Union of India v. T.R.

Verma:
The evidence of the respondent and his witnesses was not taken in the mode
prescribed in the Evidence Act. The respondent did not cross-examine the witnesses
because there was nothing left for him to cross-examine. Thus, there was no crossexamination, which is a fact, not that the request of the respondent to cross-examine
was disallowed. The record in the light, find that there has been no violation of the
principles of natural justice. The witnesses have been examined, and have spoken to
all relevant facts bearing on the question.
Theory of Relevancy
Fruits of the poisonous tree:
1.
The doctrine is an offspring of the EXCLUSIONARY RULE. It
mandates
that
evidence
obtained
by
illegal
arrest,
unreasonable search and coercive interrogation cannot be
admitted in the court of law.
2.
The doctrine has certain exceptions to it. The tainted
evidence can be admitted to the court if:
Pooran Mal v. Director of Inspection: 1973
1.Facts: A search and seizure was conducted at the petitioners
place. The authorisation given under section 132 of ITA was
challenged.
2.
Issue: Whether evidence obtained by illegal means
admissible?
3.Rule: First, constitution allows for the preservation and detection
of crime. Second, the power of search and seizure overrides the
protection of social security by the state.
4.Held: First, UNFAIR OPERATION EXCEPTION, a judge can disallow
evidence procured by illegal means if it operates unfairly against
the accused. Second, evidence can be admitted if it is relevant
and is not limited by express or implied law or constitution.
R.M. Malkani v. State of Maharshtra: 1972
1. Facts: Telephonic conversation being recorded by the police about a doctor who
asked for bribe for providing a certificate for non-negligence.
1. Issue: Whether incriminating conversations on a recorded tape can be admissible as
evidence?
5. Rule: Is admissible if: first, the conversation is RELEVANT and
CONTEMPORANEOUS. Secondly, there is identification of the voice. Thirdly,
there is no possibility of erasing or tampering with tape.
State of Punjab v. Baldev:1999
1. Facts: Search under section 50 of NDPS Act.

6. Issue: Whether an arrest conducted without conforming to the provisions of NDPS

Act render to be illegal and the conviction made would be vitiated?
7. Rule: Section 50 of the NDPS Act: a, search in the presence of a gazetted officer; b,
female officers for females; c, a person must be informed about the right.
8. Held: Firstly, Pooran Mal is only applicable to tax. Secondly, Innocent until proven
guilty. Thirdly, obligatory and valuable rights made by the legislature must be
provided.
Ram Singh v. Col Ram Singh:
1. Rule: Section 7 of IEA
2. Held: For the admissibility of tape recorded conversations:
A. The voice of the speaker must be duly identified by the maker
B. The accuracy of the tape recorded conversation has to be proved by the maker.
C. Every possibility of tampering with or erasure of a part of a tape recorded
statement must be ruled out.
D. The statement must be relevant
E. The recorded cassette must be in official custody.
F. The voice of the speaker must be clearly audible.
ATRICA
Sushil Sharma v. NCT of Delhi:
1. Facts: The Naina Sahani murder case was decided in the year of 2013. Sushil
Sharma was held liable by the circumstantial evidence procured. Nina Sahani and
Sharma belonged to an affluent background. They were in a relationship and later
got married. The relationship of the two was tense. Sharma shot Naina twice in the
skull. He disposed the body in a polythene bag and carried the bag in the dickey of
his Maruti car to his restaurant. Where he ordered his employee to burn the body in
the tandoor. The burning caused a peculiar smell and attracted the attention of a
lady. She reported about the same to the police. The police discovered the body of a
woman in the tandoor. Multiple discoveries were made to the incident.
3. Issue: What is circumstantial evidence?
4. Held: Firstly, the circumstances must be incriminatory in nature. Secondly,
circumstances if linked must form a chain. Thirdly, this chain must point towards
the guilt of the person.
Dhana v. State of West Bengal:
1. Facts: A security guard used to constantly trouble a 16 year old girl. The father of
the girl complained about the same. Later, when there was no one at home he went
up from the lift and raped the girl. The button of his off white shirt and his chain
was discovered from the house. Furthermore, the watch that was lost by the mother
was also recovered from him. Also, his presence was noted by the other watchman
and the lift man.
5. Issue: Whether discovery of certain items point to guilt?
6. Rule: Firstly, the circumstances must be incriminatory in nature. Secondly,
circumstances if linked must form a chain. Thirdly, this chain must point towards
the guilt of the person.

