LAW OF EVIDENCELAW OF EVIDENCE  

ByBy

Dr.P.R.L.RajavenkatesanDr.P.R.L.RajavenkatesanAssistant Professor(Senior)Assistant Professor(Senior)

VIT LAW SCHOOLVIT LAW SCHOOLChennaiChennai

INTRODUCTIONINTRODUCTION There was no complete or systematic There was no complete or systematic

enactment.enactment. Calcutta, Bombay and Madras-The Courts Calcutta, Bombay and Madras-The Courts

established by Royal Charter followed the established by Royal Charter followed the English rules of Evidence.English rules of Evidence.

Outside the Presidency Towns, there were Outside the Presidency Towns, there were no fixed rules of evidence.no fixed rules of evidence.

Mofussil courts used to be guided by Mofussil courts used to be guided by occasional directions-Old Regulations-occasional directions-Old Regulations-between 1793-1834.between 1793-1834.

IntroductionIntroduction English law of evidence based as it is on English law of evidence based as it is on

the social and legal institutions of the social and legal institutions of England was not applicable here in its England was not applicable here in its entirety , owing to the peculiar entirety , owing to the peculiar circumstances of this country.circumstances of this country.

Competent knowledge of the English law Competent knowledge of the English law could then be hardly expected from the could then be hardly expected from the judges, and so a strict application of that judges, and so a strict application of that law would result in miscarriage of justice.law would result in miscarriage of justice.

R v. Khairulla,R v. Khairulla, 6 WR Cr 21. 6 WR Cr 21. English law of evidence was not the English law of evidence was not the

law of the mofussil courts and it was law of the mofussil courts and it was further held that the rules of further held that the rules of evidence contained in the Hindu and evidence contained in the Hindu and Mahomedan laws were also not Mahomedan laws were also not applicable to those courts.applicable to those courts.

IntroductionIntroduction First attempt-Act of 10 of 1835 – First attempt-Act of 10 of 1835 –

which was applicable to all Courts in which was applicable to all Courts in British India.British India.

Between 1835 and 1853, a series of Between 1835 and 1853, a series of Acts were passed by the Indian Acts were passed by the Indian Legislature-Which was advocated by Legislature-Which was advocated by BenthamBentham and introduced in England and introduced in England by Lords by Lords BroughanBroughan and and Denman.Denman.

IntroductionIntroduction In 1856, Sir In 1856, Sir Henry Summer MaineHenry Summer Maine, the then law , the then law

member of the Governor General’s Council was member of the Governor General’s Council was asked to prepare and Indian Evidence Act. His asked to prepare and Indian Evidence Act. His draft was found unsuitable for the Indian draft was found unsuitable for the Indian conditions. So it fell to Sir conditions. So it fell to Sir James Fitzjames James Fitzjames Stephan Stephan who became the law member in 1871 to who became the law member in 1871 to come up with the Indian Evidence Act. His draft come up with the Indian Evidence Act. His draft bill was approved and came into being as the bill was approved and came into being as the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and came into force Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and came into force from 1st September 1872.from 1st September 1872.

    The Act is based entirely on the English law of The Act is based entirely on the English law of Evidence- Only 167 sections.Evidence- Only 167 sections.

IntroductionIntroduction

Ram jas v. Surendra NathRam jas v. Surendra Nath, AIR 1990 , AIR 1990 All 385.All 385.

It is the It is the procedural side of law procedural side of law which which lays down the rules of evidence.lays down the rules of evidence.

How a fact is to be proved and it How a fact is to be proved and it helps in preventing the wastage of helps in preventing the wastage of court’s valuable time upon irrelevant court’s valuable time upon irrelevant issues.issues.

EvidenceEvidence Judicial investigation is the enforcement of a Judicial investigation is the enforcement of a

right or liability that depends on certain facts.right or liability that depends on certain facts. Procedural LawProcedural Law The term ‘evidence’ owes its origin to the The term ‘evidence’ owes its origin to the

Latin terms ‘Latin terms ‘evident’ or ‘evidereevident’ or ‘evidere’ that mean ’ that mean ‘‘to show clearly, to discover, to ascertain or to show clearly, to discover, to ascertain or to proveto prove.’.’

Evidence is a Evidence is a means of proofmeans of proof. Facts have to . Facts have to be proved before the relevant laws and its be proved before the relevant laws and its provisions can be applied.provisions can be applied.

EvidenceEvidence According to According to Sir BlackstoneSir Blackstone, ‘Evidence’ , ‘Evidence’

signifies that which demonstrates, makes signifies that which demonstrates, makes clear or ascertain the truth of the facts or clear or ascertain the truth of the facts or points in issue either on one side or the points in issue either on one side or the other.other.

According to According to Sir Taylor, Sir Taylor, Law of Evidence Law of Evidence means through argument to means through argument to prove or prove or disprove any matter of fact.disprove any matter of fact. The truth of The truth of which is submitted to judicial which is submitted to judicial investigation.investigation.

Evidence Evidence Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act,1872Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act,1872 All the statements which the All the statements which the court permits court permits

or requires to be made before it by or requires to be made before it by witnesses, in relation to matters of fact witnesses, in relation to matters of fact under enquiry; such statements are called under enquiry; such statements are called Oral evidence;Oral evidence;

  All the documents including All the documents including electronic electronic records records produced for the inspection of the produced for the inspection of the court; such documents are called court; such documents are called documentary evidence.documentary evidence.

Case LawCase Law Sivrajbhan v. Harchandgir Sivrajbhan v. Harchandgir AIR 1954 SC 564AIR 1954 SC 564 “ “The word evidence in connection with Law, The word evidence in connection with Law,

all valid meanings, includes all except all valid meanings, includes all except agreement which prove, disprove any fact or agreement which prove, disprove any fact or matter whose truthfulness is presented for matter whose truthfulness is presented for Judicial Investigation. At this stage it will be Judicial Investigation. At this stage it will be proper to keep in mind that where a party and proper to keep in mind that where a party and the other party the other party don’t get the opportunity to don’t get the opportunity to cross-examine cross-examine his statements to his statements to ascertain the ascertain the truth truth then in such a condition this party’s then in such a condition this party’s statement is not Evidence.”statement is not Evidence.”

Evidence Evidence

Admit guilty- No issue-If not-Admit guilty- No issue-If not-Evidence required.Evidence required.

Administration of Justice-Based on Administration of Justice-Based on EvidenceEvidence

Parties cannot contract to exclude Parties cannot contract to exclude the Act.the Act.

Direct- Circumstantial-Hearsay Documentary- Oral- Direct- Circumstantial-Hearsay Documentary- Oral- Scientific- Real-DigitalScientific- Real-Digital

LEX FORILEX FORI Law of Evidence is part of the law of Law of Evidence is part of the law of

procedure.procedure. Lex Fori-Law of the Court or ForumLex Fori-Law of the Court or Forum Indian Courts Know and apply only Indian Courts Know and apply only

the Indian Law of Evidencethe Indian Law of Evidence A civil case of will and murder will A civil case of will and murder will

have the same law of evidence. have the same law of evidence. 

Types of EvidencesTypes of Evidences Oral EvidenceOral Evidence– Section 60 of the Indian – Section 60 of the Indian

Evidence Act, 1872Evidence Act, 1872 prescribed the prescribed the provision of recording oral evidence. All provision of recording oral evidence. All those statements which the court permits those statements which the court permits or expects the witnesses to make in his or expects the witnesses to make in his presence regarding the presence regarding the truth of the facts truth of the facts are called Oral Evidence. Oral Evidence are called Oral Evidence. Oral Evidence is that evidence which the witness has is that evidence which the witness has personally seen or heard. Oral evidence personally seen or heard. Oral evidence must always be direct or positive. must always be direct or positive.

Types of EvidenceTypes of Evidence Documentary EvidenceDocumentary Evidence– Section 3 of – Section 3 of

The Indian Evidence Act says that all The Indian Evidence Act says that all those documents which are presented in those documents which are presented in the court for inspection such documents the court for inspection such documents are called documentary evidences. In a are called documentary evidences. In a case like this it is the documentary case like this it is the documentary evidence that would show the actual evidence that would show the actual attitude of the parties and their attitude of the parties and their consciousness regarding the custom is consciousness regarding the custom is more important than any oral evidencemore important than any oral evidence

Types of EvidenceTypes of Evidence Primary EvidencePrimary Evidence-Section 62 of -Section 62 of

The Indian Evidence Act says Primary The Indian Evidence Act says Primary Evidence is the Top-Most class of Evidence is the Top-Most class of evidences. It is that proof which in evidences. It is that proof which in any possible condition gives the vital any possible condition gives the vital hint in a disputed fact and establishes hint in a disputed fact and establishes through documentary evidence on the through documentary evidence on the production of an original document production of an original document for inspection by the court.for inspection by the court.

Types of EvidenceTypes of Evidence Secondary EvidenceSecondary Evidence– Section 63 says – Section 63 says

Secondary Evidence is the inferior Secondary Evidence is the inferior evidence. It is evidence that occupies a evidence. It is evidence that occupies a secondary position. It is such evidence secondary position. It is such evidence that on the presentation of which it is felt that on the presentation of which it is felt that superior evidence yet remains to be that superior evidence yet remains to be produced. It is the evidence which is produced. It is the evidence which is produced in the absence of the primary produced in the absence of the primary evidence therefore it is known as evidence therefore it is known as secondary evidence.secondary evidence.

Types of EvidenceTypes of Evidence

Real EvidenceReal Evidence– Real Evidence – Real Evidence means real or material evidence. means real or material evidence. Real evidence of a fact is brought to Real evidence of a fact is brought to the knowledge of the court by the knowledge of the court by inspection of a physical object and inspection of a physical object and not by information derived from a not by information derived from a witness or a document.witness or a document.

Types of Evidence Types of Evidence Hearsay EvidenceHearsay Evidence– Hearsay Evidence is – Hearsay Evidence is

very weak evidence. It is only the reported very weak evidence. It is only the reported evidence of a witness which he has not evidence of a witness which he has not seen either heard. Sometime it implies the seen either heard. Sometime it implies the saying of something which a person has saying of something which a person has heard others say.  witness has neither heard others say.  witness has neither personally seen or heardpersonally seen or heard, nor has he , nor has he perceived through his senses and has come perceived through his senses and has come to know about it through some third personto know about it through some third person

Nexus and CredibilityNexus and Credibility

Types of EvidenceTypes of Evidence Judicial EvidenceJudicial Evidence– Evidence received – Evidence received

by court of justice in proof or disproof by court of justice in proof or disproof of facts before them is called judicial of facts before them is called judicial evidence. The evidence. The confession made by the confession made by the accused in the court accused in the court is also included in is also included in judicial evidence. Statements of judicial evidence. Statements of witnesses and documentary evidence witnesses and documentary evidence and facts for the examination by the and facts for the examination by the court are also Judicial Evidence.court are also Judicial Evidence.

