
    Judge cannot be doubted for putting questions to the witness – Any reasonable
    clarification sought for by the Court is well within the purview of Section 165.
    M.P.Murugan M.A.,LL.B., J.M.No.II, Thanjavur
    95 Indian Evidence Act
    Interested Witness
    1). Interested witness – “interested witness” and “related witness” – distinction
    between – held – related is not equilent to 'interested” - witness may be
    called “interested” only when he or she has deerived some benefit from
    the result of a litigation in the decree in a civil case, or in seeing an
    accused person punished – witness who is a natural one and is the only
    possible eye-witness in the circumstances of a case cannot be said to be
    “interested”. (State of U.P vs Kishanpal). 2010 4 SCC (crl) 182.
    2).2010 (1) SCC Crl. 1356. State of Maharastra vs. Ahmed Shaikh Babajan
    and others. 24.10.2008. (C.K.Thakker and D.K.Jain, JJ). Criminal trial –
    witnesses – interested or partisan witness – meaning of the term
    interested – A close relative, though not characterised as an interested
    witness, held, may be so if he has oblique and animus to somehow convict
    the accused.
    3).Appreciation of evidence – eye-witnesses – related witnesses – interested
    witnesses – eveidence of – to be analysed and assessed with great care
    and caution – PW-1 is brother of deceased – PW-4 is wife of D-1 – PW-5
    is brother of PW-4 – all eyewitnesses, being closely related deceased
    party, are interested witnesses. (DB) K.N.Bahsha & Aruna Jagadeesan,JJ.
    2011 (1) MWN (cr) 301. (Saravanan and 2 others vs. State)
    M.P.Murugan M.A.,LL.B., J.M.No.II, Thanjavur
    96 Indian Evidence Act
    4).2009 L M.L.J. 48 (SC) - Evidence of interested witnesses - credibility -
    Relationship not a factor to affect credibility - It is for the court to find out
    whether it is cogent and credible - distinction between normal
    discrepancies and material discrepancies- The former does not carrode
    the credibility of a witness - while the latter does so.
    5).2009. Cr.LJ, 2805 (SC) Evidence Act- Sec-3 - interested witness -
    Evidence of - murder case - Eye witnesses family members of deceased -
    Their evidence can not per re be discarded on that ground - Relationship
    is not a factor to affect credibility of witness.
    6). (2007)1 SCC 699 -- Salim Sahab Vs. State of M.P. – Interested Witness –
    Relationship of witness with deceased – Not a ground to reject testimony
    of the witness – When the plea of false implication by the witness has
    some basis court must adopt a careful approach and see that the
    testimony is cogent and credible.
    7). (2008) 3 SCC 100 --- K.T.Palanisamy Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Criminal
    Trial – Appreciation of evidence – Credibility of witness – Interested/
    Partisan witnesses – On facts, all prosecution witnesses related to
    deceased. That all witnesses saw deceased accompanying the accused
    one after the other at different places, held, is difficult to believe –
    Therefore, on facts, held, chances of their deposing falsely cannot be
    ruled out - Hence, in a situation of this nature it is difficult to hold that a
    judgment of conviction can be founded on the sole circumstances of the
    deceased having been last seen with the appellant-accused by the
    M.P.Murugan M.A.,LL.B., J.M.No.II, Thanjavur
    97 Indian Evidence Act
    prosecution witnesses who were all interested and partisan witnesses –
    Witnesses – Interested on partisan witness –Circumstantial evidence –
    Last seen together.
    8).2009 (13) SCALE 177 Pandurang Chandrakant Mhatre & ORS. Vs State
    of Maharashtra – Interested witnesses – Evidence of interested witnesses
    may be relied upon if such evidence is otherwise trustworthy – Evidence of
    such witnesses has to be examined with great care and caution to obviate
    possibility of false implication or over-implication.
    9). Interested testimony in grave crime – occurrence place surrounded by
    houses and there were also one tea shop and number of persons were
    present at that time – non-examination of independent witness – fatal to
    prosecution. ---------- No valid reason assigned by prosecution for non
    production of witness – adverse inferece cane be drawn in vieww of with
    holding material witness. – (Saravanan vs. State) 2011 2 MLJ 612.
    (K.N.Bhasha & Ms.Aruna Jagadeesan,JJ)
    10). Eye-witness account – Motive established – eye-witness, though
    related to deceased, natural witnesses as their presence at place of
    occurrence usual and expected – also eye-witness account corroborated
    by medical evidence – evidence of said eye-witness, natural witness
    cannot be discarded. (chunni Lal v. State of U.P) 2010 4 MLJ 680 S.C.
    M.P.Murugan M.A.,LL.B., J.M.No.II, Thanjavur
    98 Indian Evidence Act
    11). Statements of interest witness to be admissible in evidence, is to be
    corroborative by other witness, expert evidence and circumstantial of a
    case whereby the chain of evidence leading to the guilt of an accused is
    completed. ii) the existence of a strong motive behind the commission of a
    crime is not necessary in a case of direct and clear evidence. ( 2011 91)
    MLJ (crl) 132 (SC) .( Dharnidhar and others vs. State of U.P)
    12). Eye-witness account – Motive established – eye-witness, though
    related to deceased, natural witnesses as their presence at place of
    occurrence usual and expected – also eye-witness account corroborated
    by medical evidence – evidence of said eye-witness, natural witness
    cannot be discarded. (chunni Lal v. State of U.P) 2010 4 MLJ 680 S.C.
    ------ ------ ------- ------
    M.P.Murugan M.A.,LL.B., J.M.No.II, Thanjavur
    99 Indian Evidence Act
    Sole Eye-Witness
    1).2010(1) L.W. 1224--- PW1 sole eye witness - the court can rely upon the
    sole related eye witness only when the testimony of such related witness
    inspires confidence.
    2).Solitary eye-witness – appreciation of testimony of – Held, where
    prosecution story rests on single eye-witness, such witness must inspire
    full confidence, which was not the case herein, where conduct of sole eyewitness
    was unnatural – conviction reversed. 2011 92) SCC (cri) 462 =
    2010 12 SCC 1182. ( Birappa and another vs. State of Karnataka).
    3).AIR 2007 Supreme Court 2257-- State of Rajasthan V. Om Prakash –
    Penal Code (45 of 1860), S.300 – Murder – Evidence of solitary witness –
    can be basis for conviction – Even if he is related to deceased –
    Corroboration is not a must. (1999 Cri LJ 1987 (Raj) – Reversed)
    4).No rule of law that states that there cannot be any conviction on testimony
    of a sole eye-witness – in a fit case court may believe a reliable sole eyewitness
    if in his testimony mades specific reference to identity and his
    specific overt acts in the incident. (Ranjit singh vs. State of M.P) 2011 (2)
    SCC crl 227 = 2011 4 SCC 336.
    M.P.Murugan M.A.,LL.B., J.M.No.II, Thanjavur
    100 Indian Evidence Act
    5).Evidence of a sole witness can be relied upon to base a conviction if that
    evidence is reliable and acceptable – Tika ram vs. State of M.P. - 2010 (4)
    SCC (crl) 667.