7.
Held: The items if available in correspondence will be comprehended
towards the guilt of an individual.
Doctrine of Res gestae
Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act embodies the theory of Res
Gestae. It is an exception to the rule of hearsay. Hearsay is an
evidence which is not direct. The doctrine of Res Gestae pre
supposes a rule. If a statement uttered is immediate,
contemporaneous and spontaneous to the incident it will form the
part and parcel of the same transaction. It will be admissible in
the court even if it disposed by a third party.
G.V. Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh
1 Facts: 2 people put a bus on fire. They steal possessions while trying to
escape. 2 witnesses gave dying declaration but later recovered.
3.Issue: If statements are made after an interval will they be considered
under section 6 of IEA?
4.Rule:
Firstly, res gestae statements must be immediate,
contemporaneous and simultaneous to the incident. Secondly, it must
form the part and parcel of the same transaction. Thirdly, an interval
allows for fabrication and hence would be rejected to be admitted in the
court of law.
5.Held: Due to time lapse between the incident and the statement being
recorded by the magistrate it becomes a reported statement under
section 152 of IEA (corroborative evidence) but cannot be admitted as
res gestae.
Sukhar v. State of UP
1.Facts: Sukhar was forcibly farming on Nakkars land. They had a
dispute over batai. Nakkar was walking on street when Sukhar held him
from the back and fired him with a pistol. Two people were present. They
carried him to the hospital. Pita was informed that Sukhar shot Nakkar.
2.Issue: Whether a statement made to an onlooker after being injured be
considered as a res gestae statement?
3.Rule: It is a res gestae statement unless it is corroborative.
4.Held: it was not a part and parcel of the same transaction.
T I Parade
Section 9 of the Indian Evidence Act finds identification as a
relevant piece of evidence. There are six types of identification.
The most important of them are dock identification. In a dock
identification the witness identifies accused in the courtroom. The
second is Test identification parade. A TI Parade is a corroborative

form of evidence to the substantive evidence of dock

identification. The purpose of T I Parade is two fold. First, to help
the witness to recollect the image of the person who was present
at the crime scene. Second, it assures the investigator that the
investigation is on the right lines.
Daya Singh vs. State of Haryana
1. Facts: A murder was committed under Section 302 of the INDIAN PENAL
CODE . The victim lost his children in the present scenario. When the shots were
being fired on his children he had successfully identified an accused. The accused
proclaimed that he would not go through the process of the T I Parade since he has
already been identified in the court by the process of Dock identification. In the
present case, there is no lapse on the part of the Investigation Officer holding the
test identification parade.
9. Issue: What happens if there is an inordinate delay in conducting the TI Parade?
10.
Held: It will not decrease the varsity of the parade. It must be proven that the
witness gained an enduring impression of the identity of the accused during the
incident. Therefore, it would not affect the credibility of the evidence collected
through dock identification.
Admission
Section 17 of the Indian Evidence Act defines admissions.
Admissions are statements that can be oral, documented and
contained in electronic form. It is admitted if it is made under any
circumstance by a person stated from article 18-23 of IEA. It must
provide inference for the relevant fact.
Sahoo v. State of U.P
1.Facts: The victim and the accused were in an illicit relationship.
The victim was the daughter-in-law of the accused. He was always
seen quarrelling with her. He murdered her and came out
mumbling that he had finished her and her daily quarrels. The
witness heard this statement.
11. Issue: What the accused had been overheard muttering to
himself, or saying to his wife or to any other person in confidence,
will be receivable in evidence?
12. Rule: Statement is a genus and confession is a sub genus of
the statement made.
13.
Held: First, the value of an admission or a confession does not depend
upon its communication to another. Second, statement whether communicated or
not, admitting guilt is a confession of guilt. Third, the confessional soliloquy is
direct piece of evidence. Fourth, they cannot be used as a sole ground of conviction.
It maybe used as a corroborative evidence. In this case, as we have noticed, P.W 11,
13 and 15 deposed that they clearly heard the accused say when he opened the door
of the house that he had finished Sunderpatti, his daughter-in-law and thereby
finished the daily quarrels. The Court held that the extra-judicial confession is

relevant evidence it certainly corroborates the circumstantial evidence adduced in

the case.
Evidentiary value of a confession
Section 24 to 27 of the Indian Evidence Act deals with
Confessions. The Acid test distinguishes confession from a
statement. When conviction can be solely based on a statement it
is a confession. When a statement requires supplementary
evidence to authorise a conviction it is an admission. There are
two types of confessions:
A.Judicial confessions: Confessions made to a magistrate or in the
court of law are judicial in nature. They are considered to be
plea of guilty on arrangement if made freely in a fit state of
mind.
B.Extra judicial confessions: Confessions made by the accused
elsewhere are considered to be extra judicial. It is a free and
voluntary confession of guilt by the accused during the course
of a conversation. It can be basis of a conviction if it passes the
test of credibility.
State of U.P. v. Deoman Upadhyaya
1. Facts: Deoman was tried for the murder of Sukhdei. Analysis of s.24 to s.27, a
person in custody, a confession made by him to a police officer or the making of
which is procured by inducement or threat is not provable against him in any
proceeding in which he is charged. Confession made by a person in the custody of a
police officer is not provable unless it is made in the immediate presence of a
Magistrate. On 18 evening Deoman borrow a Gandasa from Mahesh. When he was
caught he confessed that he had thrown the Gandasa in the village tank. The
Gandasa was recovered and had stains of human blood on it. This established a
strong chain of circumstances leading to the irresistible inference that Deoman
killed Sukhdei.
14.
Rule: Section 27 of the the IEA.
15.
Issue: Whether section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act is void because it
offends against the provisions of Art. 14 of
the Constitution ? and Whether
section162(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure in so far as it relates to section 27
of the Indian Evidence Act is void?
16.
Held: Section 27 is not violative of Article 14 because an intelligible
differentia can be discerned between a guilty in custody and outside custody. Also,
section 27 can be harmoniously read with section 162 of CrPC.
Aghnoo Nagesia v. State of Bihar
1. Facts: The appellant was charged under s.302 of IPC for murder. The first
information of the offences was lodged by the appellant himself at police station.
There were no-eyewitness to the murders. The information report contains a full

confession of guilt by the appellant. The other evidence on record is insufficient to