Types of EvidenceTypes of Evidence

Non-Judicial EvidenceNon-Judicial Evidence– Any – Any confession made by the accused confession made by the accused outside the court in the presence of outside the court in the presence of any person or the admission of a any person or the admission of a party are called Non-Judicial party are called Non-Judicial Evidence, if proved in the court in Evidence, if proved in the court in the form of Judicial Evidence.the form of Judicial Evidence.

Types of EvidenceTypes of Evidence Direct EvidenceDirect Evidence– Evidence is either direct – Evidence is either direct

or indirect. Direct Evidence is that evidence or indirect. Direct Evidence is that evidence which is very important for the decision of the which is very important for the decision of the matter in issue. The main fact when it is matter in issue. The main fact when it is presented by witnesses, things and witnesses presented by witnesses, things and witnesses is direct, evidence whereby main facts may be is direct, evidence whereby main facts may be proved or established that is the evidence of proved or established that is the evidence of person who had actually seen the crime being person who had actually seen the crime being committed and has described the offence.committed and has described the offence.

Eye witnessEye witness

Case LawCase Law Vikram v. State of MaharashtraVikram v. State of Maharashtra,AIR ,AIR

2007 SC 1893 2007 SC 1893 Where the eye-witnesses were Where the eye-witnesses were

examined in the Court two and half examined in the Court two and half years latter, some contradictions or years latter, some contradictions or even omissions to state the incident in even omissions to state the incident in great details by itself would not lead great details by itself would not lead to a conclusion that the appellants had to a conclusion that the appellants had been falsely implicated in the case.been falsely implicated in the case.

Case LawCase Law State of U.P. v. Krishna MasterState of U.P. v. Krishna Master,AIR ,AIR

2010 SC 30712010 SC 3071 Generally in oral evidence of crime Generally in oral evidence of crime

normal discrepancies exist. They are normal discrepancies exist. They are due to errors of observation , mental due to errors of observation , mental disposition, shock and horror at the disposition, shock and horror at the time of incident. Such discrepancies time of incident. Such discrepancies do not make evidence unreliable do not make evidence unreliable unless they go to root of matter.unless they go to root of matter.

Case LawCase Law Inimical WitnessInimical Witness-The testimony of eye--The testimony of eye-

witnesses cannot be rejected merely on witnesses cannot be rejected merely on the ground of being inimical to the the ground of being inimical to the accused persons.accused persons.

Manilal Hiraman Chaudhari v. State of Manilal Hiraman Chaudhari v. State of MaharashtraMaharashtra ,AIR 2008 SC 161 ,AIR 2008 SC 161

There were enmity between witnesses There were enmity between witnesses and accused person.and accused person.

Previous police complaint. Previous police complaint.

Case LawCase Law

Absence of Injury on eye-witness to Absence of Injury on eye-witness to crimecrime

Jalpat Rai v. State of Haryana,AIR Jalpat Rai v. State of Haryana,AIR 2011 SC 27192011 SC 2719

Merely because there is absence of Merely because there is absence of injury on the person of the eye-injury on the person of the eye-witness, his presence at the place of witness, his presence at the place of occurrence does not become doubtful.occurrence does not become doubtful.

Types of EvidenceTypes of Evidence Circumstantial Evidence or Circumstantial Evidence or

Indirect EvidenceIndirect Evidence– – There is no There is no difference between circumstantial difference between circumstantial evidence and indirect evidence. evidence and indirect evidence. Circumstantial Evidence attempts to Circumstantial Evidence attempts to prove the facts in issue by providing prove the facts in issue by providing other facts and affords an instance other facts and affords an instance as to its existence.as to its existence.

Case LawsCase Laws Durga Prasad Singh v. Ram Dayal Durga Prasad Singh v. Ram Dayal

ChaudhariChaudhari,ILR 38 Cal.153,ILR 38 Cal.153 FIR is not a substantive peace of evidence.FIR is not a substantive peace of evidence. It can be used to corroborate the evidence It can be used to corroborate the evidence

of the person lodging the same.of the person lodging the same. State of Maharashtra v. Dr.Praful B.Desai State of Maharashtra v. Dr.Praful B.Desai

AIR 2003 SC 2053. AIR 2003 SC 2053. Examination of witness through Video Examination of witness through Video

Conferencing has been approved.Conferencing has been approved.

Case LawsCase Laws Ram Singh v. Ramsing Ram Singh v. Ramsing (Col.) AIR 1986 SC 3(Col.) AIR 1986 SC 3 Justice Fazal Ali laid down the following tests Justice Fazal Ali laid down the following tests

regarding the admissibility of tape-recorded regarding the admissibility of tape-recorded version.version.

The voice of the speaker must be identified by The voice of the speaker must be identified by the maker of the record or other person the maker of the record or other person recognizing his voice.recognizing his voice.

Tape recorded statement must be relevant.Tape recorded statement must be relevant. The voice of the particular speaker must be The voice of the particular speaker must be

clearly audible and must not be lost or distorted clearly audible and must not be lost or distorted by other sounds or disturbances.by other sounds or disturbances.

THE INDIAN EVIDENCE THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACTACT

The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is divided into The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is divided into 3 parts, 11 chapters and comprises of 167 3 parts, 11 chapters and comprises of 167 sections. Part-I answers the question ‘what sections. Part-I answers the question ‘what facts may or may not be proved?’ (Ch.I & II – facts may or may not be proved?’ (Ch.I & II – Ss-1 to 55) Part-II deals with ‘what sort of Ss-1 to 55) Part-II deals with ‘what sort of evidence is to be given of these facts?’ (Ch.III evidence is to be given of these facts?’ (Ch.III – VI Ss-56 to100) Part-III covers ‘by whom – VI Ss-56 to100) Part-III covers ‘by whom and in what manner the facts are to be and in what manner the facts are to be proved?’ (Ch-VII to XI; Ss-101 to 167) Sec-5 proved?’ (Ch-VII to XI; Ss-101 to 167) Sec-5 to 55 deal with RELEVANCY and Sec-56 to to 55 deal with RELEVANCY and Sec-56 to 167 deal with the ADMISSIBILITY.167 deal with the ADMISSIBILITY.

THE INDIAN EVIDENCE THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACTACT

The Indian Evidence Act,1872 came into The Indian Evidence Act,1872 came into force on 1st. September, 1872. It applies force on 1st. September, 1872. It applies to the whole of India except J & K. It to the whole of India except J & K. It applies to all judicial proceedings in or applies to all judicial proceedings in or before a court, including court martials.before a court, including court martials.

Affidavits ii) Arbitration proceedings. Affidavits ii) Arbitration proceedings. The provisions of this Act are not The provisions of this Act are not applicable to Departmental Inquiries / applicable to Departmental Inquiries / Domestic Inquiries/Commissions of Domestic Inquiries/Commissions of Inquiries / Administrative TribunalsInquiries / Administrative Tribunals

Interpretation ClauseInterpretation Clause Sec.3. “Court”-Includes all Judges and Sec.3. “Court”-Includes all Judges and

Magistrate and all persons ,except arbitrators, Magistrate and all persons ,except arbitrators, legally authorized to take evidence.legally authorized to take evidence.

Sec.391 of Cr.P.C., Order 41,R.27 of C.P.C.Sec.391 of Cr.P.C., Order 41,R.27 of C.P.C. Fact- Fact means and includes-Fact- Fact means and includes- (1) Anything, state of things, or relation of (1) Anything, state of things, or relation of

things, capable of being perceived by the things, capable of being perceived by the sensessenses

(2) Any mental condition of which any person (2) Any mental condition of which any person is conscious.is conscious.

Interpretation ClauseInterpretation Clause IllustrationsIllustrations (a) That there are certain objects arranged in a (a) That there are certain objects arranged in a

certain order in a certain place, is a fact.certain order in a certain place, is a fact. (b) That a man heard or saw something is a fact.(b) That a man heard or saw something is a fact. (c) That a man said certain words, is a fact.(c) That a man said certain words, is a fact. (d) That a man holds a certain opinion, has a (d) That a man holds a certain opinion, has a

certain intention, acts in good faith or certain intention, acts in good faith or fraudulently, or uses a particular word in a fraudulently, or uses a particular word in a particular sense, or is or was at a specified time particular sense, or is or was at a specified time conscious of a particular sensation, is a fact. conscious of a particular sensation, is a fact.

That a man has certain reputation , is a fact.That a man has certain reputation , is a fact.

FactFact

Fact means an existing thingsFact means an existing things Physical and Psychological Facts-A horse, a Physical and Psychological Facts-A horse, a

man, are physical facts.man, are physical facts. Psychological Facts- The sensation or Psychological Facts- The sensation or

recollection of which man is conscious , his recollection of which man is conscious , his desires , his intentions in doing particular desires , his intentions in doing particular acts,etc.acts,etc.

Positive Facts-Existence of certain state of Positive Facts-Existence of certain state of thingsthings

Negative Facts-Non existence of it.Negative Facts-Non existence of it.

Interpretation ClauseInterpretation Clause ““Relevant”-One fact is said to be relevant to another Relevant”-One fact is said to be relevant to another

when the one is connected when the one is connected with the other in any of the with the other in any of the ways referred to in the provisions of this Act relating ways referred to in the provisions of this Act relating to the relevancy of the facts.to the relevancy of the facts.

Logically relevant-When a fact is connected with Logically relevant-When a fact is connected with other factother fact

Legally relevant-If the law relevant it to be relevant.Legally relevant-If the law relevant it to be relevant.

Interpretation ClauseInterpretation Clause ““Facts in Issue”-Facts in Issue”-Any fact from which, either Any fact from which, either

by itself or in connection with the other facts, by itself or in connection with the other facts, the existence, non-existence, nature or extent the existence, non-existence, nature or extent of any right , liability or disability, asserted or of any right , liability or disability, asserted or denied in any suit or proceedings. denied in any suit or proceedings.

No list is given in Evidence Act of No list is given in Evidence Act of the Facts in Issue. The Court has to the Facts in Issue. The Court has to frame in every case.frame in every case.

Interpretation Clause

Fact in IssueFact in Issue A is a cashier in a factory. It is his duty to bring A is a cashier in a factory. It is his duty to bring

money from bank and distribute it to the money from bank and distribute it to the labourers. A case under sec.409,I.P.C., “Criminal labourers. A case under sec.409,I.P.C., “Criminal Breach of Trust” is started against him. The case Breach of Trust” is started against him. The case against him is that he brought Rs.25,000 from against him is that he brought Rs.25,000 from the bank and misappropriated Rs.13,000 out of the bank and misappropriated Rs.13,000 out of it. A says in his defence that he brought the it. A says in his defence that he brought the case from the bank and as he was to go on leave case from the bank and as he was to go on leave that day, he according to the direction of the that day, he according to the direction of the Manager of the company , handed over Manager of the company , handed over Rs.25,000 to B,the Assistant Cashier.Rs.25,000 to B,the Assistant Cashier.

Fact in IssueFact in Issue Order XIV,Rule 1,C.P.C. lays down that Order XIV,Rule 1,C.P.C. lays down that

“issues arises when a material “issues arises when a material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by proposition of fact or law is affirmed by the one party and denied by the other”.the one party and denied by the other”.

Sec.6 of Indian Evidence Act-Facts Sec.6 of Indian Evidence Act-Facts forming part of the same transaction.forming part of the same transaction.

Sec.7.Facts which are occassion,cause Sec.7.Facts which are occassion,cause or effect of the facts in Issueor effect of the facts in Issue

Relevant FactsRelevant Facts Sec.8.Motive,preparation, conduct of a party.Sec.8.Motive,preparation, conduct of a party. Sec.9.Facts necessary to explain the facts in Sec.9.Facts necessary to explain the facts in

IssueIssue Sec.10.Things said or done by conspirators.Sec.10.Things said or done by conspirators. Sec.11.Facts inconsistent with facts in issue.Sec.11.Facts inconsistent with facts in issue. Sec.12. Facts helping in estimate of damagesSec.12. Facts helping in estimate of damages Sec.13.Transaction creating rightSec.13.Transaction creating right Sec.14.Facts stating of mind or bodySec.14.Facts stating of mind or body

Relevant FactsRelevant Facts Sec.15.Facts showing whether act is Sec.15.Facts showing whether act is

intentional or accidentalintentional or accidental Sec.16.Existence of course of businessSec.16.Existence of course of business (Sections 17 to 23 and 31)-Admission(Sections 17 to 23 and 31)-Admission Sections(24 to 30) –ConfessionSections(24 to 30) –Confession Sections(32-33)-Statements of persons Sections(32-33)-Statements of persons

who are dead or cannot be foundwho are dead or cannot be found Sections(34-39)-Statements made under Sections(34-39)-Statements made under

special circumstances.special circumstances.

Relevant FactsRelevant Facts Sections-40 to 44(Judgments)Sections-40 to 44(Judgments) Sections-45 to 47-Opinions of Sections-45 to 47-Opinions of

experts and othersexperts and others Sections-48-49- Opinions as to the Sections-48-49- Opinions as to the

existence of customs and usagesexistence of customs and usages Section-50-Opinion on relationshipSection-50-Opinion on relationship Section-52 to 55-CharactorSection-52 to 55-Charactor

Exaggeration in EvidenceExaggeration in Evidence Ramesh Harijan v. State of U.PRamesh Harijan v. State of U.P., AIR 2012 ., AIR 2012

SC 1979SC 1979 If the witness exaggerates evidence , it If the witness exaggerates evidence , it

does not make it completely unreliable. does not make it completely unreliable. The Court has to separate The Court has to separate grain from chaff.grain from chaff.

Witnesses just cannot help in giving Witnesses just cannot help in giving embroidery to a story , however, true in embroidery to a story , however, true in the main. It has to be appraised in each the main. It has to be appraised in each case as to what extent the evidence is case as to what extent the evidence is worthy of credence.worthy of credence.

ProofProof Proof of Drunkenness-Proof of Drunkenness- George Kutty v. State of Kerala George Kutty v. State of Kerala ,1992 ,1992

Cr LJ 1663 (Ker)Cr LJ 1663 (Ker) Blood or urine test is not a must for Blood or urine test is not a must for

proving the charge of drunkenness. proving the charge of drunkenness. Drunkenness is a question of fact and Drunkenness is a question of fact and smelling of alcohol, unsteady gait, smelling of alcohol, unsteady gait, dilation of pupils, incoherent speech dilation of pupils, incoherent speech would all be relevant considerations.would all be relevant considerations.

Last Seen TheoryLast Seen Theory State of UP V. Satish State of UP V. Satish 2005 (3) SCC 1142005 (3) SCC 114 The last seen theory comes into play The last seen theory comes into play

where the time-gap between the point of where the time-gap between the point of time when the accused and the deceased time when the accused and the deceased were last seen alive and the deceased is were last seen alive and the deceased is found dead is so small that possibility of found dead is so small that possibility of any person other than the accused being any person other than the accused being the author of the crime becomes the author of the crime becomes impossible. Even in such a case, the impossible. Even in such a case, the Courts should look for corroboration.Courts should look for corroboration.

Standard of Proof in Civil Standard of Proof in Civil and Criminal Casesand Criminal Cases

In Civil cases,mere preponderance In Civil cases,mere preponderance of probabilityof probability

Criminal Proceedings – Much higher Criminal Proceedings – Much higher degree of proof is needed before the degree of proof is needed before the person is convicted.person is convicted.

In Civil cases the burden may lie on In Civil cases the burden may lie on either of the parties.either of the parties.

ProvedProved Sec.3.Proved-A fact is said to be Sec.3.Proved-A fact is said to be

proved when, after considering the proved when, after considering the matter before it, the court either matter before it, the court either believes it to exist , or considers its believes it to exist , or considers its existence so probable that a prudent existence so probable that a prudent man ought , under the man ought , under the circumstances of the particular case, circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it to act upon the supposition that it exists.exists.

ProvedProved Proof- It must mean such evidence as Proof- It must mean such evidence as

would induce a reasonable man to come to would induce a reasonable man to come to the conclusion- the conclusion- Bhano v. Babu Singh,Bhano v. Babu Singh, 1998 1998 Cr LJ 4768(Raj), Facts must be proved by Cr LJ 4768(Raj), Facts must be proved by the best evidence available.the best evidence available.

Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean perfect proof , which may sound mean perfect proof , which may sound artificial.artificial.

Inder Singh v. State(Delhi Admn.,) Inder Singh v. State(Delhi Admn.,) AIR AIR 1978 SC 10911978 SC 1091

Conjecture and SurmiseConjecture and Surmise Circumstantial Evidence-Chain and Circumstantial Evidence-Chain and

ConnectivityConnectivity The court must keep in mind that The court must keep in mind that

there lies a long mental distance there lies a long mental distance between ‘may be true’ and ‘must be between ‘may be true’ and ‘must be true’.true’.

Civil Cases and Criminal CasesCivil Cases and Criminal Cases

Falsus in Uno Falsus in Falsus in Uno Falsus in OmnibusOmnibus

False in one thing, false in everythingFalse in one thing, false in everything It is neither sound rule of law or a rule of It is neither sound rule of law or a rule of

practice.practice. This maxim does not apply to criminal trial This maxim does not apply to criminal trial

because the court has to disengage the truth because the court has to disengage the truth from falsehood.from falsehood.

Hari Chand v. State of DelhiHari Chand v. State of Delhi,AIR 1996 SC ,AIR 1996 SC 1477 1477

It is well settled law that evidence may be It is well settled law that evidence may be accepted partially or in the whole.accepted partially or in the whole.

ProvedProved Letters of married woman to her father Letters of married woman to her father

apprehending danger.apprehending danger. Mass Killing by Mob- Overt act-Participation Mass Killing by Mob- Overt act-Participation

in Crime.in Crime. Rajendra Kumar v. State of UP., 1998 Cr LJ Rajendra Kumar v. State of UP., 1998 Cr LJ

32933293 Medicial opinion about husband conduct Medicial opinion about husband conduct

towards wife dying burns.towards wife dying burns. He tried to hold her by his hands and He tried to hold her by his hands and

prevented her from going out of room.prevented her from going out of room.

Sole WitnessSole Witness A conviction can be based on the single A conviction can be based on the single

testimony of an eye-witness if the witness testimony of an eye-witness if the witness is wholly reliable and his statements is wholly reliable and his statements inspires full confidence.inspires full confidence.

Bachchu v. State of U.PBachchu v. State of U.P., 1999 Cr LJ 1967 ., 1999 Cr LJ 1967 (All).(All).

In a case of bribery , corroboration of the In a case of bribery , corroboration of the evidence of the complainant need not be a evidence of the complainant need not be a direct. It can be by circumstantial direct. It can be by circumstantial evidence also.evidence also.

Mode of Obtaining Mode of Obtaining EvidenceEvidence

Pushpadevi M Jatia v. M L Pushpadevi M Jatia v. M L Wadhawan Wadhawan AIR 1987 SC 1748AIR 1987 SC 1748

Relevant evidence can be taken into Relevant evidence can be taken into account irrespective of the methods account irrespective of the methods by which it was obtained.by which it was obtained.

DNA TestDNA Test

Divorce Divorce AdulteryAdultery Property DisputeProperty Dispute High Court has an inherent power .High Court has an inherent power .

Case LawCase Law Mavada Venkateswara Rao v. Oleti Vana Mavada Venkateswara Rao v. Oleti Vana

LakshmiLakshmi, AIR 2008 AP 195, AIR 2008 AP 195 The property in dispute was the self acquired The property in dispute was the self acquired

property of the mother. The suit for partition property of the mother. The suit for partition was filed by the plaintiff(daughter). The son was filed by the plaintiff(daughter). The son was defendant. He stated that the plaintiff and was defendant. He stated that the plaintiff and her brother were destitute and not born to his her brother were destitute and not born to his mother. As such they had no right of mother. As such they had no right of inheritanceinheritance. The court said that the maternity . The court said that the maternity of the parties was thus disputed. The court of the parties was thus disputed. The court directed both the parties to undergo DNA test.directed both the parties to undergo DNA test.

Contradictory StatementContradictory Statement Murugan v. State Murugan v. State , 1993 Cr LJ 1259, 1993 Cr LJ 1259 Where the statement of an injured eye witness Where the statement of an injured eye witness

before the police and thereafter before the before the police and thereafter before the court were court were contradictorycontradictory, it was held that his , it was held that his testimony was not reliable.testimony was not reliable.

State of Gujarat v. Anirudh Singh State of Gujarat v. Anirudh Singh AIR 1997 SC AIR 1997 SC 27802780

Where the postmortem report was prepared Where the postmortem report was prepared jointly by two doctors , examination of one of jointly by two doctors , examination of one of them who had done them who had done major work major work was held to be was held to be sufficient.sufficient.

Variance between Medical Evidence and Variance between Medical Evidence and Circumstantial EvidenceCircumstantial Evidence

State of Karnataka v. H.Koroji Naik,State of Karnataka v. H.Koroji Naik,1995 Cr 1995 Cr LJ 483 (SC) LJ 483 (SC)

The domestic servant killed three members The domestic servant killed three members of the family , the fourth (the witness) of the family , the fourth (the witness) managed to save herself by locking herself in managed to save herself by locking herself in the bathroom. She heard voices which the bathroom. She heard voices which clinchingly showed the involvement of the clinchingly showed the involvement of the domestic servant. Her evidence , though not domestic servant. Her evidence , though not direct, was that of direct, was that of circumstances surrounding circumstances surrounding the transactionthe transaction. It was relevant and sufficient . It was relevant and sufficient to support conviction.to support conviction.

State of Karnataka v. State of Karnataka v. H.Koroji Naik Naik,H.Koroji Naik Naik,1995 1995

Cr LJ 483 (SC) Cr LJ 483 (SC) Where the doctor conducting Where the doctor conducting

autopsy was not in a position to give autopsy was not in a position to give definite opinion regarding the cause definite opinion regarding the cause of death, it was held that the court of death, it was held that the court could convict the accused on the could convict the accused on the basis of circumstantial evidence.basis of circumstantial evidence.

DisprovedDisproved Sec.3.Disproved: A fact is said to be Sec.3.Disproved: A fact is said to be

disproved when, after considering the matters disproved when, after considering the matters before it, the Court either believes that it before it, the Court either believes that it does does not exist, or considers its non-existencenot exist, or considers its non-existence so so probable that a prudent man ought , under the probable that a prudent man ought , under the circumstances of the particular case, to act circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it does not exist.upon the supposition that it does not exist.

The term ‘not proved’ indicates a state of The term ‘not proved’ indicates a state of mind between two states of mind “proved and mind between two states of mind “proved and disproved” when one is unable to say disproved” when one is unable to say precisely how the matter stands.precisely how the matter stands.

May Presume-Shall May Presume-Shall Presume-Conclusive Presume-Conclusive

ProofProof May PresumeMay Presume-Sec.4. Whenever it is -Sec.4. Whenever it is

provided by this Act that the Court may provided by this Act that the Court may presume a fact , it presume a fact , it maymay either regard such either regard such fact as proved, unless and untill it is fact as proved, unless and untill it is disproved, or may call fordisproved, or may call for

Shall PresumeShall Presume-Sec.4.Whenever it is -Sec.4.Whenever it is directed by this Act that the Court shall directed by this Act that the Court shall presume a fact, it shall regard such fact presume a fact, it shall regard such fact as proved, unless and untill it is as proved, unless and untill it is disproved.disproved.

May Presume-Shall May Presume-Shall Presume-Conclusive Presume-Conclusive

ProofProof Conclusive ProofConclusive Proof-When one fact is declared -When one fact is declared

by this Act to be by this Act to be conclusive proof of anotherconclusive proof of another, , the Court shall, on proof of the one fact, the Court shall, on proof of the one fact, regard the other as proved, and shall not regard the other as proved, and shall not allow evidence to be given for the purpose of allow evidence to be given for the purpose of disproving it.disproving it.

A presumption means a rule of law that A presumption means a rule of law that Courts and Judges shall draw Courts and Judges shall draw a particular a particular inference from a particular factinference from a particular fact, or , or from from particular evidenceparticular evidence, unless and untill the , unless and untill the truth of such inference is disproved.truth of such inference is disproved.

Case LawCase Law Umashanker v. State of ChhatisgarhUmashanker v. State of Chhatisgarh,AIR ,AIR

2001 SC 30742001 SC 3074 It was alleged against an eighteen year old It was alleged against an eighteen year old

student that he had passed a fake not of student that he had passed a fake not of Rs.100 to a shop keeper and 13 more such Rs.100 to a shop keeper and 13 more such notes were recovered from him, it was held by notes were recovered from him, it was held by the Supreme Court that the presumption thus the Supreme Court that the presumption thus created was not sufficient to prove the created was not sufficient to prove the mens mens rea rea requirement under s.489-B ,IPC, that he requirement under s.489-B ,IPC, that he knew or had reason to believe that notes in knew or had reason to believe that notes in question were forged or counterfeit.question were forged or counterfeit.

Nirmal Das Bose v. Mamta GulatiNirmal Das Bose v. Mamta Gulati AIR 1997 All 401AIR 1997 All 401

A marriage certificate issued under A marriage certificate issued under the Special Marriage Act is a the Special Marriage Act is a conclusive evidence of the conclusive evidence of the solemnization of marriage under the solemnization of marriage under the Act and also compliance of formalities Act and also compliance of formalities and signatures of parties and and signatures of parties and witnesses. The genuineness of the witnesses. The genuineness of the compliance procedure is a different compliance procedure is a different question. It remains questionable.question. It remains questionable.

RELEVANCY OF FACTSRELEVANCY OF FACTS From section 5 to 55 deals with relevancy of facts.From section 5 to 55 deals with relevancy of facts. Sec.5.Evidence may be given in any suit or Sec.5.Evidence may be given in any suit or

proceeding of the existence or non-existence of proceeding of the existence or non-existence of every fact in issue and of such other facts as are every fact in issue and of such other facts as are hereinafter declared to be relevant and of no hereinafter declared to be relevant and of no others.others.

Illustrations- A is tried for the murder of B by Illustrations- A is tried for the murder of B by beating him with a club with the intention of beating him with a club with the intention of causing his death-causing his death-

A’s beating B with the club,A’s causing B’s death A’s beating B with the club,A’s causing B’s death by such beating,A’s intention to cause B’s death.by such beating,A’s intention to cause B’s death.

Balaji Gunthu Dhule v. State of Balaji Gunthu Dhule v. State of Maharashtra, (2012) 11 SCC 685Maharashtra, (2012) 11 SCC 685

Where the entire evidence of eyewitnesses Where the entire evidence of eyewitnesses was not accepted by the High Court, it was was not accepted by the High Court, it was held by Supreme Court that the accused held by Supreme Court that the accused cannot be convicted for an offence under cannot be convicted for an offence under s.302 Indian Penal Code merely on the s.302 Indian Penal Code merely on the basis of the post-mortem report. The basis of the post-mortem report. The post-post-mortem report should be in corroboration mortem report should be in corroboration with the evidence of eyewitnesseswith the evidence of eyewitnesses and and cannot be an evidence sufficient to reach cannot be an evidence sufficient to reach the conclusion for convicting the accused. the conclusion for convicting the accused.

Relevancy of Facts Relevancy of Facts forming part of same forming part of same

transactiontransaction Sec.6.Facts which, though not in issue, are Sec.6.Facts which, though not in issue, are

so connected with a fact in issue as to form so connected with a fact in issue as to form part of the same transaction , are relevant , part of the same transaction , are relevant , whether they occurred at the same time whether they occurred at the same time and place or at different times and places.and place or at different times and places.

A is accused of the murder of B by A is accused of the murder of B by beating beating himhim. Whatever was said or done by A or B . Whatever was said or done by A or B or the by-standers at or the by-standers at the beatingthe beating, or so , or so shortly or after it as to form part of the shortly or after it as to form part of the transaction, is a relevant fact.transaction, is a relevant fact.

Relevancy of Facts Relevancy of Facts forming part of same forming part of same

transactiontransaction A is accused of waging war against A is accused of waging war against

the [ Government of India] by taking the [ Government of India] by taking part in an armed insurrection in part in an armed insurrection in which property is destroyed troops which property is destroyed troops are attacked and goals are broken are attacked and goals are broken open. The occurrence of these facts open. The occurrence of these facts is relevant, as forming part of the is relevant, as forming part of the general transaction, though A may general transaction, though A may not have been present at all of them.not have been present at all of them.

Relevancy of Facts Relevancy of Facts forming part of same forming part of same

transactiontransaction A sues B for a A sues B for a libellibel contained in a letter forming contained in a letter forming

part of a correspondence. Letters between the part of a correspondence. Letters between the parties relating to the subject out of which the parties relating to the subject out of which the libel arose, and forming part of the libel arose, and forming part of the correspondence in which it is contained, are correspondence in which it is contained, are relevant facts, though they do not contain the libel relevant facts, though they do not contain the libel itself.itself.

The question is, whether The question is, whether certain goods ordered certain goods ordered from B were delivered to Afrom B were delivered to A. The goods were . The goods were delivered to several intermediate persons delivered to several intermediate persons successively. Each delivery is a relevant fact. successively. Each delivery is a relevant fact.

Relevancy of Facts Relevancy of Facts forming part of same forming part of same

transactiontransaction Res gestae- Res gestae- The Things done(including words The Things done(including words spoken in the course of a transaction) spoken in the course of a transaction)

  But in the nineteenth century, the borrowing of thBut in the nineteenth century, the borrowing of the concept of res gestae from English e concept of res gestae from English Law offerean exception to this rule. Res gestae is bLaw offerean exception to this rule. Res gestae is based on the belief that because certain statements ased on the belief that because certain statements are made naturally, are made naturally, spontaneously, and without deliberation during thespontaneously, and without deliberation during the course of an event, they carry a high degree of  course of an event, they carry a high degree of redibility and leave little redibility and leave little room for misunderstanding or misinterpretation.room for misunderstanding or misinterpretation.

Case LawCase Law Rattan v. ReginamRattan v. Reginam-- which dealt with the admissibility of the which dealt with the admissibility of the

statement of a telephone operator who statement of a telephone operator who received a call from the deceased minutes received a call from the deceased minutes before she was allegedly murdered by her before she was allegedly murdered by her husband. The Council characterised the husband. The Council characterised the statement as original evidence of 'verbal statement as original evidence of 'verbal facts', as opposed to hearsay evidence, as the facts', as opposed to hearsay evidence, as the object of admitting the statement was not to object of admitting the statement was not to establish the truth of the statement made, but establish the truth of the statement made, but merely to establish the fact that it was made. merely to establish the fact that it was made. 

Newspaper ReportNewspaper Report All India Anna Dravida Munnetra All India Anna Dravida Munnetra

Kazhagam v. State Election Kazhagam v. State Election Commission,AIR 2007 NOC 1801 (Mad-Commission,AIR 2007 NOC 1801 (Mad-FB)FB)

A newspaper report can be relied on by A newspaper report can be relied on by the Election Commission while deciding the Election Commission while deciding a petition in connection with repolling. a petition in connection with repolling. In similar circumstances the High Court In similar circumstances the High Court can also rely on newspaper reports.can also rely on newspaper reports.

FACTS-OCCASSION-FACTS-OCCASSION-FACT IN ISSUEFACT IN ISSUE

Sec.7. Facts which are the occasion, Sec.7. Facts which are the occasion, cause or effect of facts in issuecause or effect of facts in issue

Facts which are the occasion, cause, or Facts which are the occasion, cause, or effect, immediately or otherwise, of effect, immediately or otherwise, of relevant facts, or facts in issue, or which relevant facts, or facts in issue, or which constitute the state of things under constitute the state of things under which they happened, or which afforded which they happened, or which afforded an opportunity for their occurrence or an opportunity for their occurrence or transaction, are relevant.transaction, are relevant.

IllustrationsIllustrations The question is, whether A robbed B.The question is, whether A robbed B.   The facts that, shortly before the robbery, B The facts that, shortly before the robbery, B

went to a fair with money in his possession, went to a fair with money in his possession, and that and that he showed it or mentioned he showed it or mentioned the fact the fact that he had it, to third persons, are relevant.that he had it, to third persons, are relevant.

  The question is whether A Poisoned B.The question is whether A Poisoned B.   The state of B’s health before the symptoms The state of B’s health before the symptoms

ascribed to poison, and ascribed to poison, and habits of B, known to habits of B, known to A, which afforded an opportunity for the A, which afforded an opportunity for the administration of poison, are relevant facts.administration of poison, are relevant facts.

Annasuyamma v. State of Annasuyamma v. State of Karnataka , 2002 Cr LJ 4401 Karnataka , 2002 Cr LJ 4401

(Kant)(Kant) Property recovered from accused by Property recovered from accused by

the deceased, murder of the the deceased, murder of the deceased. The court said that unless deceased. The court said that unless it could be conclusively established it could be conclusively established that the property was with the that the property was with the deceased at the time of the offence , deceased at the time of the offence , the question of property would not the question of property would not be good enough to establish nexus be good enough to establish nexus with the murder.with the murder.

Motive -PreparationMotive -Preparation 8. Motive, preparation and previous or subsequent 8. Motive, preparation and previous or subsequent

conductconduct Any fact is relevant which shows or constitutes a Any fact is relevant which shows or constitutes a

motive or preparation for any fact in issue or relevant motive or preparation for any fact in issue or relevant fact.fact.

  The conduct of any party, or of any agent to any party, The conduct of any party, or of any agent to any party, to any suit or proceeding, in reference to such suit or to any suit or proceeding, in reference to such suit or proceeding, or in reference to any fact in issue therein proceeding, or in reference to any fact in issue therein or relevant thereto, and the conduct of any person an or relevant thereto, and the conduct of any person an offence against whom is subject of any proceeding, is offence against whom is subject of any proceeding, is relevant, if such conduct influences or is influenced by relevant, if such conduct influences or is influenced by any fact ins issue or relevant fact, and whether it was any fact ins issue or relevant fact, and whether it was previous or subsequent thereto.previous or subsequent thereto.

IllustrationsIllustrations (a) A is tried for the murder of B.(a) A is tried for the murder of B. The facts that A murdered C, that B knew that A The facts that A murdered C, that B knew that A

had murdered C, and B had tried to had extort had murdered C, and B had tried to had extort money from A by threatening to make his money from A by threatening to make his knowledge public, are relevant.knowledge public, are relevant.

  (b) A sues B upon a bond for the payment of (b) A sues B upon a bond for the payment of money. B denies the making of the bond.money. B denies the making of the bond.

the fact that, at the time when the bound was the fact that, at the time when the bound was alleged to be made, B required money for a alleged to be made, B required money for a particular purpose, is relevant.particular purpose, is relevant.

  

Illustrations Illustrations (c) A is tried for the murder of B by poison.(c) A is tried for the murder of B by poison.   The fact that, before the death of B, A procured The fact that, before the death of B, A procured

poison similar to that which was administered to B, poison similar to that which was administered to B, is relevant.is relevant.

  (d) The question is, whether a certain document is (d) The question is, whether a certain document is the will of A. the will of A. 

The facts that, not long before the date of the The facts that, not long before the date of the alleged will, A made inquiry into matters to which alleged will, A made inquiry into matters to which the provisions of the alleged will relate that the the provisions of the alleged will relate that the consulted vakils in reference to making the will, and consulted vakils in reference to making the will, and that he caused drafts or other wills to be prepared that he caused drafts or other wills to be prepared of which he did not approve, are relevant.of which he did not approve, are relevant.

IllustrationsIllustrations (e) A is accused of a crime.(e) A is accused of a crime.   The facts that, after the commission The facts that, after the commission

of the alleged crime, he absconded, of the alleged crime, he absconded, or was in possession of property of or was in possession of property of the proceeds of property acquired by the proceeds of property acquired by the crime, or attempted to conceal the crime, or attempted to conceal things which were or might have things which were or might have been used in committing if, are been used in committing if, are relevant.relevant.

Chhotka v. State of W.B., AIR 1958 Chhotka v. State of W.B., AIR 1958 Cal 482Cal 482

Previous threats, previous altercations, or Previous threats, previous altercations, or previous litigations between parties are previous litigations between parties are admitted to show motive.admitted to show motive.

Sarojini v. State of M.P Sarojini v. State of M.P 1993 AIR SCW 8171993 AIR SCW 817 It was held that pre-marital demand of It was held that pre-marital demand of

dowry and its non-compliance are relevant dowry and its non-compliance are relevant facts to establish motive. In a bride facts to establish motive. In a bride burning case , the parents of the deceased burning case , the parents of the deceased did not agree to transfer and register the did not agree to transfer and register the land in the name of their son-in-law.land in the name of their son-in-law.

Distinction between Admissibility and Distinction between Admissibility and RelevancyRelevancyAdmissibility Relevancy

Admissibility is not based on logic but on strict rules of law

Relevancy is based on logic and probability

The rules of admissibility are prescribed after section 56 of Evidence Act,1872

The rules of relevancy are described under Sections 5-55

The admissibility declares whether certain type of relevant evidence are admissible

The rules of relevancy declares what is relevant

Modes of admissibility of relevant evidence

Under Evidence Act the rules of relevancy means relevant evidence. They may be admissible or not

The facts which are admissible are necessarily relevant

The facts which are relevant are not necessarily admissible

RelevancyRelevancy Sec.9.Facts necessary to explain or introduce Sec.9.Facts necessary to explain or introduce

relevant facts. relevant facts. Facts necessary to explain or introduce a fact in Facts necessary to explain or introduce a fact in

issue or relevant fact, or which support or rebut issue or relevant fact, or which support or rebut an inference suggested by a fact in issue or an inference suggested by a fact in issue or relevant fact, or which establish the identity of any relevant fact, or which establish the identity of any thing or person whose identity is relevant, or fix thing or person whose identity is relevant, or fix the time or place at which any fact in issue or the time or place at which any fact in issue or relevant fact happened, or which show the relevant fact happened, or which show the relation of parties by whom any such fact was relation of parties by whom any such fact was transacted, are relevant in so far as they are transacted, are relevant in so far as they are necessary for that purpose.necessary for that purpose.

IllustrationsIllustrations The question is, whether a given document is The question is, whether a given document is

the will of A.the will of A. The state of A’s property and of his family at the The state of A’s property and of his family at the

date of the alleged will may be relevant facts.date of the alleged will may be relevant facts. (b) A sues B for a libel imputing disgraceful (b) A sues B for a libel imputing disgraceful

conduct to A;B affirms that the matter alleged to conduct to A;B affirms that the matter alleged to be libelous is true.be libelous is true.

The position and relations of the parties at the The position and relations of the parties at the time when the libel was published may be time when the libel was published may be relevant facts as introductory to the facts in relevant facts as introductory to the facts in issueissue

Case LawsCase Laws Noor Mohammad v. Emperor Noor Mohammad v. Emperor AIR 1944 Sind AIR 1944 Sind

9393 Noor Mohammad was tried for abducting Noor Mohammad was tried for abducting

Mst.Saidan. Once during the investigation Mst.Saidan. Once during the investigation Mst.Saidan was being taken to the police Mst.Saidan was being taken to the police station. Noor Mohammad was loitering in the station. Noor Mohammad was loitering in the way. On Seeing Noor Mohammad,Mst.Saidan way. On Seeing Noor Mohammad,Mst.Saidan once cried out to her brother Kasim that this once cried out to her brother Kasim that this man was one of her abductor.kasim tole man was one of her abductor.kasim tole headconstable who was with them and the headconstable who was with them and the head constable forthwith arrested him.head constable forthwith arrested him.

Rahan Lalu v. Emperor Rahan Lalu v. Emperor AIR 1938 Sind.97.AIR 1938 Sind.97.

The prosecution case was that Rahan The prosecution case was that Rahan Lalu killed his wife on one morning Lalu killed his wife on one morning with an axe. Their son a child of 5 with an axe. Their son a child of 5 years was beside them. He made a years was beside them. He made a cry and his cry attracted the cry and his cry attracted the witnesses who found Rahan with an witnesses who found Rahan with an axe in his hand and his deceased wife axe in his hand and his deceased wife near him.near him.

Test of Identification Test of Identification ParadeParade

The identification of the accused The identification of the accused either in test identification parade or either in test identification parade or in the Court is not a sine qua non in in the Court is not a sine qua non in every case if from the circumstances every case if from the circumstances the quilt is otherwise established. the quilt is otherwise established.

Many a times crimes are committed Many a times crimes are committed under the cover of darkness when under the cover of darkness when none is able to identify the accused.none is able to identify the accused.

Test of Identification Test of Identification ParadeParade

Mulla v. State of UP Mulla v. State of UP (2010) 3 SCC 508(2010) 3 SCC 508 “ “The identification parades are not primarily The identification parades are not primarily

meant for the court. They are meant for meant for the court. They are meant for investigation purpose”.investigation purpose”.

There are two purposes namely-Enable There are two purposes namely-Enable witnesses to satisfy themselves that the witnesses to satisfy themselves that the accused whom they suspect is really one who accused whom they suspect is really one who was seen by them in connection with the was seen by them in connection with the commission of crime. commission of crime.

Investigation authority-Suspect is a real Investigation authority-Suspect is a real person.person.

Test of Identification Test of Identification ParadeParade

Rajesh Govind Jagesha v. State of Rajesh Govind Jagesha v. State of Maharashtra , AIR 2000 SC 160: Maharashtra , AIR 2000 SC 160: 2000 Cr LJ 380 (SC).2000 Cr LJ 380 (SC).

If the test identification parade If the test identification parade regarding accused was not regarding accused was not conducted properly and suffered conducted properly and suffered from unexplained delay, he is from unexplained delay, he is entitled to benefit of doubt.entitled to benefit of doubt.

Test of Identification Test of Identification ParadeParade

Mullagiri Vajiram v. State of Andhra Mullagiri Vajiram v. State of Andhra PradeshPradesh,AIR 1993 SC 1243.,AIR 1993 SC 1243.

When conviction was based on When conviction was based on evidence of eye witness and not on evidence of eye witness and not on identification parade it cannot be set identification parade it cannot be set aside on ground that identification aside on ground that identification was not reliable.was not reliable.

Test of Identification Test of Identification ParadeParade

Raj Nath v . State of Uttar Raj Nath v . State of Uttar PradeshPradesh,,  1988 Cr LJ 422: AIR 1988 1988 Cr LJ 422: AIR 1988 SC 345.SC 345.

If there is unexplained and If there is unexplained and unreasonable delay in putting up the unreasonable delay in putting up the accused persons for a test accused persons for a test identification the delay by itself identification the delay by itself detracts from the credibility of the detracts from the credibility of the test.test.

Role of ConspiratorRole of Conspirator Sec.Sec.10. Things said or done by conspirator in 10. Things said or done by conspirator in

reference to common designreference to common design Where there is reasonable ground to believe that Where there is reasonable ground to believe that two or two or

more persons have conspired together to commit an more persons have conspired together to commit an offence or an actionable wrong, anything said, done or offence or an actionable wrong, anything said, done or written by any one of such personswritten by any one of such persons  in reference to their   in reference to their common intention, after the time when such intention common intention, after the time when such intention was first entertained by any one of them, is a relevant was first entertained by any one of them, is a relevant fact as against each of the persons believed to be so fact as against each of the persons believed to be so conspiring, as well for the purpose of proving the conspiring, as well for the purpose of proving the existence of the conspiracy as for the purpose of existence of the conspiracy as for the purpose of showing that any such person was a party to it.showing that any such person was a party to it.

Procured arms in Europe.Procured arms in Europe.

