Indian Evidence Act - CaseCiter

CaseCiter

Chetan vs State Of Karnataka 2025 INSC 793 - Evidence Act

Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 8 - [ Section 6 BSA] - Mere absconding by itself does not constitute a guilty mind as even an innocent man may feel panicky and may seek to evade the police when wrongly suspected of being involvement as an instinct of self-preservation. But the act of abscondence is certainly a relevant piece of evidence to be considered along with other evidence and is a conduct under Section 8 of the Evidence Act, 1872, which points to his guilty mind- The needle of suspicion gets strengthened by the act. (Para 10.9.2)

Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 8 - [ Section 23(2) BSA] -when recoveries are made under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, the accused should explain how he came into possession of the incriminating articles.

Criminal Trial - Motive - Motive is something that is very difficult to prove as it remains hidden in the deep recess of the mind of the person concerned and in the absence of any open declaration by the person concerned himself, the motive has to be inferred from the activities and conduct of the person. (Para 10.11.2) that while proof of motive certainly strengthens the prosecution case based on circumstantial evidence, failure to prove the same cannot be fatal. (Para 10.11.3)

Law Of Evidence - Fact and Proof -  Law does not require that a fact requires to be proved on absolute terms bereft of all doubts. What law contemplates is that for a fact to be considered proven, it must eliminate any reasonable doubt. Reasonable doubt does not mean any trivial, fanciful or imaginary doubt, but doubt based on reason and common sense growing out of the evidence in the case. A fact is considered proved if the court, after reviewing the evidence, either believes it exists or deems its existence probable enough that a prudent person would act on the assumption that it exists. (Para 10.12) -Circumstantial Evidence - Where the evidence is circumstantial in nature, the circumstances from which the inference of guilt is to be drawn, should be fully established. In other words, each of the circumstances from which certain inferences are sought to be drawn, is required to be proved in accordance with law, and there cannot be any element of surmise and conjecture, and each of these circumstances so proved must form a complete chain without any break to clearly point to the guilt of the accused person. The court has to examine the cumulative effect of the existence of these circumstances, which would point to the guilt of the accused, though any single circumstance may not in itself be sufficient to prove the offence. Thus, if the combined effect of all these circumstances, each of which has been independently proved, establishes the guilt of the accused, then the conviction based on such circumstances can be sustained. These circumstances so proved must be consistent only with the hypothesis with the guilt of the accused and should exclude every hypothesis except the one sought to be proved. Thus, if upon evaluation of a set of proved circumstances consistent with understandable and socially recognised human behaviour, as a cumulative consequence, a clear and definitive pattern emerges which irresistibly points to the culpability of the accused person, we see no reason why we should not accept such an inferred conclusion to be correct to fasten criminal liability on the accused. On the other hand, if such an inference is sought to be assailed on the ground of any doubt, the doubt must be a reasonable one consistent with human behaviour under the circumstances of the case and not fanciful, abstract speculation or imagination. (Para 10.12.1)

P Krishna Mohan Reddy vs State Of Andhra Pradesh 2025 INSC 725 - CrPC - Evidence Act - Anticipatory Bail - Confession Of Co-accused

Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 24-30 [Section 22-24 BSA] : A Confessional statement of an accused will only be admissible if it is not hit by Section(s) 24 or 25 respectively and is in tune with the provisions of Section(s) 26, 28 and 29 of the Evidence Act respectively -A police statement of an accused which is in the form of a confession is per se inadmissible and no reliance whatsoever can be placed on such statements either at the stage of bail or during trial. Since such confessional statements are rendered inadmissible by virtue of Section 25 of the Evidence Act, the provision of Section 30 would be of no avail, and no reliance can be placed on such confessional statement of an accused to implicate another co-accused. (Para 53- iv)

Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 24-30 [Section 22-24 BSA] :A confessional statement of one accused implicating another co- accused may be taken into consideration by the court against such co- accused in terms of Section 30 of the Evidence Act, only at the stage of trial, where (1) the confession itself was relevant and admissible in terms of the Evidence Act; (2) was duly proved against the maker; (3) such confessional statement incriminates the maker along with the co- accused and; (4) both the accused persons in question are in a joint trial for the same offence- Such a confession can only be pressed into consideration by the court as a rule of prudence, to lend assurance to the other evidence against such co-accused- Such confession cannot be taken into consideration under Section 30 where the confession itself was not relevant or inadmissible or where a co-accused was not being tried jointly with the accused person who made the confession or where he did not make a statement incriminating himself along with the co- accused(Para 37, 53- v, vi) 

Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 17,21, 30 [Section 15,19,24 BSA] Where the police statement of an accused is in the form of an admission, such inculpatory statement even if it implicates another co-accused cannot be taken into consideration against such co-accused in terms of Section(s) 17 read with 21 of the Evidence Act, as doing so would militate against the general principle, that an admission may be given as evidence against the maker alone. The exceptions to the aforesaid general principle carved out under the Evidence Act, do not permit the usage of such admission against a co-accused in any scenario whatsoever. (Para 53- vii)

Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 30 [Section 24 BSA] Section 30 of Evidence Act postulates that such a confession can be taken into consideration only where the accused persons are jointly tried. The said provision does not merely require that the persons must be accused of the same offence, but rather requires that they must be being tried jointly for the said offence - Joint trial here refers to the one provided under Section 223 CrPC- Thus, where the accused persons are either not being tried jointly, or are yet to be charged for the same offence and thereafter tried together, Section 30 of the Evidence Act would be inapplicable- Section 30 of the Evidence Act, would not spring into action when the charges are yet to be framed and the accused persons are yet to be committed to trial, and any confession admissible thereunder cannot be taken into consideration by the courts. (Para 39-iiii)

Renuka Prasad Vs State 2025 INSC 657 - S. 161 CrPC - Ss.27,30 Evidence Act

Indian Evidence Act 1872 -Section 27,30 - Confession as mentioned in Section 30 is not evidence under Section 3 of the Evidence Act- When even the recovery made based on a confession under Section 27, by itself cannot inculpate the person who made such a confession, if there is no independent evidence otherwise connecting the fact discovered to the crime, there is no question of such a confession being made use of, to inculpate the other accused under Section 30 of the Evidence Act. (Para 41-42)]