    6).Evidence of solitary witness – can be basis for conviction. (jodhraj Singh v.
    State of Rajasthan) 2010 94) SCC cri. 633.
    7).Sec.134 – court not concerned with number of witnesses examined – it is
    concerned with merit of statement made bya witness – non-examination of
    of other eye-witnesses and some persons who had gathered at scene
    after occurrence, held, not fatal to prosecution case, if testimony of sole
    eye-witness examined found to be cogent, consistent and reliable. (2011
    91) SCC Crl 381 = 2010 (12) SCC 324. (State of U.P Vs. Krishna Master
    and others)
    M.P.Murugan M.A.,LL.B., J.M.No.II, Thanjavur
    101 Indian Evidence Act
    DNA TEST
    1). 2006 (1) MLJ (Cri) 741 - Ravichandran Vs. Sub Inspection of Police, A.W.
    P.S. Perambalur. --- Accused disowned the pregnancy of the complainant
    resulting in Criminal compliant of cheating. Order of the trial court permitting the
    police with a direction to perform DNA typing test through a medical practitioner
    on the accused, complainant and her child to find out paternity as a part of
    evidence is sustainable.
    2). 2006 (2) M.L.J (CRL.) 110 --- S. Andi Thevar Vs. State, rep. by the Inspector
    of Police, SPE/CBI Special Crime Branch, Chennai. – Constitution of India,
    1950 – Art.21 – Order of Magistrate directing petitioner to undergo a DNA test –
    No testimonial compulsion – No violation of Constitutional rights – Orders
    allowed under the Code – Son of petitioner – Missing – Dead body found near
    the house of petitioner – DNA test to fix identity of dead person – No quashing of
    order.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    M.P.Murugan M.A.,LL.B., J.M.No.II, Thanjavur
    102 Indian Evidence Act
    Adoption
    (2008) 3 MLJ 695 -- Shobana Vs. Sundararaj and Others - Adoption – Factum
    of – Contention that plaintiff was adopted by Chellammal – Both were not
    relatives – Chellammal remained as a Christian till her last breath – Concept of
    adoption is alien to Christian law – Factum of adoption, not proved – Second
    appeal dismissed. By no stretch of imagination, the letters could be relied upon
    to prove the fact of adoption. The plaintiff examined P.W.4 on her side, to say
    about the fact that she was with Chellammal during her life time. But, in his
    cross-examination, he crucifies the contention of the plaintiff by stating that
    Chellammal remained as a Christian till her last breath and that her funeral
    ceremonies were conducted by salvation army priest of Ganagarammam Village
    and that the plaintiff was also a Christian. The concept of adoption is alien to
    Christian Law.
    Even though the third defendant claims that she was adopted by Chellammal
    and in case if she does not prove the said allegation that will not clothe the
    plaintiff with any rights to get reliefs as prayed for.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    M.P.Murugan M.A.,LL.B., J.M.No.II, Thanjavur
    103 Indian Evidence Act
    Appreciation of evidence
    1).Each case must be judged on its own facts – For appreciation of evidence,
    there cannot be any hard-and -fast rule – one statement by one of the
    witness may not be taken out of contex to abjure guilt on part of all
    accused persons. (Bhanwar Sungh vs. State of M.P) 2010 4 SCC (cr) 378.
    2).Non-filing of charge sheet against co-accused – name of co-accused
    found in FIR & Dying declaration – but neither charge sheet filed nor any
    explanation offered for the same – prosecution case doubtful. (Rangaiah
    Vs. State of Karnataka, 2010 (4) SCC (crl) 91.
    3).Absconding by itself not conclusive proof of either guilt or guilty
    conscience (Paramjeet Singh v. State of Uttarakhand) 2010 4 MLJ 481
    (SC).
    4). In RAMESHWAR vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AIR 1952 SC 54, it was
    held that an omission to administer an oath, even to an adult, goes only to
    the credibility of the witness and not to his competency.
    5).Duty of court – Separating truth from falsehood – witnesses trying to mix
    truth with falsehood and falsely implicate some innocent person – court
    has a duty to separate the falsehood and if after scrutinising the remaining
    evidence carefully the same is found to be trustworthy and the substratum
    of the prosecution case remains intact, the prosecution case can be
    believed to that extent. (Janardan Singh vs. State of Bihar) 2010 (3) SCC
    (Crl) 253.
    M.P.Murugan M.A.,LL.B., J.M.No.II, Thanjavur
    104 Indian Evidence Act
    6).2009 (3) CTC 59 - M.B. SUBRAMANIAM /VS/ A. RAMASAMY GOUNDER
    AND OTHERS:- section 3 evidence act – evidence without pleadings
    should be eschewed – evidence adduced by legal heirs of vendor that
    vendor did not receive consideration under sale deed without necessary
    pleadings has to be eschewed. ii) Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section
    3 – Appreciation of evidence – Evidence adduced by witnesses should be
    assessed cumulatively and stray admissions or sentences in such
    evidence should not be taken in isolation.
    7).2008.(2) MLJ. 862. M.Jeyapaul,J. 15.4.2008. Kamala Ganapathy
    Subbramanian vs. State. Komaralingam P.S. --- Complaint by co-owner -
    joint family properties worth Crores of Rupees -Allegations as plundered
    by petitioner - criminal action will lie - civil court can decide nature and
    entitlement of properties - Alleged theft - Remedy only by criminal
    proceedings - Material allegation in complaint as to breach of trust,
    mischief, theft- petition to quash dismissed.
    8).Law does not permit the court to punish accused on of moral conviction or
    suspicion alone – where offence alleged to have been committed is
    serious one, prosecution must provide greater assurance that its case has
    been proved beyond reasonable doubt - More serious the offence, stricter
    the degree of proof required, since a higher degree of assurance is
    required for conviction. (2011 91) SCC (crl) 98= 2010 (10) SCC 439.
    Paramjeet Singh @ Pamma vs. State of Uttarakhand.
    9). Evidence has to be weighed and not counted:- The time-honored
    M.P.Murugan M.A.,LL.B., J.M.No.II, Thanjavur
    105 Indian Evidence Act
    principle is that evidence has to be weighed and not counted. On this
    principle stands the edifice of Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act,
    1872. Thus, there is no legal impediment in convicting a person on the
    sole testimony of a single witness. It is not the number, the quantity, but
    the quality that is material. The Supreme Court held, test is whether the
    evidence has a ring of truth, is cogent, credible and trustworthy, or
    otherwise. [Kunju @ Balachandran v. State of Tamil Nadu, decided on
    January 16, 2008]
    10). Non-examination of writer of complaint – serious doubt about the
    genuineness of the Ex.P.1, the report,(complaint) said to have been given
    by PW.1 – inconsistent version throws serious doubt not only in respect of
    the person who wrote the Ex.P.1, but also who are all the persons
    accompanied P.W.1 at the time of recording the report, Ex.P-1 – nonexamination
    of the person who is said to have written the report Ex.P-1 is
    also fatal to prosecution case- 2007 – 1- L.W. (crl) 18. 20.7.2006.
    K.N.Basha, J. Mirthagai Ali v. state, rep.by The Inspectot of police, D-2,
    P.S., Madras.
    11). 2009.(1 ).MLJ. 460 (SC)-- Prosecution has not offered any
    explanation for non-examination of investigating officer and doctor and
    unreliability of evidence adduced by witness, sufficient to discard the
    prosecution version.
    M.P.Murugan M.A.,LL.B., J.M.No.II, Thanjavur
    106 Indian Evidence Act
    12). Court should read the evidence as a whole – So read, if it appears to
    have a ring of truth, then discrepancies, inconsistencies, infirmities or
    deficiencies of minor nature not touching core of the case cannot be
    ground for rejecting the evidence – court should sift the evidence to
    separate falsehood from truth – it should not adopt hyper-technical
    approach. (2011 (1) SCC (crl) 381 = 2010 (12) SCC 324) State of U.P vs.
    Krishna Master and others.
    13). Direct Evidence – corroboration when necessary – Evidence of a
    witness when is neither wholly unacceptable nor wholly impecable,
    corroboration is essential. ( I) Phool chand vs. State of Rajasthan, 1977
    SC 317, 1977 Cr.L.J 207:, ii) thangavel v. State of T.N. , 1981 Cr.L.J (NOC)
    210(mad).
    M.P.Murugan M.A.,LL.B., J.M.No.II, Thanjavur
    107 Indian Evidence Act
    Corroboration:
    1). Criminal Trial – Proof – corroboration – when necessary – admitted
    animosity between parties and presence of large number of accused –
    possibility false implication. (2011 (1) SCC (crl) 756 = 2010 (12) SCC 298).
    (Deo narain vs. State of U.P).
    2). Corroboration – part corroboration of victim's evidence whose modesty
    was outraged – when relevant. (2011 (1) SCC Crl. 401 = 2011 (1) SCC
    793) Kailash and others vs. State of M.H.
    3). FIR – evidentiary value of FIR – FR is not substantive evidence but it can
    be used for corroboration – Sunder singh vs. State of Uttaranchal. (2011
    (1) SCC (crl) 114 = 2010 (10) SCC 611.
    4). Is a rule of prudence. Evidentiary value of a deposition which is otherwise
    admissible is not just wiped out in absence of corroboration. Even in
    absence of corroboration, a deposition for its quality may be safely
    accepted to be correct. It will be unfortunate if on account of over
    emphasis for corroboration, a crime goes unpunished by not giving due
    weight on uncorroborated evidence when such evidence is otherwise
    reliable.(1996 Cr.L.J. 2446 SC=1996(1) ACJ 569 Pattu Lal vs. State of
    Punjab).
    5). It is a general handicap attached to all eye witnesses, if they fail to speak
    with precision their evidence would be assailed a vague and evasive; on
    M.P.Murugan M.A.,LL.B., J.M.No.II, Thanjavur
    108 Indian Evidence Act
    the contrary if they speak to all events very well and correctly, their
    evidence becomes vulnerable to be attacked as tutored. Both the
    approaches are dogmatic and fraught with each of pragmatism. The
    testimony of a witness should be viewed from broad angles. It should not
    be weighed in golden scales, but with cogent standards. In a particular
    case an eye witness may be able to narrate the incident with all details
    without mistake, if the occurrence has made an imprint on the canvas of
    his mind in sequences in which occurred. He may be a person whose
    capacity for absorption and retention of events is stronger than another
    person.(1997(4) RCR 331 SC Bhag Singh vs. State of Punjab).
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    M.P.Murugan M.A.,LL.B., J.M.No.II, Thanjavur
    109 Indian Evidence Act
    Unnatural conduct of witnesses.
    1).PW-1 and PW-2 close friends of deceased – present at the time of
    occurrence – deposed that they have left injured in lurch and disappeared
    from scene – they did not inform about occurrence to anybody till they
    were asked by the police – their conduct is unnatural and unbelievable –
    their presence at the time of occurrence is doubtful – their testimony
    cannot be accepted ( State of T.N. vs. Subair) Dr.Arijit Pasayat , J. 2009
    (2) MLJ (Crl) 1055 (SC).
    2).Witnesses – eye-witness – unnatural conduct of – effect of – (DB)
    (K.N.Bashs,J) 2011 (1) MWN (crl) 388. (State vs. David Raj)
    M.P.Murugan M.A.,LL.B., J.M.No.II, Thanjavur
    110 Indian Evidence Act
    Investigation
    1).2009 3 MLJ Crl. 1126 SC. Dr.Arijit Pasayat and Ashok Kumar
    Ganguly,JJ.) 3.3.2009. State of M.P. vs. Dhara Singh and another. --- The
    veracity of contents in FIR cannot in all cases be tested with reference to
    police station daily diary. --- Defect in investigation or procedural
    irregularity does not by itself vitiate and nullify the trial.
    2).Defective or illegal investigation – effect of – unsafe to rely on such
    evidences (Babu vs. State of Kerala) 2010 (3) SCC (crl) 1179.
    3).Evidence of I.O – scope of – (Rameshbhai Mohanbhai vs. State of
    Gujarat) – Justice: P.Sathasivam ) 2010 4 MLJ 495 SC.
    4). Investigation – fairness in – necessity – fairness in investigation and trial is
    a human right of an accused – Prosecution must also be fair to accused –
    state cannot suppress any vital document from court only because the
    same would support the case of the accused – on that ground acquittal
    upheld. ( Samadhan dhudaka Koli vs. State of M.H) 2010 4 SCC (crl) 62.
    5). lapses in investigation – Effect, Held, cannot affect credibility of witnesses
    – further held – plea that name of accused was not mentioned in inquest
    report hence adding to vulnerability of prosecution version, clearly
    unsustainable. ( Aqeel Ahamad vs. State of U.P) 2010 (4) SCC (crl) 11.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    M.P.Murugan M.A.,LL.B., J.M.No.II, Thanjavur
    111 Indian Evidence Act
    Circumstantial Evidence
    1). Doctrine of Circumstantial evidence is brought into aid where there are no
    eye-witnesses to the occurrence and it is for the prosecution to establish
    complete chain of circumstances leading to definite conclusion poointing
    towards guilt of accused – Accused not entitled to acquittaal merely because
    there was no eye-witness to occurrence. (Sanatan Naskar vs. State of W.B)
    2010 (3) SCC (crl) 814.
    2). Conviction and sentence – circumstantial evidence – prosecution brought
    home guilt of accused – In order to substantiare that the accused has committed
    sexuaal assault which resulted in her hanging, when he prosecution has no
    direct evidence, the circumstances must constitute a chain without a snap and
    that too, be pointing to the hypothesis that except the accused, no one could
    have committed the offence- conviction upheld. (Mohan Rao Naidu vs. State)
    2011 2 MLJ 150.
