Evidence in Indian law/ Indian Evidence Act - Revision history

Jyoti: /* No maximum/ minimum age to test competence of witness: HC */

2025-04-13T11:16:18Z

‎No maximum/ minimum age to test competence of witness: HC

Jyoti: /* Dying declaration */

2023-10-14T12:55:00Z

‎Dying declaration

Jyoti at 13:34, 5 March 2023

2023-03-05T13:34:24Z

Jyoti: /* Confession to NDPS policemen barred as evidence: SC */

2022-10-25T19:02:31Z

‎Confession to NDPS policemen barred as evidence: SC

Jyoti: /* Document, definition of */

2022-02-16T19:29:01Z

‎Document, definition of

Jyoti: /* Test identification parade (TIP) */

2022-02-16T08:08:02Z

‎Test identification parade (TIP)

Jyoti: /* SC: Compact disc is a document */

2021-06-25T11:59:28Z

‎SC: Compact disc is a document

Jyoti: /* Test identification parade (TIP)= */

2020-11-09T06:37:23Z

‎Test identification parade (TIP)=

Jyoti: /* Section 112 */

2020-11-09T06:36:27Z

‎Section 112

Jyoti at 06:06, 4 November 2020

2020-11-04T06:06:07Z

@@ Line 252: / Line 252: @@
 The court further said that if an injury is present, and if it is proved that the assailant inflicted it, the inevitable inference is that he intended to inflict that injury.
-[[Category:India|EEVIDENCE IN INDIAN LAW/ INDIAN EVIDENCE ACTEVIDENCE IN INDIAN LAW/ INDIAN EVIDENCE ACTEVIDENCE IN INDIAN LAW/ INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT
+===SC concurs, 2025===
-EVIDENCE IN INDIAN LAW/ INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT]]
+[https://epaper.indiatimes.com/article-share?article=26_02_2025_001_012_cap_TOI  February 26, 2025: ''The Times of India’']
-[[Category:Law,Constitution,Judiciary|EEVIDENCE IN INDIAN LAW/ INDIAN EVIDENCE ACTEVIDENCE IN INDIAN LAW/ INDIAN EVIDENCE ACTEVIDENCE IN INDIAN LAW/ INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT
-EVIDENCE IN INDIAN LAW/ INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT]]
-[[Category:India|EEVIDENCE IN INDIAN LAW/ INDIAN EVIDENCE ACTEVIDENCE IN INDIAN LAW/ INDIAN EVIDENCE ACTEVIDENCE IN INDIAN LAW/ INDIAN EVIDENCE ACTEVIDENCE IN INDIAN LAW/ INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT
-EVIDENCE IN INDIAN LAW/ INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT]]
+''' SC: No min age for witness; kid’s evidence valid '''
-[[Category:Law,Constitution,Judiciary|EEVIDENCE IN INDIAN LAW/ INDIAN EVIDENCE ACTEVIDENCE IN INDIAN LAW/ INDIAN EVIDENCE ACTEVIDENCE IN INDIAN LAW/ INDIAN EVIDENCE ACTEVIDENCE IN INDIAN LAW/ INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT
-EVIDENCE IN INDIAN LAW/ INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT]]
+New Delhi: Holding that evidence of a child witness stands on the same footing as any other witness if the child is competent to testify, Supreme Court has convicted and sentenced a man to life term for killing his wife by relying upon the statement of the couple’s 7-yearold daughter who witnessed the incident, reports Amit Anand Choudhary.