convict the appellant.
17.
Issue: What is the evidentiary value of a confessionary statement which is
given to a police officer and recorded in a FIR? Also, whether the statement or any
portion of it is admissible in evidence?
18.
Held: First, Section 27 applies only to the accused in police custody. Second,
if he is found to be in custody constructively the FIR can be divided into
exculpatory and inculpatory part. The inculpatory part is incriminating and cannot
be admitted in the court. The exculpatory part can be admitted under section 6 and
8 of IEA. If it shows subsequent conduct it maybe forwarded under section 27 of
IEA.
State of Punjab v. Barkat Ram
1.Issue: Who is a police officer?
8.
Rule: Section 25 of IEA
19.
Held: Custom officer is not concerned with detection and punishment of a
crime committed by a person. Second, The police officer has not been left to wife
interpretation. No purposive interpretation can be done.
State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad
1. Facts: The respondent was charged along with another person, under s.302 read
with s. 34 of IPC also under s.19 (e) of Indian Arms Act.
20.
Held: First, To be a witness means to impart knowledge in respect to relevant
facts by means of an oral or a written statement. Second, this cannot extend to
writing or finger and thumb impressions.
Devender Pal Singh Khullar v. NCT of Delhi
1. Facts: Devendar Pal Singh was asked to confess under section 15(i) of TADA. He
was not tested for torture as stated under the act.
9. Held: To record a statement under section 15(i) of TADA the copy of the statement
must be produced at the office of the magistrate. It is the duty of the magistrate to
ask the accused about any torture. If the torture has been recorded the accused must
be sent to the hospital and checked by a professional. If the professional suggests
that the torture has occurred. The statement given by the accused cannot be
admitted in the court of law. This is a safeguard given by the legislation which must
be complied with. The confession was still accepted. Shah J. in his dissent
suggested that this is wrong. Under any law confession must be voluntary and
should not proceed from any inducement, threat, coercion or promise.
State of Rajasthan v. Raja Ram
1. Facts: The accused made an extra judicial confession not to a magistrate by the
virtue of section 164 of CrPC. He later retracted the confession.
10.
Issue: What is the evidentiary value of a retracted confession?
11.
Held: A retracted confession is admissible in the court of law only if it can be
supported by the discovery of material facts.

Selvi v. State of Karnataka

1. Issue: Whether the involuntary admission by impugned techniques (BEAP test,
Narco-analysis and Polygraph test) violates the right against self incrimination
under Article 20(3) of the Constitution?
12.
Held: Article 20(3) protects an individual to make statements voluntarily that
are admitted in the court of law. The article allows an individual to decide between
making a statement and remaining silent. The results obtained from impugned
techniques are mere testimonies and cannot be held material to the case.
Anter Singh v. State of Rajasthan
1. Facts: A body is found murdered in the compound of a university. The accused
disclose that he had murdered the person by a revolver. This revolver was
discovered from the place he had informed about. The empty cartridges were of the
same revolver.
13.
Issue: Whether the revolver can be admitted in the court of law as evidence?
14.
Held: Section 27 of the IEA hold that if a disclosure leads to discovery it can
be admitted. Though, it must be relevant to the case. Also, it must be discovered by
the disclosure made by the accused in the case done in the custody of a police
officer.
Siddhartha v. State of Bihar
1. Issue: What is the admissibility of a confession by a co-accused?
15.
Rule: Section 30 of the IEA.
16.
Held: More person than one must be tried in the same case for the confession
to be admitted and it must also substantially incriminate the person himself.
Though, it cannot be the sole evidence to convict anyone.
Sanjay Dutt v. State of Maharashtra
1. Issue: What is the admissibility of confessions recorded under section 15 of
TADA?
17.
Facts: In the year 1993 the Bombay class took place. Sanjay Dutt possessed
the ammunitions for the same. By the virtue of TADA under section 5(a) he
possessed unauthorised ammunitions in a notified area.
18.
Held: First, a retracted confession can be relied upon even if retracted.
Second, corroboration of a retracted statement is not a rule of law but a rule of
prudence. Third, the test to be applied by the court is that the confession must be
voluntary and made without any coercion, threat or inducement. If the confession
passes this test it can be held as the sole evidence for conviction. Finally,
information on a co-accused also come in the realm of section 27 of IEA.

Dying Declarations
A dying declaration can be admitted in the court of law under section 32(i) of IEA.

Kushal Rao v. State of Bombay

1. Facts: The appellant had caused Baboolals death intentionally and there were no
extenuating circumstances. The court upheld the conviction and sentence of the
appellant on the ground that the dying declarations were corroborated by the fact
that the appellant had been absconding and keeping out of the way of the police,
and had been arrested under very suspicious circumstances. The Court relied upon
three dying declarations recorded at the hospital first by the attending doctor,
second by the Sub-Inspector of police and the third by the magistrate first class
between 9:25 and 11:35pm. If on examination, the Court is satisfied that the dying
declaration was the true version of the occurrence, conviction can be based solely
upon it.
21.
Held: First, if there are multiple dying declaration the one made to a
magistrate in a question answer form will stand higher than the others. Second, if
there are multiple dying declarations they must be read as a whole. If there are
minor inconsistencies they can be ignore. Though, if there are glaring
inconsistencies the declaration must be set aside.
Sharad Birdichand Sharda v. State of Maharashtra
1. Facts: It is a case of death by poisoning.
22.
Held: The court must justify four important factors: First, there should be a
clear motive by the accused to administer poison. Second, the deceased must die of
the poison administered. Third, the accused must have poison in his possession.
Fourth, he had an opportunity to administer the poison.
Laxman v. State of Maharashtra
1. Issue: Is it necessary that the doctor must certify that the patient is in a fit state of
mind to give a dying declaration?
23.
Held: It is not necessary that the doctor must certify that the patient was in a
fit state of mind to give the dying deceleration. This is when the deceleration
recorded is found coherent with the facts.
Puran Chand v. State of Haryana
1. Issue: What is the admissibility of a dying declaration?
24.
Held: A dying declaration is admissible in the court of law. A conviction can
be made upon uncorroborated dying declaration. Though, it must be given in a fit
state of mind. The first declaration must be admitted. However, multiple
declarations can be admitted in the court if clubbed together. These must not have
glaring improbabilities. If a declaration is different from the version of the
prosecution it must be set aside.
Expert Evidence
Section 45 of the IEA defines who an expert is. Section 45(a) defines who is an expert
witness in an electronic field. An expert witness is the only witness who is allowed to

testify his own opinion. He is also subject to cross examination. His role is of an advisory
and the court is not bound by his opinion.
Sri Chand Batra v. State of U.P.
1. Facts: Illicit liquor was ceased by an officer and he proved that the liquor was illicit.
2. Issue: Whether an Excise Inspector could be considered an expert?
3. Held: Even when an expert does not have a degree he can be comprehend as one if he has
experience.
State of H.P. v. Jai Lal
1.Facts: A scab affects the apple orchid. All the apples are required
to be disposed. The person who was to check the orchids gave a
false record of the infected apples to the horticulture officer.
2.Held: He cannot be called an expert since he did not have any
experience, one. Also, he did not research or write a thesis.
The State (Delhi Administration) v. Pali Ram
1. Issue: Can a specimen of signature and handwriting be admitted as evidence?
25.
Held: It can be admitted as an evidence if SC or a Magistrate directs a person
under section 73 to give a specimen of his handwriting and then either send it to an
expert for an opinion under section 45 or call upon a witness and make a
comparison under section 47. The witness should be familiar to the handwriting.
The court suo moto cannot be the expert.
Ramesh Chandra Agarwal v. Regency Hospital Limited:
1. Held: The disputed documents must be submitted in the court before the opinion is
taken on record. Absence of material evidence would lead to an incomplete opinion
and such opinion would have no value.

Documentary Evidence
Section 3 and 65 of the IEA
Marwari Kumhar v. B. G. Ganeshpuri
1. Facts: The appellant represents the Marwari Kumhar Community of Devas. The
community held a religious functions in the temple and were using the Dharmshala
situated in the suit property. The respondent asserted that they had title over the suit
property.
26.
Issue: Whether a secondary copy of a document is admissible?
27.
Held: The Supreme Court states that the respondents did not contend that the
copy which had been produced was not the correct copy. In the absence of any

