Marwari Kumhar v. B. G. Ganeshpuri

The appellant represents the Marwari Kumhar Community of Devas. The community held 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. The appellant had lost all their property papers. Therefore relied on a certified copy of the decree in the suit which was filed earlier. The trial court accepted plaintiff case and decreed the suit on 20^th of September 1968. The trial court relied upon the judgment in the earlier proceedings and held that the titled in property vested in the community. The sub-clause (c) of s.65, where if original is lost or destroyed, then secondary evidence is admissible. 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.

State of Bihar v. Radha Krishna Singh

There is a tendency on the part of interested person to establish an alleged claim to procure false genealogy to suit their ends, the Court relying on such genealogy must be aware of false old genealogy to support their false claims. Admissibility of a document in one thing and attached to it the probative value of the  document is quite another. Document may be admissible and yet may not carry any conviction and weight or its probative value may be nil. The probative value of the document however ancient they may be if do not disclose sources of their information have not achieved sufficient notoriety.

You can find notes on other topics on Evidence here.  You can grab notes for other law subjects from here.

Kali Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh

Kali Ram was tried in the Court of Sessions for an offence under s.302. The learned sessions convicted the accused under s.302 IPC. The guilt of the accused has to be adjudged  not by the fact that a vast number of people believe him to be guilty but whether his guilt has been established by the evidence brought on record. The fact that there has to be clear evidence of the guilt of the accused and that in the absence of that is not possible to record a finding of his guilt was stressed by the Court. Whether or not a presumption can be drawn under section 114 in a particular case depends ultimately upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Leaving aside the case of statutory presumptions, the onus is upon the prosecution to prove the different ingredients of the offence and unless it discharges that onus, the prosecution cannot succeed.

Supreme Court acquitted the accused.

S.N. Bose v. State of Bihar

The appellant demanded and received illegal gratification for treating a patient (PW.4) Both the Trial court and High Court accepted the prosecution evidence and convicted the appellant both under s.161 IPC as well as s.5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. But under Section 4(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the Court is bound to draw the presumption mentioned therein. The presumption in question will hold good unless the accused proves the contrary. In other words, the burden of proving the contrary is squarely placed on the accused.

K. L. Rallaram v. Custodian, Evacuee Property

Plaintiff, who says that he had sold certain goods to the Defendant and that a promissory note was executed as consideration for the goods and that he is in possession of 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, should produce the said account books, for he is in possession of the same and the Defendant certainly cannot be expected to produce his documents. 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

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. 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. We therefore set aside the conviction and acquit him of the charge of s.306 IPC, but we find the appellant guilty of the offence under s.498A IPC.

You can find notes on other topics on Evidence here.  You can grab notes for other law subjects from here.

Gavate v. State of Maharashtra (pp.126-133)

The matter relates to four groups of lands, which were sought to be acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. When a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact, it is said that the burden of proof lies on that person. The petitioner has to either lead evidence or show that some evidence has come from side of the respondents to indicate that his challenge to a notification or order is made good. If he does not succeed in discharging that duty his petition will fail. The public purpose indicate that the  development is for industrial and residential purposes. The very statement of the public purposes for which the land was to be acquired indicated the absence of such urgency, on the apparent facts of the case, as to require the elimination of an enquiry under s.5A of the Land Acquisition Act. The Apex Court held that instead of prolonging litigation by appealing to this court, the state government had ordered expeditious enquiries under s.5A of Land Acquisition Act or act under s.17 (4) of the act, asking them to show cause why no enquiry under s.5A of the Act should have taken place at all. The Court held that there is no force in either the appeal by the owners of land or in those preferred by the State of Maharashtra. Dismiss the appeal.

Shambhu Nath Mehra v. State of Ajmer

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. The general rule that in a criminal case the burden of proof is on the prosecution and s.106 is certainly not intended to relieve it of that duty. The s. 106 cannot be used to undermine the well-established rule of law that, save in a very exceptional class of case, the burden is on the prosecution and never shifts. The information was as much within their special knowledge as in that of the appellant, it is difficult to see how, with all relevant books and other materials in knowledge of the appellant after such a lapse of time however much it may once have been there. The appellant has been put upon this trial, the prosecution has had ample opportunity to prove its case and it can certainly not complain of want of time to search for and prepare its savour of harassment to allow the continuance of such a trial without the slightest indication that there is additional evidence available which could not have been discovered and produced with the exercise of diligence at the earlier stages. The Apex Court restored the order of the Session Court acquitting the appellant.

Amba Lal v. Union of India

The appellant though purchased the said smuggled good he argued that he is not concerned with importation of the goods contrary to the prohibition or restriction imposed by or under Chapter IV of the Sea Customs Act. The finding of the case is that appellant with the knowledge that the goods had been smuggled into India kept the goods and therefore he was liable to penalty under that section.