Case LawCase Law State of Maharashtra v. Damu Gopinath State of Maharashtra v. Damu Gopinath

Shinde Shinde AIR 2000 SC 1691AIR 2000 SC 1691 There was no doubt that there was There was no doubt that there was

reasonable ground to believe that four of reasonable ground to believe that four of the accused conspirators had conspired to the accused conspirators had conspired to commit the offence of abduction and commit the offence of abduction and murder of children involved in the case.murder of children involved in the case.

Accused had spoken to each other in Accused had spoken to each other in reference to common intention. reference to common intention.

Case LawCase Law Bhagwandas v. State of RajasthanBhagwandas v. State of Rajasthan, ,

AIR 1974 SC 878.AIR 1974 SC 878. Anything written by a conspirator Anything written by a conspirator

will not be admissible against him or will not be admissible against him or others if it is not done in reference others if it is not done in reference to the common intention of the to the common intention of the conspiracy.conspiracy.

Section.11. When facts not otherwise relevant Section.11. When facts not otherwise relevant become relevant.become relevant.

Facts not otherwise relevant are relevant-Facts not otherwise relevant are relevant-   (1) If they are inconsistent with any fact is issue or (1) If they are inconsistent with any fact is issue or

relevant fact; (2) If by themselves or in connection relevant fact; (2) If by themselves or in connection with other facts they make the existence or non-with other facts they make the existence or non-existence of any fact in issue or relevant fact highly existence of any fact in issue or relevant fact highly probable or improbableprobable or improbable

Illustration Illustration  (a) The question is, whether A committed a crime at (a) The question is, whether A committed a crime at

Calcutta on a certain day. The fact that, on that day, Calcutta on a certain day. The fact that, on that day, A was at Lahore is relevant.A was at Lahore is relevant.

AlibiAlibi The plea of absence of a person ,charged with The plea of absence of a person ,charged with

an offence, from the place of occurrence at the an offence, from the place of occurrence at the time of the commission of the offence is called time of the commission of the offence is called the plea of alibi.the plea of alibi.

Rajindra Singh v. State of U.P., Rajindra Singh v. State of U.P., AIR 2007 SC at AIR 2007 SC at p.2791.p.2791.

No finding of plea of alibi can be recorded by No finding of plea of alibi can be recorded by the High Court for the first time in a petition the High Court for the first time in a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Sec.161 of Cr.P.C. Statement recorded-In Sec.161 of Cr.P.C. Statement recorded-In admissible.admissible.

Case LawCase Law Binay Kumar and Other v. State of Bihar Binay Kumar and Other v. State of Bihar

AIR 1997 SC 321AIR 1997 SC 321 It was held by Supreme Court that, it is It was held by Supreme Court that, it is

basic law in the criminal case in which the basic law in the criminal case in which the accused is alleged to have inflicted accused is alleged to have inflicted physical injury to another person , the physical injury to another person , the burden is on prosecution to prove that the burden is on prosecution to prove that the accused was present at the scene and has accused was present at the scene and has participated in the crime.participated in the crime.

Encounter CasesEncounter Cases

Suit for DamagesSuit for Damages Sec. Sec. 12. In suits for damages, facts tending to 12. In suits for damages, facts tending to enable Court to determine amount are relevantenable Court to determine amount are relevant

In suits in which damages are claimed, any fact In suits in which damages are claimed, any fact which will enable the Court to determine the amount which will enable the Court to determine the amount of damages which ought to be awarded, is relevant.of damages which ought to be awarded, is relevant.

Contract or tort- In an action for libel,the other Contract or tort- In an action for libel,the other defamatory statements by the defendant , whether defamatory statements by the defendant , whether made before or after the commencement of the suit, made before or after the commencement of the suit, are admissible for the plaintiff so as to enhance the are admissible for the plaintiff so as to enhance the damages.damages.

FACTS-CUSTOMFACTS-CUSTOM Sec.13-Facts relevant when right or custom is in Sec.13-Facts relevant when right or custom is in

question.question. Where the question is as to the existence of any Where the question is as to the existence of any

right or custom, the following facts are relevant.right or custom, the following facts are relevant.   (a) Any transaction by which the right or custom in (a) Any transaction by which the right or custom in

question was created, claimed, modified, question was created, claimed, modified, recognized, asserted, or denied, or which was recognized, asserted, or denied, or which was inconsistent with its existence;inconsistent with its existence;

  (b) Particular instances in which the right or (b) Particular instances in which the right or custom was claimed, recognized, or exercised, or in custom was claimed, recognized, or exercised, or in which its exercise was disputed, asserted or which its exercise was disputed, asserted or departed from.departed from.

IllustrationsIllustrations IllustrationIllustration   The question is, whether A has a right to a The question is, whether A has a right to a

fishery.fishery. A deed conferring the fishery on A’s A deed conferring the fishery on A’s ancestors, a mortgage of the fishery by A’s ancestors, a mortgage of the fishery by A’s father, a subsequent grant of the fishery by A’s father, a subsequent grant of the fishery by A’s father, irreconcilable with the mortgage, father, irreconcilable with the mortgage, instances in which A’s father exercised the instances in which A’s father exercised the right, or in which the exercise of the right was right, or in which the exercise of the right was stopped by A’s neighbors, are relevant facts.stopped by A’s neighbors, are relevant facts.

CustomCustom Subramanian Chettiar v.Kamnappa Subramanian Chettiar v.Kamnappa

ChettiarChettiar,AIR 1955 Mad.145.,AIR 1955 Mad.145. A custom is a particular rule which has existed A custom is a particular rule which has existed

from the time immemorial and has obtained from the time immemorial and has obtained the force of law in a particular locality.the force of law in a particular locality.

Valid Custom-immemorial-reasonable-Without Valid Custom-immemorial-reasonable-Without any interruption-any interruption-

Private Custom-General Custom-Local CustomPrivate Custom-General Custom-Local CustomCaste or Class CustomCaste or Class Custom

Person State of MindPerson State of Mind Sec.14. Facts showing existence of state Sec.14. Facts showing existence of state

of mind, or of body or bodily feelingof mind, or of body or bodily feeling Facts showing the existence of any state of Facts showing the existence of any state of

mind, such as intention, knowledge, good mind, such as intention, knowledge, good faith, negligence, rashness, Ill will or good-faith, negligence, rashness, Ill will or good-will towards any particular person, or will towards any particular person, or showing the existence of any state of body or showing the existence of any state of body or bodily feeling, are relevant, when the bodily feeling, are relevant, when the existence of any such state of mind or body existence of any such state of mind or body or bodily feeling, is in issue or relevant.or bodily feeling, is in issue or relevant.

IllustrationsIllustrations (a) A is accused of receiving stolen (a) A is accused of receiving stolen

goods knowing them to be stolen, It is goods knowing them to be stolen, It is proved that he was in possession of a proved that he was in possession of a particular stolen article. particular stolen article. 

The fact that at the same time, he was in The fact that at the same time, he was in possession of many other stolen articles possession of many other stolen articles is relevant, as tending to show that he is relevant, as tending to show that he knew each and all of the articles off knew each and all of the articles off which he was in possession to be stolen.which he was in possession to be stolen.

IllustrationsIllustrations (b) A is accused of (b) A is accused of fraudulently delivering to fraudulently delivering to

another person another person a counterfeit coin which, at a counterfeit coin which, at the time when he delivered it, he know to be the time when he delivered it, he know to be counterfeit.counterfeit.

The fact that, at the time of its delivery, A The fact that, at the time of its delivery, A was possessed of a number of other pieces of was possessed of a number of other pieces of counterfeit is relevant. The fact that A had counterfeit is relevant. The fact that A had been previously convicted of delivering to been previously convicted of delivering to another person as genuine a counterfeit coin another person as genuine a counterfeit coin knowing it to be counterfeit is relevant.knowing it to be counterfeit is relevant.

Accidental or IntentionalAccidental or Intentional Sec. Sec. 15. Facts bearing on question 15. Facts bearing on question

whether act was accidental or whether act was accidental or intentionalintentional

When there is a question whether an act When there is a question whether an act was accidental or intentional,  or done was accidental or intentional,  or done with a particular knowledge or intention, with a particular knowledge or intention, the fact that such act formed part of a the fact that such act formed part of a series of similar occurrences,series of similar occurrences, in each of in each of which the person doing the act was which the person doing the act was concerned, is relevant.concerned, is relevant.

Accidental or IntentionalAccidental or Intentional (a) A is accused of (a) A is accused of burning down burning down his his

house in order to obtain money for which house in order to obtain money for which it is insured.it is insured.

  The facts that a lived in several houses The facts that a lived in several houses successively, each of which he insured, in successively, each of which he insured, in each of which a fire occurred, and after each of which a fire occurred, and after each of which fires. A received payment each of which fires. A received payment from a different insurance office, are from a different insurance office, are relevant, as tending to show that the fires relevant, as tending to show that the fires were not accidental.were not accidental.

Accidental or IntentionalAccidental or Intentional A is employed to receive money from the A is employed to receive money from the

debtors, of B. It is A’s duty to make entries in a debtors, of B. It is A’s duty to make entries in a book showing the amounts received by him. He book showing the amounts received by him. He makes an entry showing that on a particular makes an entry showing that on a particular occasion he received less than he really did occasion he received less than he really did receive.receive.

  The question is, whether this false entry was The question is, whether this false entry was accidental or intentional.accidental or intentional.

  The facts that other entries made by A in the The facts that other entries made by A in the same book are false, same book are false, and that the false entry is and that the false entry is in each case in favor of A, relevant.in each case in favor of A, relevant.

Moti Lal Roy v. Panch Bihi Industrial Moti Lal Roy v. Panch Bihi Industrial Bank Ltd., AIR 1946 Cal . 440Bank Ltd., AIR 1946 Cal . 440

The accused who was entrusted with The accused who was entrusted with collection collection of money from the debtors of a bank of money from the debtors of a bank ,collected a ,collected a certain amount from a debtor and did not credit certain amount from a debtor and did not credit it in the cash book of the bank. To Charge under it in the cash book of the bank. To Charge under section 408,IPC,his defence was that there was section 408,IPC,his defence was that there was no misappropriation but owing to no misappropriation but owing to pressure of pressure of workwork he forgot to credit the amount in the cash he forgot to credit the amount in the cash book. To prove dishonest intention on his part book. To prove dishonest intention on his part evidence was led in of another instance of a evidence was led in of another instance of a similar omission by him to credit an amount similar omission by him to credit an amount collected from another debtor.collected from another debtor.

Existence of Course of Existence of Course of BusinessBusiness

Sec.1Sec.16. Existence of course of business when 6. Existence of course of business when relevant-relevant-When there is a question whether a When there is a question whether a particular act was done, the existence of any particular act was done, the existence of any course of business, according to which it naturally course of business, according to which it naturally would have been done, is a relevant fact. would have been done, is a relevant fact.

(a) The question is, whether a (a) The question is, whether a particular letter particular letter was dispatched.was dispatched.

  The facts that it was the ordinary course of The facts that it was the ordinary course of business for all letters put in a certain place to be business for all letters put in a certain place to be carried to the post, and that that particular letter carried to the post, and that that particular letter was put in that place are relevant.was put in that place are relevant.