Raju @ Umakant Appellant(S) vs State Of Madhya Pradesh 2025 INSC 615 - S.376 IPC - Gang Rape - SC-ST Act - S.114A Evidence Act - Two Finger Test

Two finger test - Obnoxious, inhuman and degrading practice on victims of sexual assault- Referred to Lillu alias Rajesh and Another vs. State of Haryana, (2013) 14 SCC 643 and State of Jharkhand vs. Shailendra Kumar Rai alias Pandav Rai, (2022) 14 SCC 299. (Para 29)

Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 114A- There is a presumption as to absence of consent in case of gang rape and it will be presumed that the prosecutrix did not give consent as long as the prosecutrix states in evidence before the Court that she did not consent- The presumption is based on the reasoning that nobody can be consenting to several persons simultaneously- Referred to State of Rajasthan vs. Roshan Khan and Others, (2014) 2 SCC 476 and Mohd. Iqbal and Another vs. State of Jharkhand, (2013) 14 SCC 481. (Para 25)

Chunni Bai vs State Of Chhattisgarh 2025 INSC 577 - S.84 IPC - Insanity - Murder - S. 165 Evidence Act

Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 165 ; Indian Penal Code 1860 - Section 84- Re: Plea that the accused was under the influence of certain invisible force or where the prosecution is also totally unable to explain circumstances which motivated him or her to commit the act of homicide or where the evidence on record unambiguously show totally inexplicable but highly intriguing, strange and unusual circumstances under which the crime was committed - If such circumstances emerge in course of the trial which remain inexplicable and bizarre as in the present case, the court, in our opinion, even if the accused opts to remain silent, should ask such questions to the witnesses, as may be necessary to elicit the truth by invoking Section 165 of the Evidence Act, since the court has to be satisfied that the offence alleged has been proved beyond reasonable doubt not only in respect of actusreas but also mens rea. This assumes great importance when the accused pleads existence of certain circumstances which are beyond his/her control and which may indicate unsoundness of mind even temporarily, incapacitating the accused to take a conscious and informed decision. It is for the salutary reason that if the accused at the time of commission of crime was incapable of making conscious and informed decision or was suffering from certain mental incapacity or unsoundness of mind even if temporarily, it may put a question mark on the “intention” of the accused in committing such a crime, in which event, the benefit of doubt may be extended to the accused as regards proof of intention and mens rea, as it would determine the nature of conviction and sentence which may be imposed. (Para 63-64)

Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 165 ; Code of Criminal Procedure 1973- Section 161,162- Even though the statements recorded under Section 161 of CrPC cannot be used for any purposes in a trial due to the embargo placed under Section 162 CrPC, however, the power of the Trial Court under Section 165 Evidence Act is wide enough to put questions based on the statement under Section 161 CrPC to any witness or party at any stage to secure the ends of justice. (Para 54)

K. P. Tamilmaran vs State 2025 INSC 576 - FIR - Hostile Witness - S. 165 Evidence Act - Honour Killing

Indian Evidence Act - Section 165 ; Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 162- The Courts are not barred from putting questions which may contradict the witness with the previous statements made before the police. The special powers of the Court under Section 165 of the Evidence Act are not impaired or controlled by the provisions of Section 162 of the CrPC (Para 51)- The importance of Section 165 in the meaningful conduct of a trial discussed - Referred to Ram Chander v. State of Haryana (1981) 3 SCC 191. (Para 52)

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Sections 311, 162- Indian Evidence Act - Section 165 - Powers under Section 311 CrPC can either be exercised on an application moved by either side to the case or suo moto by the Court. In case a person is not listed as a witness in the charge-sheet but later, the prosecution desires to bring that person as an additional prosecution witness, then the prosecution can move an application to bring this person as a prosecution witness. It is then for the Court to decide whether such a person is required as a witness or not. If the Court finds that such a person should have been examined as a prosecution witness and he/she was omitted from the list of witnesses due to some oversight, mistake or for any other reason, the Court may allow the application and such a person can be examined as a prosecution witness. Thereafter, the normal course of examination-in-chief, cross- examination, etc. would follow as per the procedure. On the other hand, when the Court calls a person as a Court witness, there are some restrictions regarding the cross-examination of such witness- In a case where neither party is interested in examining a person as a witness yet the Court feels that the evidence of such a person is necessary for a just decision, the Court though cannot compel either the prosecution or the defence to call a witness, but it can invoke its power under Section 311 CrPC, read with Section 165 of the Evidence Act and call such a person as a Court witness. Whether a person is required to be examined as a witness for a just decision is again a question which has to be decided by the Court on the basis of the facts of that particular case. (Para 49) As far as cross-examination of a Court witness is concerned, no party can claim cross-examination of a Court witness as a matter of right. A Court witness can only be examined with the leave of the Court -Where a Court witness says something prejudicial to any party, then such a party must be allowed to cross-examine that witness- Court witnesses can be cross- examined by either side but only with the leave of the Court. Further, the cross-examination is to be restricted only to what was stated by this witness in his/her reply to the questions of the Court, and a Court witness cannot be contradicted to his/her previous statements made before the police i.e. statements under section 161 of CrPC. (Para 48-51)

Annaya Kocha Shetty (D) vs Laxmibai Narayan Satose 2025 INSC 466 - Contract - Ss.91,92 Evidence Act - Pleadings and Judgment

Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 91,92 - The construction of a deed is “generally speaking, a matter of law.” However, when there is an ambiguity in the deed, determining its meaning is a mixed question of fact and law - This concept is encapsulated by sections 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act, 1872 - The evidence to vary the terms of an agreement in writing is not admissible, but evidence to show that there is no agreement in the first place is admissible- Thus, unless the grounds fall within the provisos read with the illustrations to section 92, there is a bar on adducing oral evidence. (Para 18.2)

Jagdish Gond vs State of Chhattisgarh 2025 INSC 460 - Appeal Against Acquittal - S. 106 Evidence Act - Last Seen Together

Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 106 - When an accused is alleged to have committed the murder of his wife; if the prosecution establishes that shortly before the crime, they were seen together or the offence takes place in the dwelling home where the husband also resides, then if the accused does not offer any explanation or offers an explanation which is palpably false; that would be a strong circumstance, establishing his culpability in the crime. However, it cannot be the sole circumstance leading to the conclusion of guilt on the part of the accused husband. (Para 9)

Circumstantial Evidence - A mere suspicion cannot lead to a finding of guilt, especially when there is not available a chain of circumstances, unequivocally pointing to the guilt of the accused in the alleged crime. (Para 9)

Karandeep Sharma @ Razia @ Raju vs State Of Uttarakhand 2025 INSC 444 - POCSO-Rape Cases - DNA Profiling - Non Examination Of Scientific Expert

Indian Evidence Act 1872- Section 24-26 - Permitting a police officer to verbatim narrate the confession made by an accused during investigation is grossly illegal and contrary to the mandate of Sections 24, 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act. [Context: In this case, police officer was allowed to narrate the entire confession of the accused, in his examination-in-chief.]