proof as to the date, time and the manner in which possession as a Pujari got
converted into open, hostile and adverse the claim for adverse possession could not
be upheld. The first appellate Court and the impugned judgment requires to be set
aside. The decree of trial court is restored.
Oral Evidence
Bai Hira Devi v. Official Assignee of Bombay
1 Issue: Whether the appellants were entitled to lead oral evidence with a view to show the
real nature of the impugned/false transaction?
6. Rule: s.91 and s.92 of Evidence Act.
7. Held: As the Court observed the s.91 and s.92 really supplement each other. It is because
s.91 by itself would not have excluded evidence of oral agreements which may tend to vary
the terms of the document that s.92 has been enacted and if s.92 does not apply in the
present case, there is no other section in evidence act which can be said to exclude
evidence of the agreement set up by the appellants. The result is that s.92 is wholly
inapplicable to the present proceedings and so the appellants are entitled to lead evidence
in support of the plea raised by them. Accordingly set aside the decree passed by the High
Court and send the appeal back to that Court for disposal on the merits in accordance with
law. The court held that S. 92 is only applicable to cases where
the parties to the instrument are representatives in interest
and not strangers.

Burden of Proof:
Shambhu Nath Mehra v. State of Ajmer
1. Fact: Appellant S.N.Mehra, a camp clerk in the office of the Divisional Engineer
Telegraphs has been convicted of offences under s.420 of IPC and s.5 (2) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act.
28.
Issue: What is the ambit of section 106 of IEA?
29.
Held: Section 106 of the IEA cannot override the principle of law that the
burden of proof is on the appellant. It can only apply in exceptional cases where the
prosecution does not have the knowledge of the crime and the same can be
produced by the appellant without any inconvenience.
Collector of Customs, Madras v. D. Bhoormal
1. Facts: Some information was received that some packages containing smuggled
goods had been left by a person in the premises of M/s. Sha Rupaji Rikhabdas and
that these packages were about to dispatched to Bangalore for disposal. D.
Bhoormal had asked one of the staff of Shri Rupaji Rikhabdas to keep the goods in
their shop until his return. The reading of section 167 (8) of Sea Customs Act,
goods found to be smuggled can, be confiscated without proceeding against any
person and without ascertaining who is their real owner or who was actually
concerned in their illicit import.

30.
Issue: What does section 106 allow?
31.
Held: One, the burden to establish a fact that lies within the special knowledge
of a person lies upon the appellant. Two, if the fact that lies within the special
knowledge is not provided an adverse inference of it can be drawn. Though, this
must be coupled with presumptive evidence.
Evidentiary Presumptions

S.N. Bose v. State of Bihar

Facts: Charged for issuing a medical certificate asked for bribe. He was charged
under sec 5 of Prevention of Corruption Act.
Rule: Section 114 of IEA.
Held: Until you are able to prove that where did this money come from, it would be
presumed that it was illegal gratification.
Though acquitted because the officer who ordered action was not competent under
PCA.
K. L. Rallaram v. Custodian, Evacuee Property
Facts: Plaintiff, who says that he had sold certain goods to the Defendant and that
a promissory note was executed as consideration for the goods. He has the relevant
account books to show that he was in possession of the goods sold and that the sale
was effected for a particular consideration. He should produce the said account
books, for he is in possession of the same. Also, the Defendant certainly cannot be
expected to produce his documents.
Held: The Court held that it could not be denied that prima facie a negotiable
instrument, which had been endorsed, shall be taken to have been drawn for
consideration. But if there is evidence to prove that there was no consideration for
the endorsement then there can be no presumption to that effect. The evidence
shows that the circumstances of the can negative the fact that the promissory note
endorsed for consideration.
Hans Raj v. State of Haryana
Facts: The wife of the appellant, Jeeto Rani committed suicide on 24.8.1986 on
account of the cruelty and harassment meted out to her by the appellant. Having
gone through evidence presented the court is satisfied that prosecution has sought to
improve its case at trial by introducing new facts and allegations which were never
stated in the course of investigation.
Issue: The question then arises as to whether in the facts and circumstances of the
case the appellant can be convicted of the offence under s. 306 IPC with the aid of
the presumption under s. 113A of Evidence Act. The trail court convicted him under
s. 113A of Evidence act that he had abetted the suicide (s.306 IPC). The Supreme
Court is not in agreement with the trial court holding and states having regard to the
facts of this case and our finding that the prosecution is guilty of improving its
case from stage to stage. Therefore set aside the conviction and acquit him of the
charge of s.306 IPC, but they find the appellant guilty of the offence under s.498A
IPC.