    3). 2009.(4). MLJ. 600-- when the prosecution case hinges upon
    circumstantial evidence, the circumstantial evidence must be of such a nature
    as to form a complete chain without any missing link. The prosecution should
    establish the guilt of the accused by proving such circumstences forming a
    complete chain without any missing link pointing towards the guilt of the
    accused.
    M.P.Murugan M.A.,LL.B., J.M.No.II, Thanjavur
    112 Indian Evidence Act
    Benefit of Doubt
    1).2008.(3).MLJ. 956 - Shortage of loss- Matter relates to business
    transaction - To be resolved by raising a civil dispute.
    2).2008-2-M.L.J (Crl) 1127 (SC) --- Umar Mohammad Vs. State of Rajasthan
    Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) – Benefit of doubt given to one coaccused
    – Another accused / appellant stands on same footing – Hence
    he too, is entitled to benefit of doubt.
    3).2006 Crl. L.J. 1922 Full Bench (Kerala) T. Moosa and etc Vs. S.I. of
    Police, - Vadakara P.S. Ernakulam ---- Even when a co-accused is
    acquitted in the very same trial the other accused can be convicted if there
    are good reasons to do so. Acquittal of some of the accused by itself is not
    a reason to bar the trial in the case of the other accused. –
    4).2002 SCC Crl. 780. (M.B.Sha and R.P.Sethi,JJ). Kalyan and others and
    State of U.P. 28.9.2001. variance between the FIR and the depositio
    made in the court, held, high court erred in setting aside the acquittal of
    appellants merely of an alternative view – criminal trial – reversal of
    acquittal is not proper – when two views are possible – burden of proof –
    proof beyond reasonable doubts – absence of – acquittal justified.
    5).Proof beyond reasonable doubt – explanations of “reasonable doubt” -
    case law – reiterated (State of U.P. vs. Awdhessh) 2010 (4) SCC (crl) 257.
    M.P.Murugan M.A.,LL.B., J.M.No.II, Thanjavur
    113 Indian Evidence Act
    Injuries on Accused
    1) Grievous injuries – non-explanation – effect held, prosecution owes duty to
    explain the same. (Ravishwar manjhi vs. State of Jharkhand) 2010 (4)
    SCC (crl) 50.
    2) 2007(2).M.L.J.1055 (SC) = 2009(4) MLJ.903.(SC) Unexplained minor
    injuries on accused part - not helpful to accused - would not affect
    prosecution case.
    3) Effect of non-explanation of injuries on accused person – related
    (interested) witness – enmity – held, by itself is not sufficient to discard
    testimony of a witness who is otherwise reliable. (Hari vs. Statte of M.H)
    2009 (11) SCC 96.
    4) 2009. (3). MLJ. 1068 (SC-NOC) Though prosecution has a duty to
    explain the injuries on the person of an accused there are cases where
    non-explanation of the injuries by the prosecution may not affect the
    prosecution case. This would apply to cases where the injuries sustained
    by the accused are minor and superficial or where the evidence is so clear
    and cogent - So, independent and disinterested, so probable, consistent
    and creditworthy that it far outweights the effect of the omission on the part
    of the prosecution to explain the "injuries" Therefore, no general principles
    have been laid down that non-explanation of injury on accused person
    shall in all cases vitiate the prosecution.
    M.P.Murugan M.A.,LL.B., J.M.No.II, Thanjavur
    114 Indian Evidence Act
    5) (2008) 3 Supreme Court Cases 709 (Babu Ram and Others Vs. State of
    Punjab) Criminal Trial - prosecution – Omission on part of prosecution to
    explain injuries on accused – Held, omission assumes much greater
    important where the evidence consists of interested or inimical witnesses
    or where the defence gives a version which competes in probability with
    that of the prosecution version.
    6) 2006 (2) Crimes 157 (S.C) (Rajpal and others Vs. State of Haryana) Non
    explanation of injuries by prosecutor may not affect the prosecution case
    in all cases and particularly where injuries sustained by accused are minor
    and superficial or where evidence is so clear and cogent, independent and
    disinterested, plausible, consistent and creditworthy that is outweigh effect
    of omission.
    7) Unexplained injuries sustained by accused leading to suppression of
    material facts and true version of occurrence by prosecution will vitiate the
    proceedings against accused thereby rendering the conviction
    unsustainable. 2011 (3) MLJ 13. Justice. A.Arumughaswamy,J.
    27.01.2011. Rajasekaran and others vs. State (Mayiladuthurai P.S)
    8) 2011 (1) MLJ Crl 59 SC. Sikandar Singh v. state of Bihar. (D.K.Jain,
    J.)Crl. A. No.227 of 2007 Dtd: 9.7.10. I) Non-explanation of injury on
    accused is not fatal to prosecution case- when evidence against
    accused is cogent and trustworthy outweighing said nonexplanation.
    ii) Sec.96, 97, 100 of IPC – doctrine of riht of private
    M.P.Murugan M.A.,LL.B., J.M.No.II, Thanjavur
    115 Indian Evidence Act
    defence – applicaility – evidence on record reveals apppellants are
    aggressors – non of the members of said aggressors party can claim
    right of private defence.
    9) I) When there is a complaint and counter complaint. The Officer
    should enquire into both complaints and register the case and
    thereafter investigate into the matter and he should not accept only
    one complaint. ii) Bounden duty is cast upon the investigating
    officer to register both the cases and conduct common investigation
    in both cases by examining the witnesses in pursuance of the said
    complaints. (2010 4 MLJ Crl 550) M.V.P.Maharaja vs. State. 12.4.2010.
    (Justice M.M.Sundresh,J).
    10) Non-explanation of injury on accused – when prejudicial – held,
    it is not the law that whenever accused sustains injury in the same
    occurrence, prosecution is obliged to explain the injury and on
    failure of prosecution to do so, prosecution ccase has to be
    disbelieved. (sikandar singh vs. State of Bihar) yc or significance.
    (Dharnidhar v. State of U.P) 2010 (3) SCC (crl) 417.
    M.P.Murugan M.A.,LL.B., J.M.No.II, Thanjavur
    116 Indian Evidence Act
    Motive
    1). Non-mentioning of motive in FIR -not fatal, when sufficient evidence led by
    prosecution to establish motive. ( 2011 (1) MLJ 110 (sc)) State of U.P. vs.
    Krishna Master.
    2) Motive – Completed chain of circumstances – character and conduct of
    appellant towards his wife unnatural – these facts establish motive.
    (G.Parshwanath v. State of Karnataka) 2010 (3) SCC (crl) 1027.
    3) Motive alone cannot form basis for conviction but in the light of other
    circumstances, motive goes a longway in forging links in chain of evidence -
    2010 (3) SCC (crl) 1469 (Santosh Kumar Singh vs. State).
    4) Motive – relevance – relevance – absence of motive in a case pending on
    circumstantial evidence is a factor tha weighs in favour of accused – In a case of
    circumstantial evidence, motive must be established at least to a certain extent.