Collector of Customs, Madras v. D. Bhoormal

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. Bhoormull 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. But it cannot be disputed that in proceeding for imposing penalties under clause (8) of s.167 the burden of proving that the goods are smuggled goods, is on the Dept. The department would be deemed to have discharged its burden if it adduces only so much evidence, circumstantial or direct, as if sufficient to raise a presumption in its favor with regard to the existence of the facts sought to be proved. The circumstantial evidence suggests that the inference that the goods were illicitly imported into India, and was similar and reasonably pointed towards the conclusion drawn by the Collector. Collector had given the fullest opportunity to Bhoormull to establish the alleged acquisition of the goods in the normal course of business. The Supreme Court quashed the High Court’s judgment and revered the judgment by agreeing with the order of Collector Customs.

You can find notes on other topics on Evidence here.  You can grab notes for other law subjects from here.

State of U.P. v. Deoman Upadhyaya

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. Deoman absconded in the presence of a witnesses and that he had thrown the Gandasa in the village tank which established a strong chain of circumstances leading to the irresistible inference that Deoman killed Sukhdei. The High Court was of the view that mere fetching of the gandasa from its hiding place does not establish Deoman had put it in the tank. But the discovery from its place of hiding, the gandasa stained with human blood in the light of the admission by him that he had thrown it in the tank in which it was found therefore acquired significance. The offence appears to have been brutal, conceived and executed with deliberation and not in a moment of passion, the Supreme Court confirms the sentence of death.

Haricharan Kurmi v. State of Bihar

The two appellants Haricharan Kurmi and Jogia Hajam were charged for having committed an offence    punishable under s.396 of IPC. The High Court came to the conclusion that the blood stains on the clothes found with both the appellants and blood stains found in the house of the appellant Haricharan afforded sufficient corroborations to the confession of Ram Surat, and so it has confirmed the conviction of the appellant. The question about the part which a confession made by a co-accused person can play in a criminal trial, has to be determined in the light of the provisions of s.30 of the Act. In criminal trial as a matter of prudence criminal courts generally require some corroboration to the said confession particularly if it has been retracted. Reading the two provisions i.e. s.113 and s.114 Illustration (b), it allows that though an accomplice is a competent witness, prudence requires that his evidence should not be acted upon unless it is materially corroborated, and that is the effect of judicial decisions. The Supreme Court stated there can be no doubt that the evidence about the discovery of blood stains on which the prosecution relies is entirely sufficient to justify the prosecution charge against both the appellants. Therefore, satisfied that the High Court was not right in confirming the conviction of the two appellants under s. 396 of IPC. The order of conviction are set aside and the accused are ordered to be acquitted.

Aghnoo Nagesia v. State of Bihar

The appellant was charged under s.302 of IPC for murdering his aunt, aunt’s daughter, her son-in-law, Somra and Dilu, and son of Somra. 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, which contains a full confession of guilt by the appellant. The other evidence on record is insufficient to convict the appellant. Question in appeal is whether the statement or any portion of it is admissible in evidence. For the purpose of this case, appellant was constructively in police custody and therefore the information contained in the FIR lead to the discovery of the dead bodies is admissible in evidence. This evidence in totality not sufficient to convict the appellants of the offences under s.302 of the IPC. The conviction is set aside.

Bheru Singh v. State of Rajasthan

The appellant has been convicted for an offence under s.302 IPC.  The appellant himself  was seized. The motive in the case appears to be the suspicion by the appellant of infidelity of his wife. The FIR discloses the motive for the murder and the manner in which the appellant committed the six murders. The High Court relied upon the confessional statement recorded under s.164 CrPC and found that the same was voluntary and had been made by the appellant without any threat or fear and that it contained a full confession of the crime and also disclosed the manner in which the crime had been committed. The evidence on record, the conclusion is irresistible that the prosecution has established beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant had committed the murder of his wife and their five children.

State of Punjab v. Barkat Ram

The mere fact that similar powers in regard to detection of infractions of Customs laws have been conferred on Officers of the Customs Department as are conferred on Officers of the Police is not sufficient for holding them to be police officers within the meaning of Section 25 of the Evidence Act because the powers of search etc., conferred on the former are  of a limited character and have a limited object of safeguarding the revenues of the State.  It is also to be noticed that Sea Customs Act itself refers to Police Officers in contradistinction to the Customs Officer. S.180 empowers a police officer to seize articles liable to confiscation under the act, in suspicion that they had been stolen. S.184 provides that the officer adjudging such confiscation shall take and hold possession of the thing confiscated by requesting an officer of police to assist him in taking such possession. This leaves no room for doubt that a Customs Officer is not an officer of the Police.

