Trace Your Case

Menu

Author: TYC

Categories
Judicial Notice

Onkar Nath & Ors. v. The Delhi Administration AIR 1977 SC 1108

ISSUE:

Whether the lower courts were justified in considering specific facts without needing formal evidence?

RULE:

Under Section 57 of the Evidence Act, courts can take judicial notice of widely known facts without requiring formal proof.

This allows the judicial system to recognize and rely on facts of public knowledge—such as notable events—without evidence, thereby ensuring efficiency and preventing undue formalism in the judicial process.

Subscribe to Read More.
Join Now
Already a member? Log in here
Categories
Evidence

Piara Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab AIR 1977 SC 2274

ISSUE:

Whether the High Court correctly prioritized the medical opinion of Dr. Jatinder Singh, who performed the post-mortem, over Dr. Paramjit Singh’s conflicting expert testimony?

Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the Sessions Court’s acquittal based on the available evidence?

Whether the evidence of an extra-judicial confession be corroborated?

RULE:

Expert Testimony and Conflicting Medical Evidence: When two expert medical opinions conflict, the court generally prefers the testimony that aligns with direct evidence if it is reliable. Medical opinion serves to corroborate rather than supersede direct eyewitness accounts.

Subscribe to Read More.
Join Now
Already a member? Log in here
Categories
Section 27

Pulukuri Kottaya v. King-Emperor MANU/MH/0125/1946

ISSUE:

Whether a confession made before police while in custody revealing the discovery of a weapon admissible as evidence against the accused?

RULE:

Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act of 1872 allows for an exception to the general rule barring confessions made to police officers. It permits the admissibility of statements from an accused if they lead to the "discovery of a fact."

Only the portion of the statement that directly relates to the fact discovered, such as the location or presence of an object, is admissible. Any additional incriminating statements, such as linking the discovered object to the crime, are not admissible.

Subscribe to Read More.
Join Now
Already a member? Log in here
Categories
Communication during Marriage

Ram Bharosey v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1954 SC 704

ISSUE:

Whether the deposition made by the wife be admissible if it was communication made during marriage under Section 122 of the Indian Evidence Act?

Whether the circumstantial evidence in the case is sufficient to sustain the conviction?

RULE:

For a conviction based solely on circumstantial evidence, the evidence must be strong enough to exclude any reasonable hypothesis of innocence and must point conclusively to the accused's guilt.

Subscribe to Read More.
Join Now
Already a member? Log in here
Categories
Expert Witness

Ram Narain v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1973) 2 SCC 86

ISSUE:

Whether the legality and propriety of the Appellant's conviction on the uncorroborated testimony of the hand-writing expert valid?

RULE:

The opinion of a handwriting expert is not conclusive evidence; however, it may be deemed acceptable if supported by internal or external evidence related to the document in question that corroborates the expert's conclusions.

The court may also conduct its own comparison of handwriting to verify the expert's findings, provided the presiding officer is familiar with the language and writing style involved.

Subscribe to Read More.
Join Now
Already a member? Log in here
Categories
Communication during Marriage

M.C. Verghese v. T.J. Ponnan & Anr. AIR 1970 SC 1876

ISSUE:

Whether the letters sent to the wife admissible in evidence per Section 122 of the Indian Evidence Act?

Whether uttering a libel by a husband to his wife amount to "publication"?

RULE:

Section 122 of the Indian Evidence Act prohibits disclosing in Court communications made between spouses during marriage. Still, it does not prevent such communications from being introduced as evidence by a third party, such as a non-spouse recipient.

Subscribe to Read More.
Join Now
Already a member? Log in here
Categories
Electronic Evidence

Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kaislash Kushanrao Gorantyal (2020) 7 SCC 1

ISSUE:

Whether the video compact disks could be admitted in evidence in the absence of a certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act.

RULE:

A certificate under Section 65B is mandatory for the admissibility of electronic records, to be provided by the individual who generated the copy from the device, provided the device was operational at the time the data was recorded and the copy was created.

If the original electronic document is produced, the certificate is not needed. The device owner can testify, but if the device cannot be presented, the certificate is required.
• Electronic evidence must be submitted before trial begins, but courts may allow certificate production later based on circumstances.

Subscribe to Read More.
Join Now
Already a member? Log in here
Categories
Evidence

Baleshwar Mahto and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors. (2017) 3 SCC 152

ISSUE:

Whether the prosecution had presented sufficient and credible evidence to the death of Gangia Devi was because of a bomb explosion, considering the inconsistencies in the medical and ocular evidence presented during the trial?

RULE:

Medical evidence and ocular evidence must be credible, reliable, and consistent to be admissible and to establish a fact in a court of law.

Subscribe to Read More.
Join Now
Already a member? Log in here