Gastrade International vs Commissioner Of Customs, Kandla 2025 INSC 411 - S. 45 Evidence Act - Customs Act- Most Akin Test

Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 45 - The opinion of the experts, however weighty they may be, are not binding on the court and is only relevant for the court to consider it to come to a final decision on any fact in issue. However, since courts are not experts in the discipline of science, they ordinarily accept the scientific report and act upon it. But where the expert opinion suffers from certain shortcomings or ambiguities, lack of clarity, or inadequacy, it would be subject to judicial scrutiny and it would not be safe to rely wholly on the same under such circumstances. (Para 56-60)

Yerikala Sunkalamma Vs State Of Andhra Pradesh 2025 INSC 383 - S.80 CPC Notice - Art.300A Constitution - Declaratory Title Suits Against Government

Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 110 ; Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023- Section 113 - Possession is prima facie proof of ownership. A person in possession is entitled to remain in possession until another person can disclose a better title under Section 113 of the BSA. Therefore, once the plaintiff proves that he has been in possession of the suit property, the burden of proving that the plaintiff is not the owner is on the defendant who affirms that the plaintiff is not the owner. The Section does not make a distinction between the Government and a private citizen. Section 113 is, therefore, equally applicable where a Government claims to be the owner or challenges the ownership of the plaintiff who is in possession of the property. It is not disputed that before the possession of the Subject Land was taken over, the plaintiffs were in possession of the property for more than twenty years. The onus, therefore, under section 113 of the BSA was on the State to prove that the Government had a subsisting title to the Subject Land. (Para 72)

State Of Rajasthan vs Chatra 2025 INSC 360 - Rape Cases - Silence Of Prosecutrix

Cross Examination - The purpose of cross-examination is to discredit the witness/elicit facts from such person, which may favour the other party, etc. (Para 19)

Rape cases - Child witness - a. No hard and fast rule can be laid down qua testing the competency of a child witness to testify at trial. b. Whether or not a given child witness will testify is a matter of the Trial Judge being satisfied as to the ability and competence of said witness. To determine the same the Judge is to look to the manner of the witness, intelligence, or lack thereof, as may be apparent; an understanding of the distinction between truth and falsehood etc. c. The non-administration of oath to a child witness will not render their testimony doubtful or unusable. d. The trial Judge must be alive to the possibility of the child witness being swayed, influenced and tutored, for in their innocence, such matters are of ease for those who may wish to influence the outcome of the trial, in one direction or another. e. Seeking corroboration, therefore, of the testimony of a child witness, is well-placed practical wisdom. f. There is no bar to cross-examination of a child witness. If said witness has withstood the cross- examination, the prosecution would be entirely within their rights to seek conviction even solely relying thereon. (Para 14)

Practice and Procedure - Rape cases - The privacy of the unfortunate victim in rape cases to be preserved, even though the restriction does not expressly apply to the High Court or Supreme Court. (Para 7)

Sita Ram vs State Of Himachal Pradesh 2025 INSC 359 - Dying Declaration - Apprehension Of Death

Indian Evidence Act - Section 32- Admissibility of a dying declaration not dependent upon the person's having a consciousness of the approach of death. Even if the person did not apprehend that he would die, a statement made by him about the circumstances of his death would be admissible under Section 32 of the Evidence Act- Referred to State of Haryana v. Mange Ram (2003) 1 SCC 637. (Para 52)

State Of Chhattisgarh vs Ashok Bhoi 2025 INSC 256 - Last Seen Theory

Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 106 - Last Seen Theory - If the prosecution proves by leading reliable evidence that the accused was last seen with the deceased, the burden would be shifted on the accused to explain the said incriminating evidence either in his statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. or by leading evidence in his defence or even by bringing out the facts during the course of cross examination of the prosecution witnesses. The accused’s failure to present evidence on his behalf may be treated by the court as confirming the presumptions that may arise therefrom, nonetheless, that presumption alone, taking recourse to Section 106, would not be sufficient to convict an accused. The prosecution has to discharge its burden to prove the other circumstances in the case based on circumstantial evidence, to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt by leading cogent and clinching evidence. (Para 9)

Patel Babubhai Manohardas vs State Of Gujarat 2025 INSC 322 - Abetment Of Suicide - Handwriting Expert Evidence -Poisoning

Criminal Trial - Expert’s evidence as to handwriting is opinion evidence. It can rarely, if ever, take the place of substantive evidence. Before acting on such opinion evidence, it is necessary to see if it is corroborated either by clear direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence. - having due regard to the imperfect nature of the science of identification of hand-writing, the approach of the court should be one of caution. Reasons for the opinion must be carefully probed and examined. In an appropriate case, corroboration may be sought. Where the reasons for the opinion are convincing and there is no reliable evidence throwing a doubt, uncorroborated testimony of a handwriting expert may be accepted. - when the trial court chose to rely on the report of the handwriting expert, it ought to have examined the handwriting expert in order to give an opportunity to the accused to cross-examine the said expert. (Para 42-44)

 Criminal Trial - In a case of death due to consumption or administering of poison, be it homicidal or suicidal, recovery of the trace of such poison is crucial. (Para 39)