Budha v. Bedariya AIR 1981 MP 76Budha v. Bedariya AIR 1981 MP 76

A person refusing a registered A person refusing a registered letter sent by post cannot afterwards letter sent by post cannot afterwards plead ignorance of its contents. plead ignorance of its contents. Similarly, if a letter is put into post Similarly, if a letter is put into post office , that is prima facie evidence , office , that is prima facie evidence , till rebutted, that the addressee till rebutted, that the addressee received it in due course.received it in due course.

Dr.Kripa Ram Mathur v. Dr.Kripa Ram Mathur v. State of UP AIR 2001 SC State of UP AIR 2001 SC

30713071 The procedure adopted by selection committee The procedure adopted by selection committee

showed that the selection was made on merit and showed that the selection was made on merit and ranking to selected candidates was given ranking to selected candidates was given accordingly. Merely because, the state failed to accordingly. Merely because, the state failed to produce marks obtained by each candidate at produce marks obtained by each candidate at such a belated stage, it could not be said that such a belated stage, it could not be said that selection process was not based on comparative selection process was not based on comparative merit of candidates appearing before Selection merit of candidates appearing before Selection Committee. Appellant challenged the merit list Committee. Appellant challenged the merit list after success it was held by Supreme Court that after success it was held by Supreme Court that the the presumption of genuineness of official would presumption of genuineness of official would also apply. also apply.

R v. Ewing (1983) 2 All R v. Ewing (1983) 2 All ER 645ER 645

The accused was charged with The accused was charged with forgeryforgery. . One of the issues was whether he had One of the issues was whether he had drawn a certain sum of money from his drawn a certain sum of money from his bank account. For proving this, the bank account. For proving this, the prosecution adduced a computer print-prosecution adduced a computer print-out showing the state of the accused ‘s out showing the state of the accused ‘s bank account. It was held that the print-bank account. It was held that the print-out was relevant because it was a out was relevant because it was a document which was or formed part of a document which was or formed part of a record relating to any trade or business.record relating to any trade or business.

AdmissionAdmission Sec.Sec.17. Admission defined17. Admission defined An admission is a statement, [oral or An admission is a statement, [oral or

documentary or contained in documentary or contained in electronic form], which suggests any electronic form], which suggests any inference as to any fact in issue or inference as to any fact in issue or relevant fact, and which is made by relevant fact, and which is made by any of the persons, and under the any of the persons, and under the circumstances, hereinafter mentioned.circumstances, hereinafter mentioned.

AdmissionAdmission Very Important role in Judicial ProceedingsVery Important role in Judicial Proceedings Sec. Sec. 18. Admission- by party to proceeding or 18. Admission- by party to proceeding or

his agenthis agent Statements made by party to the proceeding, or by Statements made by party to the proceeding, or by

an agent to any such party, whom the Court an agent to any such party, whom the Court regards, under the circumstances of the case, as regards, under the circumstances of the case, as expressly or impliedly authorized by him to make expressly or impliedly authorized by him to make them, are admissions. By suitor in representative them, are admissions. By suitor in representative character — Statements made by parties to suits, character — Statements made by parties to suits, suing or sued in a representative character, are not suing or sued in a representative character, are not admissions, unless they are made while the party admissions, unless they are made while the party making them held that character.making them held that character.

AdmissionAdmission Sec.1Sec.19. Admissions by persons whose 9. Admissions by persons whose

position must be proved as against party to position must be proved as against party to suitsuit

Statements made by persons whose position or Statements made by persons whose position or liability it is necessary to prove as against any liability it is necessary to prove as against any party to the suit are admissions, if such party to the suit are admissions, if such statements would be relevant as against such statements would be relevant as against such persons in relation to such position or liability in persons in relation to such position or liability in a suit brought by or against them, and if they are a suit brought by or against them, and if they are made whilst the person making them occupies made whilst the person making them occupies such position or is subject to such liability.such position or is subject to such liability.

IllustrationsIllustrations A undertakes to collect rents for B.A undertakes to collect rents for B. B sues A for not collecting rent due from C B sues A for not collecting rent due from C

to B.to B. A denies that rent was due from C to B.A denies that rent was due from C to B. A statement by C that he owned B rent is an A statement by C that he owned B rent is an

admission, and is a relevant fact as against admission, and is a relevant fact as against A, if A denies that C did owe rent to B.A, if A denies that C did owe rent to B.

AdmissionAdmission Sec. Sec. 20. Admissions by persons expressly 20. Admissions by persons expressly

referred to by party to suitreferred to by party to suit Statements made by persons to whom party to Statements made by persons to whom party to

the suit has expressly referred for information in the suit has expressly referred for information in reference to a matter in dispute are admissions.reference to a matter in dispute are admissions.

IllustrationIllustration The question is, whether a horse sold by A to B is The question is, whether a horse sold by A to B is

sound.sound. A says to B- " Go and ask C, knows all about it" A says to B- " Go and ask C, knows all about it"

C’s statement is an admission.C’s statement is an admission.

AdmissionAdmission Kedar Nath Bejoria v. State of West Kedar Nath Bejoria v. State of West

BengalBengal,AIR 1954 SC 660,AIR 1954 SC 660 The rules of admissibility are the same The rules of admissibility are the same

for the trial of civil and criminal cases. for the trial of civil and criminal cases. Whatever the agent does, within the Whatever the agent does, within the scope of the authority binds his scope of the authority binds his principle and is deemed his act.principle and is deemed his act.

Relation of master and servant Relation of master and servant relationship must be strictly proved.relationship must be strictly proved.

AdmissionAdmission Venkata v. Bhashya Venkata v. Bhashya 22 Mad.55322 Mad.553 Admissions by Pleaders,attorneys Admissions by Pleaders,attorneys

abd counsels in civil cases.abd counsels in civil cases. Krishna Swami v. Rajya Pal,Krishna Swami v. Rajya Pal,18 Mad 18 Mad

7373 An admission of law,where it is An admission of law,where it is

erroneous, by the vakil is not erroneous, by the vakil is not binding on the client.binding on the client.

Ram Sahai and Others v. Jai Ram Sahai and Others v. Jai Prakash and others AIR 1973 MP Prakash and others AIR 1973 MP

147.147.

A person who had the power of A person who had the power of attorney for the tenant accepted the attorney for the tenant accepted the arrears of rent. This acceptance was arrears of rent. This acceptance was made binding upon tenant because made binding upon tenant because this was the statement of person this was the statement of person referred by plaintiff.referred by plaintiff.

Admission-Substantive Admission-Substantive EvidenceEvidence Vishwanath Prasad v. Dwarka PrasadVishwanath Prasad v. Dwarka Prasad,AIR ,AIR

1974 SC 1171974 SC 117 Where in a civil suit a party produces documents Where in a civil suit a party produces documents

containing admissions by his opponent , which containing admissions by his opponent , which documents are admitted by the opponent’s counsel documents are admitted by the opponent’s counsel and the opponents enters the witness box it is not and the opponents enters the witness box it is not obligatory on the party producing those documents obligatory on the party producing those documents to draw in cross-examination the attention of the to draw in cross-examination the attention of the opponent to the said admission ,before he be opponent to the said admission ,before he be permitted to use them for the purpose of permitted to use them for the purpose of contradictiong the opponentcontradictiong the opponent

Clear and unambiguous.Clear and unambiguous.

AdmissionAdmission Sec. Sec. 21. Proof of admissions against 21. Proof of admissions against

persons making them, and by or on persons making them, and by or on their behalftheir behalf

Admissions are relevant and may be Admissions are relevant and may be proved as against the person who makes proved as against the person who makes them, or his representative in interest; them, or his representative in interest; but they cannot be proved by or on but they cannot be proved by or on behalf of the person who makes them or behalf of the person who makes them or by his representative in interest.by his representative in interest.

IllustrationsIllustrations A is accused of receiving stolen A is accused of receiving stolen

goods knowing them to be stolen.goods knowing them to be stolen.   He offers to prove that he refused to He offers to prove that he refused to

sell them below their value. A may sell them below their value. A may prove these statements, though they prove these statements, though they are admissions, because they are are admissions, because they are explanatory of conduct influenced by explanatory of conduct influenced by facts in issue.facts in issue.

IllustrationsIllustrations The question between A and B is, whether The question between A and B is, whether

a certain deed is or not forged. A affirms a certain deed is or not forged. A affirms that it is genuine, B that it is forged. that it is genuine, B that it is forged. 

A may prove a statement by B that the A may prove a statement by B that the deed is genuine, and B may prove a deed is genuine, and B may prove a statement by A that the deed is forged ; statement by A that the deed is forged ; but A cannot prove a statement y himself but A cannot prove a statement y himself that the deed is genuine, nor can B prove that the deed is genuine, nor can B prove a statement by himself that the deed is a statement by himself that the deed is forged.forged.

AdmissionAdmission

Shri Krishna v. Kurkshetra Shri Krishna v. Kurkshetra University University AIR 1975 SC 376.AIR 1975 SC 376.

Any admission made in ignorance of Any admission made in ignorance of law or under duress cannot bind the law or under duress cannot bind the maker of the admissionmaker of the admission

AdmissionAdmission Sec.Sec.22. When oral admissions as to 22. When oral admissions as to

contents of documents are relevantcontents of documents are relevant Oral admissions as to the contents of a Oral admissions as to the contents of a

documents are not relevant, unless and documents are not relevant, unless and until the party proposing to prove them until the party proposing to prove them shows that shows that he is entitled to give he is entitled to give secondary evidence of the contents of secondary evidence of the contents of such documentsuch document under the rules herein under the rules herein after contained, or unless the geniuses of after contained, or unless the geniuses of a document produced is in questiona document produced is in question

AdmissionAdmission A executed a deed of mortgage in favour of A executed a deed of mortgage in favour of

B. B files a suit for possession of the property B. B files a suit for possession of the property mortgaged on the basis of that mortgage. mortgaged on the basis of that mortgage. During the trial A denied the execution of the During the trial A denied the execution of the mortgage. Now in this case B cannot prove by mortgage. Now in this case B cannot prove by oral evidence that he had before some oral evidence that he had before some persons admitted that he had mortgaged the persons admitted that he had mortgaged the property to him. B can prove the execution of property to him. B can prove the execution of the mortgage and can get possession of the the mortgage and can get possession of the property only when he files that deed of property only when he files that deed of mortgage in the court and proves it.mortgage in the court and proves it.

AdmissionAdmission

Sec. Sec. 22A. When oral admission as 22A. When oral admission as to contents of electronic records to contents of electronic records are relevantare relevant

Oral admissions as to the contents of Oral admissions as to the contents of electronic records are not relevant, electronic records are not relevant, unless the genuineness of the unless the genuineness of the electronic record produced is in electronic record produced is in question.question.

AdmissionAdmission Sec. Sec. 23. Admission in civil cases relevant23. Admission in civil cases relevant In civil cases no admission is relevant, if it is made In civil cases no admission is relevant, if it is made

either upon an express condition that evidence of it either upon an express condition that evidence of it is not to be given, or under circumstances from is not to be given, or under circumstances from which the Court can infer that the parties agreed which the Court can infer that the parties agreed together that evidence of it should both be given.together that evidence of it should both be given.