    2010 (3) SCC (crl) 1179. (Babu vs. State of Kerala)
    5). Motive is an important circumstance in a cases where prosecution is based
    on circumstantial evidence. (Niranjan Panja v. State of W.B) 2010 (3) SCC (crl)
    177.
    M.P.Murugan M.A.,LL.B., J.M.No.II, Thanjavur
    117 Indian Evidence Act
    6) It is always not necessary for prosecution to establish definite motive for
    commission of crime to secure conviction of accused – absence of motive does
    not essentially result in acquittal of accused if he is otherwise found guilty by
    cogent and reliable evidence – However, in cases which are entirely or mainly
    based upon circumstantial evidence, motive can have greater relevancy or
    significance. (Dharnidhar v. State of U.P) 2010 (3) SCC (crl) 419.
    7). Motive – relevance of direct evidence vis-a-vis circumstantial evidence –
    Motive, held, may not be relevent where there is sufficient evidence to prove an
    offence beyond reasonable doubt – But absence of motive assumes significance
    in case of circumstantial evidence. (2011 (1) SCC Crl. 821 = 2011 (3) SCC 109.
    (CBI vs. Mahendra singh Dahiya)
    M.P.Murugan M.A.,LL.B., J.M.No.II, Thanjavur
    118 Indian Evidence Act
    contradictions or discrepancies
    1).Minor contradictions, inconsistencies, embellishments or improvements –
    normal discrepancies are bound to occur due to errors of observation,
    errors memory due to lapse of time, due to mental disposition such as
    shock and horror at the time of occurrence – mere marginal variations
    cannot be dubbed as improvements – they may be elaborations of earlier
    statements made by witness – trivial matters which do not affect core of
    prosecution case, should not be made a ground on which evidence is
    rejected in its entirety – State of U.P vs. Naresh and others. (2011 (2) SCC
    cri. 216 = 2011 4 SCC 324. (Justice Sathasivam and Dr.B.S.chauhan,JJ)
    8.3.2011.
    2).State of Punjab Vs. Gurmit Singh & Ors. AIR 1996 SC 1393, In cases
    involving sexual harassment, molestation etc. the court is duty bound to
    deal with such cases with utmost sensitivity. Minor contradictions or
    insignificant discrepancies in the statement of a prosecutrix should not be
    a ground for throwing out an otherwise reliable prosecution case.
    Evidence of the victim of sexual assault is enough for conviction and it
    does not require any corroboration unless there are compelling reasons
    for seeking corroboration. The court may look for some assurances of her
    statement to satisfy judicial conscience. The statement of the prosecutrix
    is more reliable than that of an injured witness as she is not an
    accomplice.
    M.P.Murugan M.A.,LL.B., J.M.No.II, Thanjavur
    119 Indian Evidence Act
    3).State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Raghubir Singh (1993) 2 SCC 622,--
    Honourable Supreme Court held that there is no legal compulsion to look
    for any other evidence to corroborate the evidence of the prosecutrix
    before recording an order of conviction. Evidence has to be weighed and
    not counted. Conviction can be recorded on the sole testimony of the
    prosecutrix, if her evidence inspires confidence and there is absence of
    circumstances which militate against her veracity.
    4).A similar view has been reiterated by this Court in Wahid Khan Vs. State of
    Madhya Pradesh (2010) 2 SCC 9, placing reliance on earlier judgment in
    Rameshwar Vs. State of Rajasthan AIR 1952 SC 54.
    5). In Mulla & Anr. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2010) 3 SCC 508, the Supreme
    court (Hon'ble P. Sathasivam, J.) placed reliance on Matru@Girish
    Chandra Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1971 SC 1050; and Santokh
    Singh Vs. Izhar Hussain & Anr. AIR 1973 SC 2190, wherein it had been
    held that the Tests Identification Parades do not constitute substantive
    evidence. They are primarily meant for the purpose of providing the
    investigating agency with an assurance that their progress with the
    investigation into the offence is proceeding on right lines. The Test
    Identification Parade can only be used as corroboration of the statement in
    Court. The necessity for holding the Test Identification Parade can arise
    only when the accused persons are not previously known to the
    witnesses. The test is done to check the veracity of the witnesses.
    M.P.Murugan M.A.,LL.B., J.M.No.II, Thanjavur
    120 Indian Evidence Act
    6).Vijay @ Chinee vs State Of M.P. on 27 July, 2010 – Discrepancies and
    inconsistencies in depositions of witnesses:- It is settled legal proposition
    that while appreciating the evidence of a witness, minor discrepancies on
    trivial matters, which do not affect the core of the prosecution case, may
    not prompt the Court to reject the evidence in its entirety. The law on the
    point can be summarised to be that the evidence of the witnesses must be
    read as a whole and the cases are to be considered in totality of the
    circumstances and while appreciating the evidence of a witness, minor
    discrepancies on trivial matters, which do not affect the core of the
    prosecution case, should not be taken into consideration as they cannot
    form grounds to reject the evidence as a whole.
    7).Contradictions, inconsistencies, exaggerations or embellishments – minor
    contradictions – PW-1 implicating other co-accused in FIR lodged by her,
    not implicated in her S.161 statements – improvements in IR by PW-1,
    held, cannot be a reason to discard her testimony. (Sambhu Das v. State
    of Assam) (2010 (3) SCC (crl) 1301.
    8). In State of Rajasthan Vs. Om Prakash AIR 2007 SC 2257, while dealing
    with a similar issue, this Court held that "irrelevant details which do not in
    any way corrode the credibility of a witness cannot be levelled as
    omissions or contradictions."
    9).State Vs. Saravanan & Anr. AIR 2009 SC 152, while dealing with a similar
    issue, this Court observed as under :- ".....while appreciating the evidence
    of a witness, minor discrepancies on trivial matters without affecting the
    M.P.Murugan M.A.,LL.B., J.M.No.II, Thanjavur
    121 Indian Evidence Act
    core of the prosecution case, ought not to prompt the court to reject
    evidence in its entirety. Further, on the general tenor of the evidence given
    by the witness, the trial court upon appreciation of evidence forms an
    opinion about the credibility thereof, in the normal circumstances the
    appellate court would not be justified to review it once again without
    justifiable reasons. It is the totality of the situation, which has to be taken
    note of. Difference in some minor detail, which does not otherwise affect
    the core of the prosecution case, even if present, that itself would not
    prompt the court to reject the evidence on minor variations and
    discrepancies."
    10). Contradictions, inconsistencies, exaggerations or embellishments –
    variations found in statement of eye-witness Pw2 (brother & son of
    deceased persons) – if material. (Dharnidhar vs. State of U.P) 2010 (3)
    SCC (cri) 491.
    11). In the case of Ujagar Singh v. Mst. Jeo reported in AIR 1959 SC
    1041, the Supreme Court has held that the ordinary rule is that all customs
    general or otherwise have to be proved, but under Section 57 of the
    Evidence Act, 1872 nothing need to be proved of which the Court can take
    judicial notice. It was also held that when a custom has been repeatedly
    recognized by Courts, it is blended into the law of land and proof of the
    same would become unnecessary under Section 57 of Evidence Act,
    1872.