Suresh Vs State 2025 INSC 318 - S.32 Evidence Act - Dying Declaration

Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 32 - Dying Declaration -In cases where the dying declaration is suspicious, it is not safe to convict an accused in the absence of corroborative evidence- That a dying declaration is an important piece of evidence and a conviction can be made by relying solely on a dying declaration alone as it holds immense importance in criminal law. However, such reliance should be placed after ascertaining the quality of the dying declaration and considering the entire facts of a given case - If a dying declaration is surrounded by doubt or there are inconsistent dying declarations by the deceased, then Courts must look for corroborative evidence to find out which dying declaration is to be believed. This will depend upon the facts of the case and Courts are required to act cautiously in such cases. (Para 12-14)

Hiralal Babulal Soni vs State Of Maharashtra 2025 INSC 266 - S 411 IPC - S 114 Evidence Act

Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 114 - Invocation of Section 114 of the Evidence Act is not at all permissible when the prosecution has failed to discharge its initial burden- The weakness in the defence or the accused's failure to substantiate the fact while answering question in his accused statement cannot become the strength of the prosecution. (Para 37)

State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Balveer Singh 2025 INSC 261 -Ss. 106,118 Evidence Act - Child Witness

Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 118 - Principles on appreciation of evidence of Child witness: (I) The Evidence Act does not prescribe any minimum age for a witness, and as such a child witness is a competent witness and his or her evidence and cannot be rejected outrightly. (II) As per Section 118 of the Evidence Act, before the evidence of the child witness is recorded, a preliminary examination must be conducted by the Trial Court to ascertain if the child-witness is capable of understanding sanctity of giving evidence and the import of the questions that are being put to him. (III) Before the evidence of the child witness is recorded, the Trial Court must record its opinion and satisfaction that the child witness understands the duty of speaking the truth and must clearly state why he is of such opinion. (IV) The questions put to the child in the course of the preliminary examination and the demeanour of the child and their ability to respond to questions coherently and rationally must be recorded by the Trial Court. The correctness of the opinion formed by the Trial Court as to why it is satisfied that the child witness was capable of giving evidence may be gone into by the appellate court by either scrutinizing the preliminary examination conducted by the Trial Court, or from the testimony of the child witness or the demeanour of the child during the deposition and cross-examination as recorded by the Trial Court. (V) The testimony of a child witness who is found to be competent to depose i.e., capable of understanding the questions put to it and able to give coherent and rational answers would be admissible in evidence. (VI) The Trial Court must also record the demeanour of the child witness during the course of its deposition and cross-examination and whether the evidence of such child witness is his voluntary expression and not borne out of the influence of others. (VII) There is no requirement or condition that the evidence of a child witness must be corroborated before it can be considered. A child witness who exhibits the demeanour of any other competent witness and whose evidence inspires confidence can be relied upon without any need for corroboration and can form the sole basis for conviction. If the evidence of the child explains the relevant events of the crime without improvements or embellishments, the same does not require any corroboration whatsoever. (VIII)Corroboration of the evidence of the child witness may be insisted upon by the courts as measure of caution and prudence where the evidence of the child is found to be either tutored or riddled with material discrepancies or contradictions. There is no hard and fast rule when such corroboration would be desirous or required, and would depend upon the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case. (IX) Child witnesses are considered as dangerous witnesses as they are pliable and liable to be influenced easily, shaped and moulded and as such the courts must rule out the possibility of tutoring. If the courts after a careful scrutiny, find that there is neither any tutoring nor any attempt to use the child witness for ulterior purposes by the prosecution, then the courts must rely on the confidence-inspiring testimony of such a witness in determining the guilt or innocence of the accused. In the absence of any allegations by the accused in this regard, an inference as to whether the child has been tutored or not, can be drawn from the contents of his deposition. (X) The evidence of a child witness is considered tutored if their testimony is shaped or influenced at the instance of someone else or is otherwise fabricated. Where there has been any tutoring of a witness, the same may possibly produce two broad effects in their testimony; (i) improvisation or (ii) fabrication. (i) Improvisation in testimony whereby facts have been altered or new details are added inconsistent with the version of events not previously stated must be eradicated by first confronting the witness with that part of its previous statement that omits or contradicts the improvisation by bringing it to its notice and giving the witness an opportunity to either admit or deny the omission or contradiction. If such omission or contradiction is admitted there is no further need to prove the contradiction. If the witness denies the omission or contradiction the same has to be proved in the deposition of the investigating officer by proving that part of police statement of the witness in question. Only thereafter, may the improvisation be discarded from evidence or such omission or contradiction be relied upon as evidence in terms of Section 11 of Evidence Act. (ii) Whereas the evidence of a child witness which is alleged to be doctored or tutored in toto, then such evidence may be discarded as unreliable only if the presence of the following two factors have to be established being as under: - ▪ Opportunity of Tutoring of the Child Witness in question whereby certain foundational facts suggesting or demonstrating the probability that a part of the testimony of the witness might have been tutored have to be established. This may be done either by showing that there was a delay in recording the statement of such witness or that the presence of such witness was doubtful, or by imputing any motive on the part of such witness to depose falsely, or the susceptibility of such witness in falling prey to tutoring. However, a mere bald assertion that there is a possibility of the witness in question being tutored is not sufficient. ▪ Reasonable likelihood of tutoring wherein the foundational facts suggesting a possibility of tutoring as established have to be further proven or cogently substantiated. This may be done by leading evidence to prove a strong and palpable motive to depose falsely, or by establishing that the delay in recording the statement is not only unexplained but indicative and suggestive of some unfair practice or by proving that the witness fell prey to tutoring and was influenced by someone else either by cross-examining such witness at length that leads to either material discrepancies or contradictions, or exposes a doubtful demeanour of such witness rife with sterile repetition and confidence lacking testimony, or through such degree of incompatibility of the version of the witness with the other material on record and attending circumstances that negates their presence as unnatural. (XI) Merely because a child witness is found to be repeating certain parts of what somebody asked her to say is no reason to discard her testimony as tutored, if it is found that what is in substance being deposed by the child witness is something that he or she had actually witnessed. A child witness who has withstood his or her cross-examination at length and able to describe the scenario implicating the accused in detail as the author of crime, then minor discrepancies or parts of coached deposition that have crept in will not by itself affect the credibility of such child witness. (XII) Part of the statement of a child witness, even if tutored, can be relied upon, if the tutored part can be separated from the untutored part, in case such remaining untutored or untainted part inspires confidence. The untutored part of the evidence of the child witness can be believed and taken into consideration or the purpose of corroboration as in the case of a hostile witness. (Para 58)

Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 106 - Principles of Law governing the Applicability of Section 106 of the Evidence Act- court should apply Section 106 of the Evidence Act in criminal cases with care and caution. It cannot be said that it has no application to criminal cases. The ordinary rule which applies to criminal trials in this country that the onus lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused is not in any way modified by the provisions contained in Section 106 of the Evidence Act.Section 106 cannot be invoked to make up the inability of the prosecution to produce evidence of circumstances pointing to the guilt of the accused. This section cannot be used to support a conviction unless the prosecution has discharged the onus by proving all the elements necessary to establish the offence. It does not absolve the prosecution from the duty of proving that a crime was committed even though it is a matter specifically within the knowledge of the accused and it does not throw the burden on the accused to show that no crime was committed. To infer the guilt of the accused from absence of reasonable explanation in a case where the other circumstances are not by themselves enough to call for his explanation is to relieve the prosecution of its legitimate burden. So, until a prima facie case is established by such evidence, the onus does not shift to the accused.Section 106 obviously refers to cases where the guilt of the accused is established on the evidence produced by the prosecution unless the accused is able to prove some other facts especially within his knowledge which would render the evidence of the prosecution nugatory. If in such a situation, the accused offers an explanation which may be reasonably true in the proved circumstances, the accused gets the benefit of reasonable doubt though he may not be able to prove beyond reasonable doubt the truth of the explanation. But if the accused in such a case does not give any explanation at all or gives a false or unacceptable explanation, this by itself is a circumstance which may well turn the scale against him. Section 106 has no application to cases where the fact in question, having regard to its nature, is such as to be capable of being known not only to the accused but also to others, if they happened to be present when it took place. The intention underlying the act or conduct of any individual is seldom a matter which can be conclusively established; it is indeed only known to the person in whose mind the intention is conceived. Therefore, if the prosecution has established that the character and circumstance of an act suggest that it was done with a particular intention, then under illustration (a) to this section, it may be assumed that he had that intention, unless he proves the contrary. (Para 76-79)

Criminal Trial - Principles for appreciation of ocular evidence in a criminal case : a. While appreciating the evidence of a witness, the approach must be whether the evidence of the witness read as a whole appears to have a ring of truth. Once that impression is formed, it is undoubtedly necessary for the Court to scrutinize the evidence more particularly keeping in view the deficiencies, drawbacks and infirmities pointed out in the evidence as a whole and evaluate them to find out whether it is against the general tenor of the evidence given by the witness and whether the earlier evaluation of the evidence is shaken as to render it unworthy of belief. b. If the Court before whom the witness gives evidence had the opportunity to form the opinion about the general tenor of evidence given by the witness, the appellate court which had not this benefit will have to attach due weight to the appreciation of evidence by the Trial Court and unless there are reasons weighty and formidable it would not be proper to reject the evidence on the ground of minor variations or infirmities in the matter of trivial details. c. When eye-witness is examined at length it is quite possible for him to make some discrepancies. But courts should bear in mind that it is only when discrepancies in the evidence of a witness are so incompatible with the credibility of his version that the court is justified in jettisoning his evidence. d. Minor discrepancies on trivial matters not touching the core of the case, hyper technical approach by taking sentences torn out of context here or there from the evidence, attaching importance to some technical error committed by the investigating officer not going to the root of the matter would not ordinarily permit rejection of the evidence as a whole. e. Too serious a view to be adopted on mere variations falling in the narration of an incident (either as between the evidence of two witnesses or as between two statements of the same witness) is an unrealistic approach for judicial scrutiny. f. By and large a witness cannot be expected to possess a photographic memory and to recall the details of an incident. It is not as if a video tape is replayed on the mental screen. g. Ordinarily it so happens that a witness is overtaken by events. The witness could not have anticipated the occurrence which so often has an element of surprise. The mental faculties therefore cannot be expected to be attuned to absorb the details. h. The powers of observation differ from person to person. What one may notice, another may not. An object or movement might emboss its image on one person's mind whereas it might go unnoticed on the part of another. i. By and large people cannot accurately recall a conversation and reproduce the very words used by them or heard by them. They can only recall the main purport of the conversation. It is unrealistic to expect a witness to be a human tape recorder. j. In regard to exact time of an incident, or the time duration of an occurrence, usually, people make their estimates by guess work on the spur of the moment at the time of interrogation. And one cannot expect people to make very precise or reliable estimates in such matters. Again, it depends on the time-sense of individuals which varies from person to person. k. Ordinarily a witness cannot be expected to recall accurately the sequence of events which take place in rapid succession or in a short time span. A witness is liable to get confused, or mixed up when interrogated later on. l. A witness, though wholly truthful, is liable to be overawed by the court atmosphere and the piercing cross examination by counsel and out of nervousness mix up facts, get confused regarding sequence of events, or fill up details from imagination on the spur of the moment. The subconscious mind of the witness sometimes so operates on account of the fear of looking foolish or being disbelieved though the witness is giving a truthful and honest account of the occurrence witnessed by him. m. A former statement though seemingly inconsistent with the evidence need not necessarily be sufficient to amount to contradiction. Unless the former statement has the potency to discredit the later statement, even if the later statement is at variance with the former to some extent it would not be helpful to contradict that witness. n. The evidence of an interested and/or related witnesses should not be examined with a coloured vision simply because of their relationship with the deceased. Though it is not a rule of law, it is a rule of prudence that their evidence ought to be examined with greater care and caution to ensure that it does not suffer from any infirmity. The court must satisfy itself that the evidence of the interested witness has a ring of truth. Only if there are no contradictions and the testimony of the related/interested witness is found to be credible, consistent and reasonable, can it be relied upon even without any corroboration. At the end of the day, each case must be examined on its own facts. There cannot be any sweeping generalisation. (Para 56)