Raja Ram Jaiswal v. State of Bihar

For the purpose of determining as to who can be regarded as a “police officer” for the purpose of Section 25 is not the totality of the powers which an officer enjoys but the kind of powers which the law enables him to exercise. The powers of investigation into offences which a police officer enjoy are not conferred upon a Customs Officer. It is the power of investigation, which establishes a direct relationship with the prohibition enacted in s.25. An excise officer acting under s.78 (3) would be in the same position as Officer in charge of a police station making an investigation; he would have the same opportunity of extorting a confession from a suspect. There is a reason why the confession made to an Excise Sub- Inspector must be excluded, that is, it is a statement made during the course of investigation to a person who exercises the powers of an officer in charge of a police station. Such statement is excluded from evidence by s.162 of the CrPC except for the purpose of contradiction. Therefore, both by s.25 of Evidence Act and s.162 CrPC the confession of the appellant is inadmissible in evidence. The conviction is set aside.

State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad

The facts call in aid of the provisions of clause (3) of article 20 of Constitution. 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. At the trial the identification of the respondent, as one of the two alleged culprits, was the most important question to be decided by the Court. The prosecution adduced in evidence a chit alleged to be in the handwriting of the respondent, the police had obtained from him, during the investigation, three specimen handwritings of his on three separate sheets of paper. These documents were inspected by the Handwriting expert whose evidence was to the effect that they are all writing by the same person. But it is disputed whether the accused had been compelled to give those writings within the meaning of clause (3) of article 20. The Court on weighing the facts and circumstances disclosed in the evidence that an accused person cannot be said to have been compelled to be a witness against himself simply because he made a statement while in police custody, without anything more.

You can find notes on other topics on Evidence here.  You can grab notes for other law subjects from here.

Kushal Rao v. State of Bombay

The appellant had caused Baboolal’s 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. In order to pass the test of reliability, a dying declaration has to be subjected to a very close scrutiny, keeping in view the fact that the statement has been made in the absence of the accused who had no opportunity of testing the veracity of the statement by cross-examination. The only other question that remains to be considered is whether there are any extenuating circumstances in favor of the accused justifying the lesser of the two sentences prescribed by law. In the Court’s opinion, there are none.

           

 

Harbans Singh v. State of Punjab

The dying declaration alleged to have been made by the deceased Hazura Singh. The Court is satisfied from the evidence of the witnesses that there was sufficient light to enable Hazura Singh to recognize clearly the assailant who struck the blow which caused this injury. On the consideration of evidence the court was of the view that Harbans Singh committed murder by causing the death of Hazura Singh and also committed murder by causing the death of Munshi Singh. But the evidence leaves scope for thinking that Hazura Singh has made a mistake about Major Singh or has wrongly implicated him, therefore set aside the conviction of Major Singh.

You can find notes on other topics on Evidence here.  You can grab notes for other law subjects from here.

Sahoo v. State of U.P

The probative value of an admission or a confession does not depend upon it’s communication to another, though just like any other piece of evidence, it can be admitted in evidence only on proof.  Statement, whether communicated or not, admitting guilt is a confession of guilt. 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.

Sita Ram Bhau Patil v. Ramchandra Patil

Admissions have to be clear if they are to be used against the person making them. Admissions are substantive evidence by themselves, in view of section 17 and 21 of the Indian Evidence Act, though they are not conclusive proof of the matters admitted. Therefore, mere proof of admission, after the person whose admission it is alleged to be had concluded his evidence, will be of no avail and cannot be utilized against him. The Court was right in rejecting the contentions advanced by the appellants that there was any admission and in setting aside the decision of Revenue Tribunal.

You can find notes on other topics on Evidence here.  You can grab notes for other law subjects from here.

Y.E. Nagree v. State of Maharashtra

A contemporaneous tape recording of a relevant conversation formed part of the res gestae and is relevant and admissible under Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act. The court must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the record has not been tampered with, the evidence must be received with caution.

G.V. Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh

The rationale in making certain statement or fact admissible under Section 6 of the Evidence Act is on account of the spontaneity and immediacy of such statement or fact in relation to the fact in issue, but in this case there was appreciable interval between the acts of the miscreants and the recording of the statements by judicial magistrate of the victims. The interval, therefore, blocks the statement from acquiring legitimacy under section 6 of the Act.