Estoppel
Deshpande v. Deshpande
The case is about a dispute between Gangabai and the plaintiff on the one hand and
the defendant on the other hand in regard to the validity of the adoption of the
plaintiff. The dispute was referred to an arbitrator, who stated the following: It is
declared that the adoption of the plaintiff is not valid. It is declared that the right of
adoption is lost to Gangabai from the very beginning. It is declared that the plaintiff is
not and can never become entitled to the property belonging to the family of Devarao.
The plaintiffs claim is barred by estoppel as he received Rs. 8000 as a consideration
for accepting the terms of compromise from the defendant and relinquished all rights
which he then had or which he could ever have had in the future to the property
belonging to the family of Devrao. The Court has concluded that the plaintiff was
estopped from contending that Gangabai had the right to adopt him as a son to her
deceased husband. The Apex Court held that therefore the suit filed by plaintiff is
barred by estoppel, that he is not entitled to any relief which he has prayed for in his
plaint, and the decree which has been passed by Trial Court and High Court have
passed in his favor is liable to be set aside.
Shreedhar v. Munireddy
An estoppel is not a cause of action; it is a rule of evidence which precludes a person
from denying the truth of some statement previously made by himself. If a man either
by words or by conduct has intimated that, he consents to an act which has been done
and that he will not offer any opposition to it, although it could not have been lawfully
done and that he will not offer any opposition to it. Although it could not have been
lawfully done without his consent, and he thereby induces others to do that which
they otherwise might have abstained from, he cannot question the legality of the act
he had sanctioned to the prejudice of those who have so given faith to his words or to
the fair inference to be drawn from his conduct. The factual conclusions arrived by the
High Court, the appeal is bound to fail.

Privileged Communication
Ram Bharosey v. State of U.P. (pp. 253-255)
The appellant has been convicted under s.302 IPC to which he has appealed. Bitter
feeling existed between Manna and his son Ram Bharosey since long. The
prosecution witness 1 thinks that Ram Bharosey certainly has his hands in his fathers
murder. There is ample evidence that the relations between the appellant and his
father were not cordial, that there were frequent quarrels between them resulting in
partition, and that difference continues even thereafter. The evidence was accepted by
the courts below as furnishing a motive for the crime. Reference to Rams conduct
and to any communication made by him to his wife is not inadmissible under s.122.
The testimony of PW 2 does not fall within inadmissibility of s.122, as it has
reference to acts and conduct of the appellant and not to any communication made by
him to his wife. Accordingly confirm with conviction under s.302 IPC.
State of Punjab v. Sodhi Sukhdev Singh