@@ Line 144: / Line 144: @@
 Chandigarh: Upholding the life imprisonment of a Haryana-based accused who had set his wife on fire, the Punjab and Haryana HC held that if the court is satisfied that the dying declaration is true and voluntary, it can convict the accused without any corroboration. Even the main complainant in the case, the brother of the deceased, had turned hostile.
  The division bench, comprising Justice Ajay Tewari and Justice Pankaj Jain, passed these orders while dismissing an appeal filed by Sukhbir of Palwal district. The appellant was aggrieved against the judgment passed by the Palwal sessions judge whereby he was convicted for the murder of his wife in 2014 and sentenced to life imprisonment.
@@ Line 150: / Line 151: @@
 During the trial, Mohanti, who was the brother of the deceased, turned hostile. However, the trial court held the accused guilty while relying on the dying declaration of the deceased. The trial court observed that the dying declaration of the victim when “tested on the anvil of admissibility is fully admissible and no intrinsic infirmity could be pointed out in this statement”.
-[[Category:India|EEVIDENCE IN INDIAN LAW/ INDIAN EVIDENCE ACTEVIDENCE IN INDIAN LAW/ INDIAN EVIDENCE ACTEVIDENCE IN INDIAN LAW/ INDIAN EVIDENCE ACTEVIDENCE IN INDIAN LAW/ INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT
+=Eyewitnesses=
-EVIDENCE IN INDIAN LAW/ INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT]]
+==More reliable than medical experts==
-[[Category:Law,Constitution,Judiciary|EEVIDENCE IN INDIAN LAW/ INDIAN EVIDENCE ACTEVIDENCE IN INDIAN LAW/ INDIAN EVIDENCE ACTEVIDENCE IN INDIAN LAW/ INDIAN EVIDENCE ACTEVIDENCE IN INDIAN LAW/ INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT
+[https://epaper.timesgroup.com/article-share?article=21_09_2023_001_018_cap_TOI  Sep 21, 2023: ''The Times of India'']
-EVIDENCE IN INDIAN LAW/ INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT]]
 =Media interview of witness, admissibility of  =

@@ Line 8: / Line 8: @@
 =Confessions=
@@ Line 221: / Line 236: @@
 EVIDENCE IN INDIAN LAW/ INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT]]
 [[Category:Law,Constitution,Judiciary|EEVIDENCE IN INDIAN LAW/ INDIAN EVIDENCE ACTEVIDENCE IN INDIAN LAW/ INDIAN EVIDENCE ACTEVIDENCE IN INDIAN LAW/ INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT
 EVIDENCE IN INDIAN LAW/ INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:02, 25 October 2022
Line 43:		Line 43:
	The test to determine whether an officer is deemed to be a police officer within the meaning of Section25 of the Evidence Act is, whether such officer has all the powers of a police officer including the power to file a report under Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code (chargesheet), she said holding that the 50 year old view that a statutory power to file a chargesheet is an essential ingredient of power of a ‘police officer’ cannot be displaced.		The test to determine whether an officer is deemed to be a police officer within the meaning of Section25 of the Evidence Act is, whether such officer has all the powers of a police officer including the power to file a report under Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code (chargesheet), she said holding that the 50 year old view that a statutory power to file a chargesheet is an essential ingredient of power of a ‘police officer’ cannot be displaced.

		+	==Voluntary extrajudicial confession is not weak evidence: SC==
		+	[https://epaper.timesgroup.com/article-share?article=15_10_2022_101_009_cap_TOI Dhananjay Mahapatra, Oct 15, 2022: ''The Times of India'']
		+
		+
		+	New Delhi : The Supreme Court has thrown light on a grey area concerning evidentiary value of extra-judicial confession in a criminal case by ruling that though this requires corroboration like any other evidence gathered by investigating agency, no court can start with a presumption that it is a weak piece of evidence.
		+
		+	Acquitting a man of murder charges, a bench of Chief Justice UU Lalit and JB Pardiwala said, “An extra judicial confession, if voluntary and true and made in a fit state ofmind, can be relied upon by the Court. The confession will have to be proved like any other fact. The value of the evidence as to confession, like any other evidence, depends upon the veracity of the witness to whom it has been made. ”
		+
		+	Reliability of the maker ofthe extra-judicial confession plays a vital role in the weight of the statement, the bench said. “It is not open to any court to start with a presumption that extra judicial confession is a weak type of evidence,” it said.
		+
		+	[[Category:India\|EEVIDENCE IN INDIAN LAW/ INDIAN EVIDENCE ACTEVIDENCE IN INDIAN LAW/ INDIAN EVIDENCE ACTEVIDENCE IN INDIAN LAW/ INDIAN EVIDENCE ACTEVIDENCE IN INDIAN LAW/ INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT
		+	EVIDENCE IN INDIAN LAW/ INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT]]
		+	[[Category:Law,Constitution,Judiciary\|EEVIDENCE IN INDIAN LAW/ INDIAN EVIDENCE ACTEVIDENCE IN INDIAN LAW/ INDIAN EVIDENCE ACTEVIDENCE IN INDIAN LAW/ INDIAN EVIDENCE ACTEVIDENCE IN INDIAN LAW/ INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT
		+	EVIDENCE IN INDIAN LAW/ INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT]]

	=Document, definition of=		=Document, definition of=

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:29, 16 February 2022
Line 109:		Line 109:

	For the court, the WhatsApp post did not even qualify as a document under the Evidence Act, 1872. “Over one-and-a-half hours of judicial time of this court has been spent in hearing arguments and disposal of the petition. Since the petitioners have admittedly filed the petition without verifying or affirming any fact and without formation of even a belief that what is stated in the petition has any iota of truth behind it, the writ petition is dismissed with costs of Rs 25,000 on each of the petitioners.“		For the court, the WhatsApp post did not even qualify as a document under the Evidence Act, 1872. “Over one-and-a-half hours of judicial time of this court has been spent in hearing arguments and disposal of the petition. Since the petitioners have admittedly filed the petition without verifying or affirming any fact and without formation of even a belief that what is stated in the petition has any iota of truth behind it, the writ petition is dismissed with costs of Rs 25,000 on each of the petitioners.“
		+
		+	=Dying declaration=
		+	==May be enough for conviction: HC==
		+	[https://epaper.timesgroup.com/article-share?article=04_02_2022_014_007_cap_TOI Ajay Sura, February 4, 2022: ''The Times of India'']
		+
		+	Chandigarh: Upholding the life imprisonment of a Haryana-based accused who had set his wife on fire, the Punjab and Haryana HC held that if the court is satisfied that the dying declaration is true and voluntary, it can convict the accused without any corroboration. Even the main complainant in the case, the brother of the deceased, had turned hostile.
		+	The division bench, comprising Justice Ajay Tewari and Justice Pankaj Jain, passed these orders while dismissing an appeal filed by Sukhbir of Palwal district. The appellant was aggrieved against the judgment passed by the Palwal sessions judge whereby he was convicted for the murder of his wife in 2014 and sentenced to life imprisonment.
		+
		+	The couple, who had two children, got married in 2008 but they had regular fights, and the accused used to beat her often under the influence of liquor. On March 24, 2014, the accused, who was in a drunken state, started beating his wife Ranjana. With the intervention of complainant Sonu Mohanti, who was Ranjana's brother, she was saved. Later on the same day, the accused set her on fire. She was taken to Safdarganj hospital, Delhi. During the treatment, her dying declaration was recorded in which she confirmed that her husband had an illicit relationship with his sister-inlaw and had set her on fire.
		+
		+	During the trial, Mohanti, who was the brother of the deceased, turned hostile. However, the trial court held the accused guilty while relying on the dying declaration of the deceased. The trial court observed that the dying declaration of the victim when “tested on the anvil of admissibility is fully admissible and no intrinsic infirmity could be pointed out in this statement”.
		+
		+	[[Category:India\|EEVIDENCE IN INDIAN LAW/ INDIAN EVIDENCE ACTEVIDENCE IN INDIAN LAW/ INDIAN EVIDENCE ACTEVIDENCE IN INDIAN LAW/ INDIAN EVIDENCE ACTEVIDENCE IN INDIAN LAW/ INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT
		+	EVIDENCE IN INDIAN LAW/ INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT]]
		+	[[Category:Law,Constitution,Judiciary\|EEVIDENCE IN INDIAN LAW/ INDIAN EVIDENCE ACTEVIDENCE IN INDIAN LAW/ INDIAN EVIDENCE ACTEVIDENCE IN INDIAN LAW/ INDIAN EVIDENCE ACTEVIDENCE IN INDIAN LAW/ INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT
		+	EVIDENCE IN INDIAN LAW/ INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT]]

	=Media interview of witness, admissibility of =		=Media interview of witness, admissibility of =

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:59, 25 June 2021
Line 69:		Line 69:

	“Therefore, without expressing any opinion as to the final merits of the case, this appeal is allowed and the orders passed by the trial court and the HC are set aside. The application (for placing on record the compact disc and getting it examined by forensic laboratory) shall stand allowed. However, it is observed that the accusedappellant shall not be entitled to seek bail on the ground of delay of trial.“		“Therefore, without expressing any opinion as to the final merits of the case, this appeal is allowed and the orders passed by the trial court and the HC are set aside. The application (for placing on record the compact disc and getting it examined by forensic laboratory) shall stand allowed. However, it is observed that the accusedappellant shall not be entitled to seek bail on the ground of delay of trial.“
		+
		+	=== Memory cards, pen drives are documents: SC===
		+	[https://epaper.timesgroup.com/Olive/ODN/TimesOfIndia/shared/ShowArticle.aspx?doc=TOIDEL%2F2019%2F11%2F30&entity=Ar01806&sk=19C2F56F&mode=text Dhananjay Mahapatra, Nov 30, 2019: ''The Times of India'']
		+
		+	In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court said electronic evidence in a criminal case should be classified as ‘document’ and the accused would be entitled to a copy of the same to prepare the defence.
		+
		+	“We hold that the contents of the memory card/ pen drive being electronic record must be regarded as a document. If the prosecution is relying on the same, ordinarily, the accused must be given a cloned copy thereof to enable him/her to present an effective defence during the trial,” a bench of Justices A M Khanwilkar and Dinesh Maheshwari said.
		+
		+	However, if the electronic evidence pertained to a rape case, then the trial court, keeping in mind the sensitivity of the contents, could deny the accused a copy so as to prevent violation of right to privacy and dignity of the woman, said Justice Khanwilkar, who wrote the judgment.
		+
		+	“In cases involving issues such as privacy of the complainant/witness or his/her identity, the court may be justified in providing only inspection thereof to the accused and his/her lawyer or expert for presenting effective defence during the trial. The court may issue suitable directions to balance the interests of both sides,” the bench said.
		+
		+	In the case at hand, the judicial first class magistrate in Angamaly (Kerala), and then the Kerala HC had rejected an accused’s plea for a copy of the pen drive containing a video recording of an alleged sexual assault that was annexed to the chargesheet as evidence. The prosecution case was based on forensic report which suggested that eight video recordings were retrieved from the memory card of the accused’s phone and that the video files were found to be recorded on February 17, 2017, between 10:30pm and 10:48pm.
		+
		+	To accord the accused a fair trial without violating the right to privacy and dignity of the woman, the SC said, “If the accused or his lawyer himself, additionally, intends to inspect the contents of the memory card/pen drive in question, he can request the magistrate to provide him inspection in court, if necessary, even for more than once along with his lawyer and IT expert to enable him to effectively defend himself during the trial.
		+
		+	“If such an application is filed, the magistrate must consider the same appropriately and exercise judicious discretion with objectivity while ensuring that it is not an attempt by the accused to protract the trial. While allowing the accused and his lawyer or authorised IT expert, all care must be taken that they do not carry any devices, much less electronic devices, including mobile phone which may have the capability of copying or transferring the electronic record thereof or mutating the contents of the memory card/pen drive in any manner. Such multi-pronged approach may subserve the ends of justice and also effectuate the right of accused to a fair trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.”
		+
		+	[[Category:India\|EEVIDENCE IN INDIAN LAW/ INDIAN EVIDENCE ACTEVIDENCE IN INDIAN LAW/ INDIAN EVIDENCE ACTEVIDENCE IN INDIAN LAW/ INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT
		+	EVIDENCE IN INDIAN LAW/ INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT]]
		+	[[Category:Law,Constitution,Judiciary\|EEVIDENCE IN INDIAN LAW/ INDIAN EVIDENCE ACTEVIDENCE IN INDIAN LAW/ INDIAN EVIDENCE ACTEVIDENCE IN INDIAN LAW/ INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT
		+	EVIDENCE IN INDIAN LAW/ INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT]]

	==WhatsApp post is not document or evidence: HC==		==WhatsApp post is not document or evidence: HC==

@@ Line 133: / Line 133: @@
 As a result of this ruling, DNA test to ascertain parenthood of children born out of subsisting marriages would now become a judicially acceptable exercise.
-=Test identification parade (TIP)==
+=Test identification parade (TIP)=
 == No statutory sanction for TIP==
 [https://epaper.timesgroup.com/Olive/ODN/TimesOfIndia/shared/ShowArticle.aspx?doc=TOIDEL%2F2020%2F11%2F04&entity=Ar00117&sk=B6315DC7&mode=text  Dhananjay Mahapatra, November 4, 2020: ''The Times of India'']
@@ Line 154: / Line 154: @@
 EVIDENCE IN INDIAN LAW/ INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT]]
 [[Category:Law,Constitution,Judiciary|EEVIDENCE IN INDIAN LAW/ INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT
 EVIDENCE IN INDIAN LAW/ INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT]]

@@ Line 8: / Line 8: @@
-[[Category:India|E]]
-[[Category:Law,Constitution,Judiciary|E]]
+=Confessions=
 =Document, definition of=
@@ Line 99: / Line 132: @@
 As a result of this ruling, DNA test to ascertain parenthood of children born out of subsisting marriages would now become a judicially acceptable exercise.