    M.P.Murugan M.A.,LL.B., J.M.No.II, Thanjavur
    122 Indian Evidence Act
    12). The court shall have to bear in mind that different witnesses react
    differently under different situations whereas some become speechless,
    some start wailing while some others run away from the scene and yet
    there are some who may come forward with courage, conviction and belief
    that the wrong should be remedied. As a matter of fact it depends upon
    individual to individuals. There cannot be any set pattern or uniform rule of
    human reactions and to discard a piece of evidence on the ground of his
    reaction not falling within a set pattern is unproductive and a pedantic
    exercise. (AIR 1999 SC 3717 Leela Ram vs. State of Haryana).
    13). Although there are some contradictions and inconsistencies in the
    statements of the eye witnesses but we are not to forget that distortions
    and embellishments are invariably to be found even in the testimony of
    most truthful witnesses. We are not obvious of the fact that the facilities of
    perception, retention and reproductive vary from individual to individual.
    (1997(2) RCR 95 State of Punjab vs. Fauja Singh. )
    14). It may be that each injury has not been graphically described. But
    we cannot forget that human memory has limitations. Equally even the
    perception of events cannot be photographic. When an incident is
    described some details may be forgotten and some may be ignored as
    being unnecessary. However on a later date one cannot recapitulate the
    sequence of events and narrate it. Minor variations may actually be
    indicative of truthfulness rather than false hood.(2000(2) RCR 1. State of
    Haryana vs. Ram Kishan).
    M.P.Murugan M.A.,LL.B., J.M.No.II, Thanjavur
    123 Indian Evidence Act
    15). 2009-2 L.W.(Crl.) 757 – Jayaseelam Vs. State of Tamilnadu. ----
    Discrepancies in the evidence / kinds of, “Normal” discrepancies and
    “Material” discrepancies, Maxims, principle of “falsus in uno falsus in
    omnibus” (false in one thing, false in everything), Tenability of the plea,
    Scope. ---- Even if major portion of evidence is found to be deficient, in
    case residue is sufficient to prove guilt of an accused, his conviction can
    be maintained – It is the duty of the Court to separate grain from chaff –
    Where chaff can be separated from grain, it would be open to the Court to
    convict an accused notwithstanding the fact that evidence has been found
    to be deficient, or to be not wholly credible – Falsity of material particular
    would not ruin it from the beginning to end – Maxim “falsus in uno falsus in
    ombibus” has no application in India and the witness or witnesses cannot
    be branded as liar(s). -------- 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 – Doctrine merely involves the question of weight of evidence
    which a court may apply in a given set of circumstances, but it is not what
    may be called ‘a mandatory rule of evidence. ------ Where it is not
    feasible to separate truth from falsehood, because grain and chaff are
    inextricably mixed up, and in the process of separation an absolutely new
    case has to be reconstructed by divorcing essential details presented by
    the prosecution completely from the context and the background against
    which they are made, the only available course to be made is to discard
    the evidence in toto. While normal discrepancies do not corrode the
    credibility of a party’s case, material discrepancies do so.
    M.P.Murugan M.A.,LL.B., J.M.No.II, Thanjavur
    124 Indian Evidence Act
    16). AIR 2007 Supreme Court 2257 State of Rajasthan Vs. Om Prakash
    Evidence Act ( 1 of 1872), S.3 – Witness – Appreciation of evidence –
    Improvements made by witness as to irrelevant details – Cannot be
    labelled as omissions or contradictions.
    17). 2005 SCC Crl. 1611. (K.G.Balakrishnan and H.K.Sema, JJ).
    Ramashish Rai vs. Jagadish Singh. 17.11.2004. Criminal Trial –
    appreciation of evidence – credibility of witnesses –discrepancies in
    testimony of prosecution witness – every discrepancy in the prosecution
    witness cannot be treated as fatal – discrepancy which does not affect the
    prosecution case materially does not create infirmity. ---- Motive - When
    prosecution case is strong and positive, motive becomes inconsequential.
    18). Court should read the evidence as a whole – So read, if it appears to
    have a ring of truth, then discrepancies, inconsistencies, infirmities or
    deficiencies of minor nature not touching core of the case cannot be
    ground for rejecting the evidence – court should sift the evidence to
    separate falsehood from truth – it should not adopt hyper-technical
    approach. (2011 (1) SCC (crl) 381 = 2010 (12) SCC 324) State of U.P vs.
    Krishna Master and others.
    19). Appreciation of evidence – contradictions, inconsistencies,
    exaggerations or embellishments – only material or serious contradictions
    in statements of witnesses affect prosecution case – statements of
    witnesses should be read in entirety. 2011 (1) SCC (crl) 266 = 2010 (12)
    SCC 350. - Ashok Kumar vs. State of Haryana.
    M.P.Murugan M.A.,LL.B., J.M.No.II, Thanjavur
    125 Indian Evidence Act
    20). Court has to judge whether contradiction / omission is of such
    magnitude that it materially affects trial – minor contradictions,
    inconsistencies, embellishments or improvements on trivial matters which
    do not affect core of prosecution case, cannot be a ground to reject
    evidence entirely. 2011 (2) SCC (cri) 375 = 2010 (13) SCC 657. sunil
    kumar sambhudayal gupta vs. State of M.H.
    21). Appreciation of evidence – contradictions, inconsistencies,
    exaggerations or embellishments – consequences of – trial had gone on
    for eight or nine years – evidence recorded after a long period of time –
    Held; some discrepancies are bound to occur. 2011 (2) SCC (cri) 460 =
    2010 (12) SCC 108. Hari Sing vs. State of M.P.
    M.P.Murugan M.A.,LL.B., J.M.No.II, Thanjavur
    126 Indian Evidence Act
    Credibility of witness
    1).Credibility of witness – demeanour of witnesses – faact that trial court has
    advantage to observe demeanour of witness – relevance ( Babu vs. State
    of Kerala) 2010 (3) SCC (cr) 1179.
    2).Credibility of witness – presence established by other witness – evidence
    corroborated by recoveris, FIR version, injuries on other witness, etc.
    (Prithi vs. State of Haryana) (2010 (3) SCC (Crl) 960.
    3).Eye-witness – conduct of, not disclosing about occurrence to anyone for
    long time, till their examination by police – would destroy credibility of their
    version eye witness – no reason given for such non-disclosure – evidence
    unreliable and untrustworthy. (DB) K.N.Basha,J. (2011 (1) MWN (crl) 291.
    (Gopal @Rajagopal vs. State). 11.11.2010.
    4).Eye-witnesses – parraot like version of Pw-1 to PW-4 giving minute ,
    photographic and dramatic details about occurrence and attributing
    specific overt acts to each of 14 Accused – Held, most unsafe and
    hazardous to place reliance on evidence PW-1 to 4 – Decision of Supreme
    Court in Selvi vs. State of T.N., AIR 1981 SC 1230 followed. ( Kanagaraj
    and 12 others vs. State) K.N.Basha & Aruna Jagadeesan,JJ. (2011 (1)
    MWN 172 (DB)). 1.12.2010.