Criminal Trial - Though there can be no straight jacket formula for appreciation of circumstantial evidence, yet to convict an accused on the basis of circumstantial evidence, the Court must follow certain tests which are broadly as follows: - (i) Circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn must be cogently and firmly established; (ii) Those circumstances must be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused and must be conclusive in nature; (iii) The circumstances, if taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else; and (iv) The circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence. In other words, the circumstances should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved. (Para 61)

Md. Bani Alam Mazid @ Dhan vs State Of Assam 2025 INSC 260 - S 27,106 Evidence Act - Last Seen Together

Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 27 -The word ‘fact’ contemplated in Section 27 of the Evidence Act is not limited to ‘actual physical material object.’ Discovery of fact arises by reason that the information given by the accused exhibited the knowledge or the mental awareness of the informant as to its existence at a particular place which includes discovery of the object, the place from which it is discovered and the knowledge of the accused as to its existence. (Para 38)

Vinod @ Nasmulla vs State Of Chhattisgarh 2025 INSC 220 - Test Identification Parade - Criminal Investigation

Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 9 -A test identification parade is not substantive evidence in a criminal prosecution but is only corroborative evidence. The purpose of holding a test identification parade during the stage of investigation is, firstly, to ensure that the investigating agency is proceeding in the right direction where the accused is unknown and, secondly, to serve as a corroborative piece of evidence when the witness identifies the accused during trial. The evidence of identification merely corroborates and strengthens the oral testimony in court which alone is the primary and substantive evidence as to identity - Evidentiary value of the TIP discussed - Referred to In Rameshwar Singh v. State of Jammu and Kashmir (1971) 2 SCC 715 - if the witness who identified a person or an article in the TIP is not examined during trial, the TIP report which may be useful to corroborate or contradict him would lose its evidentiary value for the purposes of identification- Once the person who identifies the accused during the TIP is not produced as a witness during trial, the TIP is of no use to sustain an identification by some other witness. (Para 14)

Vinod Kumar vs State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) 2025 INSC 209 - S 145 Evidence Act - S 161 CrPC - Circumstantial Evidence

Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 145 - Code Of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 161 - The portion of the prior statement shown to the witness for contradicting the witness must be proved through the investigating officer. Unless the said portion of the prior statement used for contradiction is duly proved, it cannot be reproduced in the deposition of the witnesses. The correct procedure is that the Trial Judge should mark the portions of the prior statements used for contradicting the witness. The said portions can be put in bracket and marked as AA, BB, etc. The marked portions cannot form a part of the deposition unless the same are proved. (Para 11)

Circumstantial Evidence - When the prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. There must be a chain of circumstances so complete as not to leave any ground for any conclusion inconsistent with the innocence of the accused. (Para 10)

State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Survendra Kumar @ Sunil Kumar - S 27 Evidence Act - Independent Witness Turns Hostile

Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 27 - If an independent witness turns hostile that does not mean that the evidence in the form of panchnama is to be outright rejected or discarded. The Investigating Officer can definitely prove the contents of the panchanama. 45. However, the law expects the Investigating Officer to prove the contents of the panchnama in accordance with law. It is not just enough for the Investigating Officer to depose that he had drawn the panchnama in the presence of panch witnesses duly signed by the said witnesses and he himself. (Para 44-45)

Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 8 - Howsoever relevant the conduct of the accused may be under Section 8 of the Evidence Act, the same is not sufficient to hold the accused guilty of a serious offence like murder. (Para 53)

Criminal Trial - If the evidence of a solitary eye-witness is found to be true, trustworthy and reliable, then it is open for the Court to rely upon the same for the purpose of holding the accused persons guilty of alleged offence. Ordinarily the evidence of a solitary witness can be classified into three categories, (i) wholly reliable (ii) wholly un-reliable and (iii) neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. 36. If the evidence of a solitary eye-witness is found to be wholly reliable, there is no problem in accepting the same, if he is found to be wholly unreliable, the court should discard it in toto. If a situation arises wherein the court finds the evidence of a solitary eye-witness neither wholly reliable nor wholly un-reliable, in such circumstances, the court insists for corroboration in material particulars. (Para 35-36)

Ravi vs State Of Punjab 2025 INSC 170 - S 106 Evidence Act

Indian Evidence Act 1872- Section 106 -The initial burden is upon the prosecution to first prima facie establish the guilt of the accused and then only the burden shifts upon the accused to explain the circumstances. (Para 21-22) C ourt should apply Section 106 of the Evidence Act in criminal cases with care and caution. The ordinary rule which applies to criminal trials and places the onus on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused, does not, in any way, stand modified by the provisions contained under Section 106 of the Evidence Act. The said provision cannot be invoked to make up the inability of the prosecution to produce the evidence of circumstances pointing to the guilt of the accused. The said provision cannot be used to support a conviction unless the prosecution has discharged the onus by proving all elements necessary to establish the offence. In other words, the prosecution does not stand absolved from its initial liability to prove the offence and it is only when such an onus is discharged and a prima facie case of guilt is made out that the provisions of Section 106 of the Evidence Act may come into play. (Para 22)

Raja Khan vs State Of Chattisgarh 2025 INSC 167 - S 27 Evidence Act - Recovery

Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 24- 27 - Section 27 lifts the ban, though partially, to the admissibility of confessions. The removal of the ban is not of such an extent so as to absolutely undo the object of Section 26. As such the statement whether confessional or not is allowed to be given in evidence but that portion only which distinctly relates to discovery of the fact is admissible. A discovery of a fact includes the object found, the place from which it is produced and the knowledge of the Appellant-accused as to its existence- The essential ingredients of Section 27 of the Evidence Act are three- fold: i. The information given by the accused must led to the discovery of the fact which is the direct outcome of such information. ii. Only such portion of the information given as is distinctly connected with the said recovery is admissible against the accused. iii. The discovery of the facts must relate to the commission of such offence. (Para 19-20) If the recovery memos have been prepared in the police station itself or signed by the panch witnesses in the police station, the same would lose their sanctity and cannot be relied upon by the Court to support the conviction. (Para 27)

Suresh Chandra vs State Of Uttar Pradesh 2025 INSC 156 - S 106 Evidence Act - Circumstantial Evidence