Explanation – Nothing in this section shall be taken Explanation – Nothing in this section shall be taken to exempt any barrister, pleader attorney or vakil to exempt any barrister, pleader attorney or vakil from giving evidence of any matter of which he may from giving evidence of any matter of which he may be compelled to give evidence under section 126.be compelled to give evidence under section 126.

Party in compromise and peace.Party in compromise and peace.

AdmissionAdmission Shiv Ram v. Sh Charn Shiv Ram v. Sh Charn AIR 1963 Raj.126.AIR 1963 Raj.126. An admission must be used either as a An admission must be used either as a

whole or not at all. An admission made whole or not at all. An admission made by a person cannot be split up and part by a person cannot be split up and part of it used against him. It must be of it used against him. It must be accepted as whole. But if there is other accepted as whole. But if there is other evidence which disproves a part of evidence which disproves a part of admission, the other part may be relied admission, the other part may be relied upon.upon.

ConfessionConfession The word confession has not been defined in The word confession has not been defined in

the Indian Evidence Act.the Indian Evidence Act. Mr.Justice Stephen quoted that : Confession is Mr.Justice Stephen quoted that : Confession is

an admission made at any time by a person an admission made at any time by a person charged with a crime stating or suggesting the charged with a crime stating or suggesting the inference that he committed that crime.inference that he committed that crime.

Francis Stanly v. Intelligence Officer,Narcotic Francis Stanly v. Intelligence Officer,Narcotic Control Bureau,ThirivanathapuramControl Bureau,Thirivanathapuram,AIR 2007 SC ,AIR 2007 SC 794 at p.796.794 at p.796.

A confession which is voluntary and free from A confession which is voluntary and free from any pressure can be accepted.any pressure can be accepted.

Mohammad Ajmal Mohammad Kasab Mohammad Ajmal Mohammad Kasab alias Abu Mujahid v. State of alias Abu Mujahid v. State of

Maharashtra AIR 2012 SC 3565Maharashtra AIR 2012 SC 3565 The question was whether the appellant who The question was whether the appellant who

was a pakistani national and was caught alive in was a pakistani national and was caught alive in Bombay Terror attack and was charged with Bombay Terror attack and was charged with serious crimes including collecting arms with serious crimes including collecting arms with the intention of waging war against Government the intention of waging war against Government of India,commission of terrorists act,criminal of India,commission of terrorists act,criminal conspiracy to commit murder,robbery/dacoity conspiracy to commit murder,robbery/dacoity with an attempt to cause death or grievous hurt with an attempt to cause death or grievous hurt and causing explosions punishable under the and causing explosions punishable under the Explosives Substances Act,1908 had made the Explosives Substances Act,1908 had made the confession voluntarily.confession voluntarily.

Mohammad Ajmal Mohammad Kasab Mohammad Ajmal Mohammad Kasab alias Abu Mujahid v. State of alias Abu Mujahid v. State of

Maharashtra AIR 2012 SC 3565Maharashtra AIR 2012 SC 3565 He replied that thought of making He replied that thought of making

confession came to him when he was confession came to him when he was arrested by police. He then added that he arrested by police. He then added that he had absolutely no regret of whatever he had absolutely no regret of whatever he had done. had done.

He said that he wanted to set an example He said that he wanted to set an example to others to follow-to others to follow-

He was a hero in his own eyes He was a hero in his own eyes and the and the confession statement made by him was confession statement made by him was voluntary and truthful.voluntary and truthful.

ConfessionConfession Ammini and Others v. State of Ammini and Others v. State of

KeralaKerala,AIR 1998 SC 260 ,AIR 1998 SC 260 The accused sustained injury. He The accused sustained injury. He

was examined by the doctor before was examined by the doctor before whom he stated that the cause of whom he stated that the cause of injuries. It was held to be not injuries. It was held to be not confession. The statement was not hit confession. The statement was not hit by provisions of the Indian Evidence by provisions of the Indian Evidence Act.Act.

ConfessionConfession Kishan Lal v. State of Rajasthan AIR Kishan Lal v. State of Rajasthan AIR

1999 SC 30621999 SC 3062 Extra Judicial ConfessionExtra Judicial Confession clearclear Alleged confession made by large Alleged confession made by large

number of persons before panchayat number of persons before panchayat was more in general and vague form was more in general and vague form therefore no reliance could be placed therefore no reliance could be placed on such confession.on such confession.

ConfessionConfession C.K.Ravindran v. State of Kerala C.K.Ravindran v. State of Kerala

AIR 2000 SC 369AIR 2000 SC 369 Consumed liqour Consumed liqour Revealing factsRevealing facts It was outcome of consumption of It was outcome of consumption of

liquor by both the witness as well as liquor by both the witness as well as accused.accused.

Retracted ConfessionRetracted Confession A retracted confession is a A retracted confession is a

statement made by an accused statement made by an accused person before the trial begins , by person before the trial begins , by which he admits to have committed which he admits to have committed the offence , but which he the offence , but which he repudiates at the trial.repudiates at the trial.

Police officer-InvestigationPolice officer-Investigation undue influence of policeundue influence of police

ConfessionConfession Sec.2Sec.24. Confession caused by inducement, threat or

promise when irrelevant in criminal proceedings A confession made by an accused person is irrelevant in a

criminal proceeding, if the making of the confession appears to the Court to have been caused by any inducement, threat for promise, having reference to the charge against the accused person, proceeding from a person in authority and sufficient, in the opinion of the Court, to give the accused person grounds, which would appear to him reasonable, for supposing that by making it he would gain any advantage or avoid any evil of a temporal nature in reference to the proceedings against him.

IllustrationsIllustrations A is charged with murder of B. He A is charged with murder of B. He

makes a statement that he committed the makes a statement that he committed the crime. This will amount to confession. crime. This will amount to confession. Again he may state, “I and B both were Again he may state, “I and B both were taking bath in a tank.” B abused me taking bath in a tank.” B abused me severely. I was angry so I got hold of his severely. I was angry so I got hold of his neck and drowned him in the tank. Here neck and drowned him in the tank. Here the accused substantially admits the facts the accused substantially admits the facts which constitute the offence so his which constitute the offence so his statement amounts to confession.statement amounts to confession.

Case Law Case Law Bishnu Prasad Sinha v. State of Bishnu Prasad Sinha v. State of

Assam,Assam,AIR 2007 SC 848 at p.853.AIR 2007 SC 848 at p.853. A confessional statement not A confessional statement not

retracted even at a later stage of the retracted even at a later stage of the trial and even accepted by the accused trial and even accepted by the accused in his examination under Section 313 in his examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. can be fully relied upon.of Cr.P.C. can be fully relied upon.

Sec.313.Power to examine the Sec.313.Power to examine the accused.accused.

Judicial ConfessionJudicial Confession Judicial Confessions are those which Judicial Confessions are those which

are made before a magistrate or in are made before a magistrate or in court in the due course of legal court in the due course of legal proceedings.proceedings.

Sec.164 of Criminal Procedure CodeSec.164 of Criminal Procedure Code At the committal proceedings before At the committal proceedings before

the the magistrate magistrate or at the or at the trial before trial before Sessions Judge, Sessions Judge, A may confess his A may confess his guilt. All these are judicial confessions.guilt. All these are judicial confessions.

Extra-Judicial ConfessionExtra-Judicial Confession Extra judicial confession are those which Extra judicial confession are those which

are made by the accused elsewhere than are made by the accused elsewhere than before a magistrate or in court. An extra before a magistrate or in court. An extra judicial confession can be made to any judicial confession can be made to any person or to the body of persons.person or to the body of persons.

Sahadevan v. State of Tamil Nadu Sahadevan v. State of Tamil Nadu AIR AIR 2012 SC 2435 at p.24412012 SC 2435 at p.2441

It is a weak evidence by itself. It has to be It is a weak evidence by itself. It has to be examined by the court with greater case examined by the court with greater case and caution.and caution.

Extra Judicial Confession Extra Judicial Confession

Extra Judicial Confessions are Extra Judicial Confessions are proved by calling the person as proved by calling the person as witness before whom the extra witness before whom the extra judicial confession is made.judicial confession is made.

It is unsafe to base conviction on It is unsafe to base conviction on extra judicial confession.extra judicial confession.

Proof of Judicial Proof of Judicial ConfessionConfession

Kashmira Singh v. State of M.PKashmira Singh v. State of M.P., AIR 1952 ., AIR 1952 SC 159SC 159

Under Section 80 of the Evidence Act a Under Section 80 of the Evidence Act a confession recorded by magistrate according confession recorded by magistrate according to law shall be presumed to be genuineto law shall be presumed to be genuine. It is . It is enough if the recorded judicial confession is enough if the recorded judicial confession is filled before the court. It is not necessary to filled before the court. It is not necessary to examine the magistrate who recorded it to examine the magistrate who recorded it to prove the confession. But the identity of the prove the confession. But the identity of the accused has to be proved.accused has to be proved.

CONFESSION TO CONFESSION TO POLICEPOLICE

Sec.25. Confession to police officer not to be proved

No confession made to a police officer shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence.

Untrustworthy To avoid the danger of admitting a false

confession.

Confession Confession

Husaniya v. EmperorHusaniya v. Emperor,AIR 1936 Lah ,AIR 1936 Lah 380380

Section.25 of the Indian Evidence Section.25 of the Indian Evidence Act makes no distinction between a Act makes no distinction between a confession made confession made before investigation before investigation and a confession made and a confession made after after investigation.investigation. It is confession to a It is confession to a police officer made at any time which police officer made at any time which is not admissible.is not admissible.

ConfessionConfession Police officer must not only have power Police officer must not only have power

to make investigation of crime but to file a to make investigation of crime but to file a report against criminal and to have the report against criminal and to have the power to prosecute the criminal.power to prosecute the criminal.

Unless and until a person has power to Unless and until a person has power to make investigation and frame charge make investigation and frame charge against accused under section 173 of against accused under section 173 of Cr.P.C., he cannot be called a police Cr.P.C., he cannot be called a police officer within the meaning of Section 25 officer within the meaning of Section 25 of Evidence Act.of Evidence Act.

ConfessionConfession Sec. Sec. 26. Confession by accused

while in custody of police not to be proved against him

No confession made by any person whilst he is in the custody of a police officer, unless it be made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate, shall be proved as against such person.

ConfessionConfession

R. v. Lester ILR(1895)R. v. Lester ILR(1895) The accused was being taken in a The accused was being taken in a

tonga by a police constable. In the tonga by a police constable. In the absence of constable, the accused absence of constable, the accused confessed to the tanga driver that he confessed to the tanga driver that he had committed the crime. The had committed the crime. The confession was held to be in police confession was held to be in police custody as the accused was in the custody as the accused was in the custody of constable and it made no custody of constable and it made no difference of his temporary absence.difference of his temporary absence.