    5).Trial court after considering entire eveidence, should form opinion about
    credibility of witnesses - 2011 (2) SCC (cri) 375 = 2010 (13) SCC 657.
    M.P.Murugan M.A.,LL.B., J.M.No.II, Thanjavur
    127 Indian Evidence Act
    Sunil kumar sambhudayal gupta vs. State of M.H.
    6). Identification of accused at nigh / darkness – eye-witness identified
    accused in torchlight – omission to take torchlight into possession by
    police – effect of – factum of torch had been mentioned in FIR – other
    witnesses also testified thereto in their statements under S.161 – merely
    because torch had not been taken into possession by police, held, would
    not mean that statements eye-witnesses were not credible. --- Hari singh
    vs. State of U.P. - 2011 (2) SCC (crl) 411 = 2010 13 SCC 756.
    M.P.Murugan M.A.,LL.B., J.M.No.II, Thanjavur
    128 Indian Evidence Act
    Defence witness
    1).Standard of proof required to prove prosecution and defence cases –
    burden of proof – while prosecution has to prove its case beyond
    reasonable doubt, the defence of accused has to be tested on the
    touchstone of probability. --------ii) In every case the court has to see
    whether defence set up by accused is probable, having regard to totality
    of facts and circumstances of the case – If defence appears to be
    probable, the court may accept such defence – this is primarily a matter of
    appreciation of evidence on record and no straitjacket formula can be
    enunciated in this regard. (Shanjiv Kumar v. State of Punjab) (2010 (3)
    SCC (Crl) 330.
    2).Sec.101 – the accused need not disprove the prosecution case and the
    onus on the accused is not as heavy as that of prosecution.
    (M.S.Narayana Menon vs. State of Kerala) 2006 (6) SCC 39 = 2006 SCC
    (crl) 30.
    3).Defence – falsity of statement / defence plea – false plea taken by
    accused – its adverse effect on his defence – held, false plea is another
    link in the chain of circumstantial evidence. (Santosh Kumar singh vs.
    State, (2010 (3) SCC (cri) 1469.
    4).Evidence on record that might aid defence – onus to exhibit and prove the
    same – held, it was for defence and not for prosecution to make use of
    such evidence – CBI as an investigating had fairly collected all relevant
    M.P.Murugan M.A.,LL.B., J.M.No.II, Thanjavur
    129 Indian Evidence Act
    evidence but it was for appellant-accused to prove evidence favourable to
    him, by exhibiting relevant documents and calling necessary witnesses.
    9Santosh Kumar singh v. State ) 2010 (3) SCC (crl) 1469.
    5).Alibi – plea of alib has to be established by accused by leading positive
    evidence – failure of said plea would not necessarily lead to success of
    prosecution case which has to be independently proved by prosecution
    beyond reasonable doubt. (Sk. Sattar v. State of Maharashtra) 2010 (3)
    SCC (crl) 906.
    6).Defence witness – credibility of – Held; defence witnesses have been
    observed to be often untruthfull – but that is not to say that in all cases
    defence witnesses must be held to be untruthful, merely because they
    support the case of accused – right of accused to explain incriminating
    circumstances appearing against him, serves a purpose, which cannot be
    ignored outright. (Sanjiv Kumar vs. State of Punjab) yc or significance.
    (Dharnidhar v. State of U.P) 2010 (3) SCC (crl) 330.
    7). Sec.58 – Failure to prove defence is not admission of guilt by the
    accused. (Manager R.B.I vs. Mani) AIR 2005 SC 2179 = 2005 (5) SCC
    100.
    8).Apology – belated apology – Held, apology in a contempt proceeding must
    be offerred at the earliest possible opportunity – Belated apology is liable
    to be rejected. 2011 (1) SCC (crl) 200 = 2010 (11) SCC 493. Ranveer
    yadav vs. State of Bihar.
    M.P.Murugan M.A.,LL.B., J.M.No.II, Thanjavur
    130 Indian Evidence Act
    9). Criminal trial – witnesses – defence witnesses – statement made in crossexamination
    supporting prosecution case – Held, defence would be bound
    by such statements. 2011 (1) SCC (crl) 266 = 2010 (12) SCC 350. - Ashok
    Kumar vs. State of Haryana.
    10). S.231 of Cr.P.C – Choice of witness for prosecution – power of
    prosecutor – child produced as eye-witness instead of his mature elder
    brother and sister who had also seen the incident – Held, it was for public
    prosecutor to decide whether mature witnesses should be examined or not
    and whether child witness had no role in the matter – defence never
    requested trial court to call upon Public Prosecutor to examine the elder
    brother and sister – defence also failed to examine them as defence
    witness or to make a prayer to examine them as court witness – Held, for
    non-examination of elder brother and sister, child witness could not be
    blamed, nor could his evidence be brushed aside is a casual manner. -
    (State of U.P vs. Krishna Master and others) 2011 (1) SCC (cri) 381 =
    2010 (12) SCC 324.
    11). Cross-examination – Sec.137 of Evidence Act – Conduct of defence
    lawyer – cross-examination of a witness on a point for days together with a
    view to confuse him – cannot be permitted. (2011 91) SCC Crl 381 = 2010
    (12) SCC 324. (State of U.P Vs. Krishna Master and others).
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    M.P.Murugan M.A.,LL.B., J.M.No.II, Thanjavur
    131 Indian Evidence Act
    Evidence in the form of C.D., V.C.D.
    What is the procedure to adduce the evidence in the form of Compact Disc,
    Video Disc in the evidence ? How to deal with such application of production of
    evidence in the form of Compact Disc. Kindly go through the following Citations.
    1). Velusamy K. K. v. N. Palanisamy 2011 (4) SCALE 61 -
    http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1126109
    2). http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/476184/
    Stovekraft Private Limited
    3). http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/195080/
    Y. Ranganadh Goud vs State Rep. By The Public ... on 27 July, 2010
    4). http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/1955364/
    Dharambir vs Central Bureau Of Investigation ... on 11 March, 2008
    5).AIR2007SC590,
    (2006)11SCC1/http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/1611925/
    Jagjit Singh vs. State of Haryana and Ors. (11.12.2006 – SC).
    6). http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/1830482/
    2. Sri . Gopala Krishna Belur and Ors . vs . Sri . B . S . Yeddiyurappa and
    Anr . . ( 18 . 10 . 2010 - KARHC )
    M.P.Murugan M.A.,LL.B., J.M.No.II, Thanjavur
    132 Indian Evidence Act
    Words & Phrases
    1).Anticipatory Bail – 2011 (1) SCC crl. 514 = 2011 (1) SCC 694. (Siddharam
    Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of M.H and others).
    2).Any offence – 2010 (3) SCC (cr) 630
    3).Charge Sheet & Final report = 2010 (3) SCC (cr) 652.