Indian Evidence Act, 1872 -Section 106 - The burden would shift upon the accused. However, for the burden to shift upon the accused, the initial burden will have to be discharged by the prosecution- In a case where around twelve persons residing along with the decease, it is necessary for the prosecution to establish as to which of the accused persons was in the company of the deceased prior to her death being noticed- The issue would have been different if it was only the husband and the wife who were residing together and the death had occurred in suspicious circumstances. (Para 9-10)

Criminal Trial - Circumstantial Evidence - Referred to Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra - the prosecution will have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it is the appellants and the accused alone, who have committed the crime. Every hypothesis except the guilt of the appellants will have to be ruled out- However strong the suspicion, it cannot take place of proof beyond reasonable doubt- The approach in the criminal trial has to be of proof beyond reasonable doubt and not the probability or a possibility. (Para 11-16)

Harjinder Singh @ Kala Vs State Of Punjab - Criminal Trial - Murder Case - Extra Judicial Confession - Motive - Circumstantial Evidence - Disclosure Statement

Criminal Trial - Extra Judicial Confession - Extra-judicial confession must be accepted with great care and caution. If found reliable and convincing, an extra-judicial confession may be used as corroboration for other evidence to record conviction of the accused. (Para 16)

Criminal Trial - Murder Case - Motive - Proof of motive is not sine qua non in a case of murder. However, in a case based purely on circumstantial evidence, motive assumes significance and would provide an important corroborative link in the chain of incriminating circumstances. (Para 24)

Indian Evidence Act 1872- Section 27 - Importance of a perspicuous and detailed testimony when relying on a disclosure statement leading to recovery of the weapon used in the commission of crime - Referred to Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar v. State of Karnataka and Ramanand v. State of U.P. (Para 32-34)

Criminal Trial - Circumstantial Evidence - Golden Principles - Quoted from Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra: (1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. (2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty, (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency, (4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. (Para 13)

Ramu Appa Mahapatar vs State Of Maharashtra 2025 INSC 147- S 24 Evidence Act -Extra Judicial Confession

Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 24 - Extra Judicial Confession- Confession may be divided into two classes i.e. judicial and extra-judicial. Judicial confessions are those which are made before a magistrate or a court in the course of judicial proceedings. Extra-judicial confessions are those which are made by the party elsewhere than before a magistrate or a court. Extra-judicial confessions are generally those that are made by a party before a private individual who may be a judicial officer also in his private capacity. As to extra-judicial confessions, two questions arise: firstly, whether they are made voluntarily and secondly, are they true? If the court is of the opinion that the confession was not made voluntarily but was a result of an inducement, threat or promise, it would not be acted upon. It follows that a confession would be voluntary if it is made by the accused in a fit state of mind and if it is not caused by any inducement, threat or promise having reference to the charge against him proceeding from a person in authority. Whether or not the confession was voluntary would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case judged in the light of Section 24 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872- Evidentiary value of an extra-judicial confession discussed - Extra-judicial confession of an offence made by the accused before a witness is one of the several instances of circumstantial evidence; there are other circumstances, such as, the theory of last seen together; conduct of the accused before or immediately after the incident; human blood being found on the clothes or person of the accused which matches with that of the accused; leading to discovery, recovery of weapon etc. (Para 16- 19)

Criminal Trial - Circumstantial Evidence - Where a case rests squarely on circumstantial evidence, inference of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or the guilt of any other person. The circumstances would not only have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt, those would also have to be shown to be closely connected with the principal fact sought to be inferred from those circumstances. All these circumstances should be complete and there should be no gap left in the chain of evidence. The proved circumstances must be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and totally inconsistent with his innocence. The circumstances taken cumulatively must be so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else. While there is no doubt that conviction can be based solely on circumstantial evidence but great care must be taken in evaluating circumstantial evidence. If the evidence relied upon is reasonably capable of two inferences, the one in favour of the accused must be accepted. (Para 16)

Y.S Nataraja Vs State Of Karnataka - Criminal Trial - Defence Counsel Suggestion

Criminal Trial - Suggestion made by the defence counsel to a witness in the cross-examination if found to be incriminating in nature, in any manner, would definitely bind the accused and the accused cannot get away on the plea that his counsel had no implied authority to make suggestions in the nature of admission against his clients. Any concession or admission of a fact by defence counsel would definitely be binding on his client, except the concession on a point of law- Referred to Balu Sudam Khalde & Anr. vs. State of Mahrashtra reported in (2023) 13 SCC 365. (Para 40)

Criminal Trial - An accused can be held guilty, even on the evidence of a solitary eye-witness provided the evidence is found to be true, trustworthy and reliable. The evidence of a solitary eye-witness can be classified into three categories:- (i) Wholly reliable (ii) Wholly unreliable (iii) Neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. If the case falls within the first category, there should not be any difficulty in accepting the evidence and holding the accused guilty of the alleged offence. If the case falls within the second category, the Court should outright discard the entire case of the prosecution and acquit the accused. The difficulty arises when the case falls within the third category, i.e., neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. In such circumstances, the court must insist for corroboration in material particulars. (Para 30)

Karan Singh vs State Of Haryana 2025 INSC 133 - S 304B IPC - S 113B Evidence Act - Dowry Death

Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 113B - The presumption under Section 113-B will apply when it is established that soon before her death, the woman has been subjected by the accused to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry. Therefore, even for attracting Section 113-B, the prosecution must establish that the deceased was subjected by the appellant to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with any demand of dowry soon before her death. Unless these facts are proved, the presumptions under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act cannot be invoked. (Para 8)

Manish Aggarwal Vs Sukhdev Singh -S 100 CPC - Second Appeal - Punjab Courts Act - S 33 Evidence Act - S 313 CrPC

Indian Evidence Act- Section 33 - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 313 - High Court may have been correct in holding that a Section 313 CrPC statement does not satisfy the requirements of Section 33 of the Evidence Act, but in any case, the execution of Agreement to Sell stood proved even without considering the Section 313 CrPC statement. (Para 14)

Mahabir Vs State Of Haryana 2025 INSC 120 - S 372 CrPC - Victims' Right To Appeal - Art.20-22 Constitution - S 145 Evidence Act - Public Prosecutors

Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 154 - Code of Criminal Procedure - Section 161,162,164 - the material elicited as contradiction by use of Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act is not substantive evidence. Even in regard to the statement recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC by authorised Magistrate, it has been held accordingly- Therefore, the fact that the contradictions are proved through the investigating officers though the witnesses have denied having made such statements, does not translate the contradictions into substantive evidence. Unless there is substantive evidence, it cannot be acted upon legally particularly to base a conviction. (Para 81) - The phrase 'if duly proved' in Section 162 of the CrPC indicates that the statements of witnesses recorded by the police cannot be immediately admitted as evidence or examined. They must first be proven through eliciting admissions from the witness during cross-examination and also during the cross-examination of the Investigating Officer. While statements made to the Investigating Officer can be used for contradiction, this can only be done after strict compliance with Section 145 of the Evidence Act. This requires drawing attention to the specific parts of the statement intended for contradiction. This is what is required under Section 145 of the Evidence Act but even where a witness is confronted by his previous statement and given an opportunity to explain that part of the statement that is put to him does not constitute substantive evidence. (Para 80)

Vinobhai vs State of Kerala 2025 INSC 119- S 27 Evidence Act - Disclosure Statement

Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 27 - Disclosure Statements are not so strong a piece of evidence sufficient on its own and without anything more to bring home the charges beyond reasonable doubt. (Para 8) - Quoted from of Manoj Kumar Soni v. State of M.P.

Chandrabhan Sudam Sanap Vs State Of Maharashtra 2025 INSC 116 - Death Sentence Acquittal - S 65B Evidence Act -Extra Judicial Confession

Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 65B- Certificate under Section 65-B(4) is a condition precedent to the admissibility of evidence by way of electronic record (Para 49) - Objection about Section 65-B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act, not being complied, cannot be taken at the appellate stage since that will deny an opportunity for the prosecution or the opposite party to rectify the defect. It was also held that the documents were not inherently inadmissible in evidence. (Para 40)

Criminal Trial - Extra judicial confession, by its very nature, has been held to be a weak piece of evidence. Normally it is given to persons who enjoyed the confidence and trust of the accused. (Para 108)

Ivan Rathinam vs Milan Joseph 2025 INSC 115 - S 112 Evidence Act - DNA Test - S 7 Family Courts Act

Indian Evidence Act - Section 112 -Legitimacy determines paternity under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, until the presumption is successfully rebutted by proving ‘non-access’ (Para 70) The contention that ‘paternity’ and ‘legitimacy’ are distinct or independent concepts is a misdirected notion - An ‘additional’ access or ‘multiple’ access does not automatically negate the access between the spouses and prove non-access thereof- There exists a strong presumption that the husband is the father of the child borne by his wife during the subsistence of their marriage. This section provides that conclusive proof of legitimacy is equivalent to paternity - Access and non-access under Section 112 do not require a party to prove beyond reasonable doubt that they had or did not have sexual intercourse at the time the child could have been begotten. ‘Access’ merely refers to the possibility of an opportunity for marital relations - In such a scenario, while parties may be on non-speaking terms, engaging in extra-marital affairs, or residing in different houses in the same village, it does not necessarily preclude the possibility of the spouses having an opportunity to engage in marital relations- Non-access means the impossibility, not merely inability, of the spouses to have marital relations with each other. (Para 32-33)

Indian Evidence Act - Section 112 - DNA Test - When dealing with the eminent need for a DNA test to prove paternity, this Court balances the interests of those involved and must consider whether it is possible to reach the truth without the use of such a test.- First and foremost, the courts must, therefore, consider the existing evidence to assess the presumption of legitimacy. If that evidence is insufficient to come to a finding, only then should the court consider ordering a DNA test. Once the insufficiency of evidence is established, the court must consider whether ordering a DNA test is in the best interests of the parties involved and must ensure that it does not cause undue harm to the parties. There are thus, two blockades to ordering a DNA test: (i) insufficiency of evidence; and (ii) a positive finding regarding the balance of interests.

Sadashiv Dhondiram Patil Vs State Of Maharashtra 2025 INSC 93 - S 25,27,106 Evidence Act - Motive -Village Police Patil - Extra Judicial Confession

Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 106 - The prosecution has to first lay the foundational facts before it seeks to invoke Section 106 of the Evidence Act. If the prosecution has not been able to lay the foundational facts for the purpose of invoking Section 106 of the Evidence Act, it cannot starightaway invoke the said Section and throw the entire burden on the accused to establish his innocence. (Para 55)

Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 27 - Just because the panch witnesses have turned hostile does not mean that such discovery should be disbelieved. From the plain reading of the oral evidence of the Investigating Officer if the discovery is believable and inspires confidence, the same can definitely be looked into as one of the incriminating pieces of evidence against the accused - In this case, all that the I.O. did was to depose that he had drawn the panchnama and in the end identified his signature on the same and that of the panch witnesses, SC held: This cannot be said to be proving the contents of the panchnama in accordance with law. (Para 49-50)

Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 25- Extra-judicial confession - By its very nature, extra judicial confession is rather a weak type of evidence and requires appreciation with a great deal of care and caution. Where extra-judicial confession is surrounded by suspicious circumstances, its credibility becomes doubtful and would lose its importance. (Para 41)

Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 25 ; Maharashtra Village Police Act- Section 14 - Village Police Patil cannot be said to be a Police Officer. (Para 42)

Vijay @ Vijayakumar vs State 2025 INSC 90 - S 300 IPC - Exception 1 - Grave and Sudden Provocation

Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 105 - It is for the accused who seeks to reduce the nature of his crime by bringing his case under Exception 1, to prove that the provocation received by him was such as might reasonably be deemed sufficient to deprive him of self- control, and that the act of killing took place whilst that absence of control was in existence and may fairly be attributed to it. (Para 27)

Ram Pyarey vs State Of Uttar Pradesh - 2025 INSC 71 - S 113B Evidence Act

Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 113B- When the Courts below want to apply Section 113B of the Evidence Act, the condition precedent is that there has to be first some cogent evidence as regards incessant harassment. In the absence of any cogent evidence as regards harassment or abetment in any form like aiding or instigating, the court cannot straightaway invoke Section 113B and presume that the accused abetted the commission of suicide. (Para 13)