 The question of privilege raised under s.123 it is not part of Courts jurisdiction to
decide whether the disclosure of the given document would lead to any injury to
public interest, that is a matter for the Head of the Department to consider and decide.
No doubt the litigant whose claim may not succeed as a result of the non-production
of the relevant and material document may feel aggrieved by the result, and the Court,
in reaching the said decision, may feel dissatisfied; but that will not affect the validity
of the basic principle that public good and interest must override considerations of
private good and private interest. Therefore, in opinion of the court the conclusion
appears inescapable that the documents in question are protected under s.123, and if
the Head of the Department does not give permission for their production, the Court
cannot compel the appellant to produce them.
Witnesses
Rameshwar v. State of Rajasthan - Oath does not deal with
competency
Appellant Rameshwar was charged with committing rape with Mst. Purni. Asssitant
Session Judge convicted the Rameshwar and sentenced him rigorous imprisonment.
Appeal made to Session Judge the evidence was sufficient for moral conviction but
fell short of legal proof because, in the courts opinion, the law requires corroboration
of the story of the prosecution in such cases as a matter of precaution and the
corroborative evidence, is so far as it sought to connect the appellant with the crime,
was legally insufficient though morally enough. The judge acquitted the accused
giving him benefit of doubt. The High Court the learned judge certified that she did
not understand the sanctity of an oath and accordingly did not administer one to her
but he did not certify that the child understood the duty of speaking the truth. Oath act
does not deal with competency.
As a matter of prudence a conviction should not be ordinarily be based on the
uncorroborated evidence of a child witness. The Court should look at the demeanor,
unlikelihood of tutoring and so forth, may render corroboration unnecessary but that
is a question of fact in every case. No thumb rule applies in cases of these sorts. The
Supreme Court concluded that by considering the conduct of the girl and her mother
form start to finish, no corroboration beyond the statement of the child to her mother
was necessary. High Court was right in holding that was enough to make it safe to act
on her testimony. Direct the appellant to surrender to his bail.
Laxmipat Choraria v. State of Maharashtra- Ask any question
relevant to the relevant issue
Under s. 132 a witness shall not be excused from answering any question as to any
matter relevant to the matter in issue in any criminal proceeding (among others) upon
the ground that the answer to such question will incriminate or may tend directly or
indirectly to expose him to a penalty or forfeiture of any kind. The safeguard to this
compulsion is that no such answer, which the witness is compelled to give, exposes
him to any arrest or prosecution or can it be proved against him in any criminal
proceeding except a prosecution for giving false evidence by such answer.
R. D. Nayak v. State of Gujarat - confession by a child can be
applied if the case is convinced about the quality of the witness
The evidence of a child witness is not required to be rejected per se; but the Court as a
rule of prudence considers such evidence with close scrutiny and only on being
convinced about the quality thereof and reliability can record conviction, based

thereon. It is also an accepted norm that, if after careful scrutiny of their evidence the
Court comes to the conclusion that there is an impress of truth in it, there is no
obstacle in the way of accepting the evidence of a child witness.

Examination

and

Cross

Examination

and

Re-Examination

of

Witnesses
Pannayar v. State of Tamil Nadu
Suspicion is not the substitute for proof. There is a long distance between 'may be
true and 'must be true' and the prosecution has to travel all the way to prove its case
beyond all reasonable doubt.
B. B. Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat- victim of a sex offence is
entitled to great weight in the absence of corroboration.
Discrepancies which do not go to the root of the matter and shake the basic version of
the witnesses therefore cannot be annexed with undue importance. On principle, the
evidence of a victim of sexual assault stands on par with evidence of an injured
witness. Just as a witness who has sustained an injury (which is not shown or believed
to be self-inflicted) is the best witness in the sense that he is least likely to exculpate
the real offender, the evidence of a victim of a sex-offence is entitled to great weight,
absence of corroboration notwithstanding.

Power of the Judge to Call and Examine a Witness

Raghunandan v. State of U.P.- the court has the power to not leave the fate of the
proceedings in the hands of the parties.
In a criminal case, the fate of the proceeding cannot always be left entirely in the
hands of the parties. The Court has also a duty to see that essential questions are not,
so far as reasonably possible, left unanswered. The first proviso to Section 165 of the
Indian Evidence Act, enacting that, despite the powers of the Court to put any
question to a witness, the judgment must be based upon facts declared by the Act to
be relevant, only serves to emphasize the width of the power of the Court to question
a witness. The second proviso is this section preserves the privileges of witnesses to
refuse to answer certain questions and prohibits only questions which would be
considered improper under Section 148 and 149 of the Evidence Act.