    4).Clever Forgery & forgery - 2010 (3) SCC (cr) 924.
    5).Coagulated – in NDPS Act- solidified, clotted, curdled – 2011 (2) SCC (crl)
    286 = 2011 (4) SCC 441. (Harjit Singh vs. State of Punjab)
    6).Common intention – same intention – similar intention and common object
    - 2010 (3) SCC (cr) 1262.
    7).compensation - 2010 (3) SCC (cr) 1285
    8).Consent - 2010 (3) SCC (cr) 1081
    9).Corpus delicti - 2010 (3) SCC (cr) 960
    10). Court - 2011 (1) SCC crl. 442 = 2011 91) SCC 534. Institute of
    Chartered Accountants of India vs. Vimal Kumar Surana and another.
    11). “Death” - 2011 (2) SCC (crl) 294 = 2011 (4) SCC 454. (Aruna
    Ramachandra Shanbaug vs. Union Of India)
    12). Demand of dowry - 2010 (3) SCC (cr) 248.
    13). Dowry - 2011 (1) SCC (crl) 266. = 2009 (12) SCC 350 . Ashok
    Kumar vs. state of Haryana.
    14). Dowry death - 2010 (3) SCC (cr) 1154
    15). Employer – Sec. 2(e) Employees P.f. And Miscellaneus Provisions
    Act, (19 of 1952) ( T.A. Bhansali v. Inspector of Police) C.T.Selvam,J. 2010
    4 MLJ Crl. 544.
    16). Enquiry - 2010 (3) SCC (cr) 344
    M.P.Murugan M.A.,LL.B., J.M.No.II, Thanjavur
    133 Indian Evidence Act
    17). Evidence & Hearsay Evidence.– 2011 (1) SCC Crl. 741 = 2011 (2)
    SCC 532. Kalyan Kumar gogi vs. Ashutosh Agnihotri and another.
    18). Fair trial – Every opportunity to be extended to accused to establish
    his defence – Latching opportunity to accused in rebutting presumption
    U/s. 118(a) & 139 of N.I.Act, held not at all Fair trial. (S.Palanivelu,J) 2011
    (1) MWN (cr) DCC 173.
    19). Falsely represents - 2010 (3) SCC (cr) 1439
    20). Fraud - 2010 (3) SCC (cr) 878
    21). Goad - 2010 (3) SCC (cr) 367
    22). Good faith & Public good - 2010 (3) SCC (cr) 138.
    23). Heat of Passion – 2011 (1) SCC (crl) 934. = 2009 917) SCC 63.
    Suchand Bouri vs. State of W.B.
    24). Hearsay evidence & Evidence – 2011 (1) SCC Crl. 741 = 2011 (2)
    SCC 532. Kalyan Kumar gogi vs. Ashutosh Agnihotri and another.
    25). Instigation - 2010 (3) SCC (cr) 367
    26). Interested Witness - 2010 (3) SCC (cr) 491.
    27). Interlocutory order – Order which is made pending cause and before
    a final hearing on merits – Interlocutory order is made to secure some end
    and generally collateral to issue formed by plading and not connected with
    final judgment (T.Mathivanan,J) 2011 (1) MWN (cr) DCC 28.
    28). Investigation – Ashok Kumar todi vs. Kishar jahan and others. (2011
    (2) SCC crl. 75 = 2011 (3) SCC 758.
    29). Life & Personal Liberty - 2011 (1) SCC crl. 514 = 2011 (1) SCC 694
    (siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of M.H and others.
    30). Live in Relationship & wife - 2011 (1) SCC (crl) 59 = 2010 (10) SCC
    469. (D.Velusamy vs. D.Patchaiammal)
    31). Live in the nature of marriage” Live in arrangement” “keep” - 2011 (1)
    SCC (crl) 59 = 2010 (10) SCC 469. (D.Velusamy vs. D.Patchaiammal)
    M.P.Murugan M.A.,LL.B., J.M.No.II, Thanjavur
    134 Indian Evidence Act
    32). Living will & “Death” - 2011 (2) SCC (crl) 294 = 2011 (4) SCC 454.
    (Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug vs. Union Of India)
    33). Palimony - 2011 (1) SCC (crl) 59 = 2010 (10) SCC 469. (D.Velusamy
    vs. D.Patchaiammal).
    34). Per incuriam decision - 2011 (1) SCC crl. 514 = 2011 (1) SCC 694.
    (siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of M.H and others).
    35). Possession - 2010 (3) SCC (cr) 1431
    36). Prescribed – Ashok Tshering Bhutta vs. State of Sikkim) 2011 (2)
    SCC (crl) 258 = 2011 (4) SCC 402.
    37). Presume - 2010 (3) SCC (cr) 367
    38). What is “Proceedings & Trial” - Proceeding as distinguished from
    “Trial) 2011 (1) SCC (crl) 207 = 2010 (11) SCC 520. Harinarayan G.Bajaj
    vs. State of Maharashtra and others.
    39). Provocation - 2010 (3) SCC (cr) 155
    40). Publication - 2011 (1) SCC crl. 423 = 2011 (1) SCC 503. (Joseph
    M.Puthussery vs. T.S.John and others).
    41). Reason to believe - 2010 (3) SCC (cr) 748
    42). Relative – PWDVA, 2005 – Sandhya Manoj Wankhade vs. Manoj
    Bhimrao Wankhade ( 2011 (2) SCC crl. 21 = 2011 (3) SCC 650.
    43). Securities - 2010 (3) SCC (cr) 114.
    44). Services - 2010 (3) SCC (cr) 1313
    45). Soon before – 304-B IPC cases - 2011 (2) SCC (crl) 393 = 2010 (13)
    SCC 689.
    46). Soon before her death - 2010 (3) SCC (cr) 539
    47). Soon before her death. 2011 (1) SCC Crl. 266 = 2010 (12) SCC 350.
    Ashok Kumar vs. Sstate of Haryana.
    M.P.Murugan M.A.,LL.B., J.M.No.II, Thanjavur
    135 Indian Evidence Act
    48). Spot delivery - 2010 (3) SCC (cr) 114.
    49). sudden fight - 2011 (1) SCC (crl) 934. = 2009 917) SCC 63.
    Suchand Bouri vs. State of W.B.
    50). Suicide – held – sui means self – cide means killing – K.Mohan vs.
    State of T.N. (2011 (2) SCC crl. 1 = 2011 93) SCC 626.
    51). Taking cognizance – meaning explained – 2011 (1) SCC (cri) 1181.
    Mona Panwar vs. High court Judicature of Allahabad.
    52). sufficient ground - 2010 (3) SCC (cr) 452
    53). Urge - 2010 (3) SCC (cr) 367
    54). Yellow Journal - 2011 (1) SCC crl. 423 = 2011 (1) SCC 503. (Joseph
    M.Puthussery vs. T.S.John and others).
    55). Whistleblower - 2010 (3) SCC (cr) 841.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    M.P.Murugan M.A.,LL.B., J.M.No.II, Thanjavur
    Comments