Whether a tape-recorded conversation is admissible as evidence?
If the evidence was admissible, the manner in which it was obtained is irrelevant.
The Judge has the discretion to allow the evidence in a criminal case if the rules of admissibility of evidence would operate unfairly against the accused.
Are Sections 132(1) and 132(5) of Rule 112(A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(f) and (g) and 31 of the Constitution of India?
Can a writ of Prohibition to restrain the authorities from using the ‘information gathered from the documents seized’ should be issued?
When one has to consider the reasonableness of the restrictions or curbs placed on the freedoms mentioned in Art. 19(i) (f) and (g), one cannot possibly ignore how such evasions eat into the vitals of the economic life of the community. Therefore, in the interest of the community, it is only right that the fiscal authorities should have sufficient powers to prevent tax evasion.
If the safeguards while 'carrying out search and seizure are generally on the lines adopted by the Criminal Procedure Code they would be regarded as adequate and render the temporary restrictions imposed by these measures as reasonable.
Is it the mandatory requirement of Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, (Act for short) that when an officer, duly authorized under Section 42 of the Act, is about to search a person he must inform him of his right under sub-section (1) thereof of being taken to the nearest Gazetted Officer or nearest Magistrate for making the search?
If any search is made without informing the person of his such right would the search be illegal even if he does not of his own exercise his right under Section 50(1)?
Whether a trial held in respect of any recovery of contraband articles pursuant to such a search would be void ab initio?
Whether compliance with Section 50 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 mandatory?
The right to be searched before a gazetted officer or magistrate is an extremely valuable right that Parliament has provided to an accused, given the serious consequences that possessing illegal items under the Act may entail.
Whether the chain of circumstance was complete because the case was mainly decided on circumstantial evidence and if the evidence shows clearly the guilt of the accused.
Whether the decision is given by the Supreme Court in giving the death sentence to life imprisonment is valid or not?
Section 34, 37, 302, 201, 120-B of IPC.
What would be the effect of Identification of the Accused by the witness for the first time in the court, sans any Test Identification Parade?
Secondly, what would be the effect of the no-compliance of the procedure under Section 100 (4) and Section 166 (3) and 166(4)?
Whether the charge of Rape under Section 376 IPC has been made out against the Appellants-Accused?
Whether in the present case, awarding of the death sentence to the Appellant-Accused, is justified?
Section 100(4) and Section 166(3) and 166(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Section 9 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Whether the appellant was the assailant who had raped and murdered the defence-less young Girl?
Whether the appellant had a motive to commit the alleged crime?
Whether the case falls under the rarest of the rare cases?
Whether this case establishes the statement of circumstantial evidence to be admissible in the court of law?
The question of law revolves around the admissibility of circumstantial evidence in the absence of absolute evidence. According to Indian Evidence Act, 1872, circumstantial evidence is also known as indirect evidence. It relates to a series of facts other than the fact sough to be proved it is the evidence that is drawn not from direct observation of the fact at issue but from events or circumstances surround it is a proof of a fact which tends to prove whether something is true or not. It is usually a theory supported by a significant quantity of corroborating evidence.