R.M. Sharma v. State of Bombay

The physical fact of identification has no separate existence apart from the statement involved in the very process of identification and in so far as a police officer seeks to prove the fact of such identification such evidence of his would be inadmissible in evidence. The only exception being the evidence sought to be given by the identifier himself in regard to his mental act of identification which he would be entitled to give by way of corroboration of his identification of the accused at the trial. The Court is satisfied that even excluding the evidence of the test identification parade in regard to him the balance of evidence remaining on record is enough to maintain his conviction

Daya Singh vs. State of Haryana

In the present case, there is no lapse on the part of the Investigation Officer holding the test identification parade. Where evidence is cogent, consistent and without any motive, it is no use to imagine and magnify theoretical possibilities with regard to the state of mind of the witnesses. The identification by the witnesses effected in the result that the physical features of accused must have been embedded in the memory of the witness and the evidence and the cross-examination of the witnesses, it is apparent that they gained enduring impression of the identity of the accused during the incident. Power of perception and memorizing differs from man to man and also depends upon the situation. It also depends upon the capacity to recapitulate what has been seen earlier.

You can find notes on other topics on Evidence here.  You can grab notes for other law subjects from here.

Pooran Mal v. Director of Inspection:

Evidence obtained by illegal search inadmissible, in the case the search and seizure were in contravention of the provisions of Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, still the material seized was liable to be used subject to law before the Income Tax authorities. Evidence obtained as a result of illegal search or seizure is not liable to be shut out.

R.M. Malkani v. State of Maharshtra:

Telephonic conversation being recorded by the police is admissible provided first, the conversation is relevant to the matters in issue, secondly, there is identification of the voice, and thirdly the accuracy of the tape-recorded conversation is proved by eliminating the possibility of erasing the recording. Contemporaneous tape record of a relevant conversation is a relevant fact and is admissible.

State of Punjab v. Baldev:

Evidence collected in a search conducted in violation of the safeguards provided in s.50 of the N.D.P.S Act cannot be used as evidence of proof of unlawful possession of the contraband on the accused though any other material recovered during that search may be relied upon by the prosecution of any other proceedings.

As long as it is not tainted by an inadmissible confession of guilt, evidence even if it is illegally obtained is admissible.

You can find notes on other topics on Evidence here.  You can grab notes for other law subjects from here.

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 cross-examination, 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.

You can find notes on other topics on Evidence here.  You can grab notes for other law subjects from here.

• Principles of Natural Justice
  • Union of India v. T.R. Verma
• Theory of Relevancy
  • Pooran Mal v. Director of Inspection:
  • R.M. Malkani v. State of Maharashtra:
  • State of Punjab v. Baldev:
• Doctrine of Res Gestae
  • Y.E. Nagree v. State of Maharashtra
  • G.V. Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh
  • R.M. Sharma v. State of Bombay
  • Daya Singh vs. State of Haryana
• Admission
  • Sahoo v. State of U.P
  • Sita Ram Bhau Patil v. Ramchandra Patil
• Dying Declarations
  • Kushal Rao v. State of Bombay
  • Harbans Singh v. State of Punjab
• Evidentiary value of a confession
  • State of U.P. v. Deoman Upadhyaya
  • Haricharan Kurmi v. State of Bihar
  • Aghnoo Nagesia v. State of Bihar
  • Bheru Singh v. State of Rajasthan
  • State of Punjab v. Barkat Ram
  • Raja Ram Jaiswal v. State of Bihar
  • State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad
• Burden of Proof:
  • Gavate v. State of Maharashtra (pp.126-133)
  • Shambhu Nath Mehra v. State of Ajmer
  • Amba Lal v. Union of India
  • Collector of Customs, Madras v. D. Bhoormal
• Evidentiary Presumptions
  • Kali Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh
  • S.N. Bose v. State of Bihar
  • L. Rallaram v. Custodian, Evacuee Property
  • Hans Raj v. State of Haryana
• Documentary Evidence
  • Marwari Kumhar v. B. G. Ganeshpuri
  • State of Bihar v. Radha Krishna Singh
• Estoppel
  • Deshpande v. Deshpande
  • Shreedhar v. Munireddy
• Oral Evidence
  • Bai Hira Devi v. Official Assignee of Bombay
  • Gulzar Khan v. Smt. Vijay Lakshmi
  • Bhawanbhai Premabhai v. Bai Vahali
• Expert Evidence
  • Sri Chand Batra v. State of U.P.
  • State of H.P. v. Jai Lal
• Privileged Communication
  • Ram Bharosey v. State of U.P.
  • State of Punjab v. Sodhi Sukhdev Singh
• Witnesses
  • Ramchandra Rambux v. Champabai
  • Rameshwar v. State of Rajasthan
  • Laxmipat Choraria v. State of Maharashtra
  • D. Nayak v. State of Gujarat
  • Varkey Joseph v. State of Kerala
  • Pannayar v. State of Tamil Nadu
  • B. Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat
  • K. Govani v. State of Maharashtra
  • Ram Chander v. State of Haryana
  • Raghunandan v. State of U.P.

You can grab notes for other law subjects from here.