LawAsItIs.com

Indian Evidence Act

  • Supreme Court on Appreciation of Evidence of Related Witness

    “26. A witness is normally to be considered independent unless he or she springs from sources which are likely to be tainted and that usually means unless the witness has cause, such as enmity against the accused, to wish to implicate him falsely. Ordinarily, a close relative would be the last to screen the real […]

  • Produce all Documents Relevant to the Litigation – Supreme Court

    “5. The High Court, in our view, fell into patent error. The short question before the High Court was whether in the facts and circumstances of this case, Jagannath obtained the preliminary decree by playing fraud on the court. The High Court, however, went haywire and made observations which are wholly perverse. We do not […]

  • Quality of Evidence Matters, Not the Quantity

    “13. Another circumstance which appears to have weighed heavily with the Additional Sessions Judge was that no independent witness of Salabatpura had been examined by the prosecution to prove the prosecution case of assault on the deceased, although the evidence shows that there were some persons living in that locality like the ‘pakodewalla’, hotelwalla, shopkeeper […]

  • Quality Determines the Adequacy of Evidence

    “19. In the matter of appreciation of evidence of witnesses, it is not the number of witnesses but quality of their evidence which is important, as there is no requirement under the Law of Evidence that any particular number of witnesses is to be examined to prove/disprove a fact. It is a time-honoured principle that […]

  • Supreme Court on Non-Examination of Investigating Officer (IO)

    An investigating officer (IO) may be examined in a criminal case for several important reasons. Though, depending upon the facts of the case, non-examination of Investigating Officer (IO) sometimes may not be of much consequence. Generally, an IO’s testimony provides vital insights into the investigation process, evidence handling, and the context of the case. 1. […]

  • Supreme Court on Testimony of a Hostile Witness

    “51. It is necessary, though painful, to note that PW 7 was examined-in-chief on 30-9-1999 and was cross-examined on 25-5-2001, almost after 1 year and 8 months. The delay in said cross-examination, as we have stated earlier had given enough time for prevarication due to many a reason. A fair trial is to be fair […]

  • Supreme Court on Evidence of a Hostile Witness

    “81. It is settled legal proposition that: “6. … the evidence of a prosecution witness cannot be rejected in toto merely because the prosecution chose to treat him as hostile and cross-examined him. The evidence of such witnesses cannot be treated as effaced or washed off the record altogether but the same can be accepted […]

error: