(/)


Gift Premium(/gift-subscription)
Account 

Home (/) / Supreme court (/supreme-court) / Supreme Court Annual Digest 2024:...

Supreme Court Annual Digest 2024: BSA & Evidence Act

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK
(/livelawnewsnetwork)
14 Jan 2025 2:25 PM

Share this


Listen to this Article

0:00 / 1:42:12

BHARATIYA SAKSHYA ADHINIYAM, 2023, (BSA) and THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT,
1872, (IEA) - SUPREME COURT ANNUAL DIGEST 2024
CORRESPONDING SECTIONS and COMPARISON SUMMARY

Appreciation of Evidence

The High Court fails to appreciate evidence in a thorough manner and merely relied
on a limited set of facts to arrive at a finding. In an appeal, as much as in a trial,
appreciation of evidence essentially requires a holistic view and not a myopic view.
Appreciation of evidence requires sifting and weighing of material facts against each
other and a conclusion of guilt could be arrived at only when the entire set of facts,
lined together, points towards the only conclusion of guilt. Appreciation of partial
evidence is no appreciation at all, and is bound to lead to absurd results. (Para 35)
Mallappa v. State of Karnataka, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 115
(https://www.livelaw.in/tags/mallappa-ors-versus-state-of-karnataka) : AIR 2024 SC
1252 : 2024 Cri.L.J. 1137 : (2024) 3 SCC 544

Also Read - S.113B Evidence Act | Dowry Death Can't Be Presumed Without Clear Evidence Of
Incessant Harassment: Supreme Court (/supreme-court/supreme-court-apply-section-113b-of-
the-indian-evidence-act-clear-evidence-incessant-harassment-essential-280896)

Circumstantial Evidence

Chain of circumstances – The circumstances set out are by themselves consistent

with the sole hypothesis that the accused and the accused alone is the perpetrator of
these murders which were most foul. Held, the circumstances presented in evidence
in this case meets the ingredients that are required to be established. Hence, no
reason to interfere with the concurrent conviction recorded by the trial Court and the
High Court against the appellant. (Para 15) Navas @ Mulanavas v. State of Kerala,
2024 LiveLaw (SC) 248 (https://www.livelaw.in/supreme-court/supreme-court-
summarises-factors-to-decide-term-of-sentence-convicts-must-undergo-before-
remission-in-murder-cases-252931) : 2024 CriLJ 1797

Also Read - State Govt Employee Who Worked On Deputation In Central Govt Dept Not Entitled
To Pension As Per CCS Rules : Supreme Court (/supreme-court/state-govt-employee-who-
worked-on-deputation-in-central-govt-dept-not-entitled-to-pension-as-per-ccs-rules-supreme-
court-280879)
Entire case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. The principles
concerning circumstantial evidence are referred to as the “Panchsheel” principles.
Essentially, circumstantial evidence comes into picture when there is absence of
direct evidence. For proving a case on the basis of circumstantial evidence, it must
be established that the chain of circumstances is complete and is consistent with the
only conclusion of guilt. The chain of circumstantial evidence is essentially meant to
enable the court in drawing an inference and the task of fixing criminal liability on the
strength of an inference must be approached with abundant caution. The
circumstances sought to be proved by the prosecution are inconsistent and the
inconsistencies are unexplained by the prosecution. Drawing an inference of guilt on
the basis of inconsistent circumstantial evidence would result into failure of justice.
The evidence on record fails the test for the acceptability of circumstantial evidence.
(Para 27) Kalinga @ Kushal v. State of Karnataka, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 142
(https://www.livelaw.in/supreme-court/extra-judicial-confession-cant-be-strong-
evidence-if-not-supported-by-other-evidence-on-record-supreme-court-250178) : AIR
2024 SC 1208 : 2024 CriLJ 1282 : (2024) 4 SCC 735

Also Read - NDPS Act |'Taxi Driver Not Expected To Give Passenger Details' : Supreme Court
Acquits Driver Of Taxi From Which Contraband Was Seized (/supreme-court/ndps-act-taxi-
driver-not-expected-to-give-passenger-details-supreme-court-acquits-driver-of-taxi-from-which-
contraband-was-seized-280854)

Statement of witness by itself provides a complete chain of circumstantial evidence

sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused appellant. The prosecution has
established the chain of incriminating circumstantial evidence pointing exclusively
towards the guilt of the accused appellant and totally inconsistent with his innocence
or the involvement of any other person in the crime. (Para 38 & 48) Sukhpal Singh v.
NCT of Delhi, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 359 (https://www.livelaw.in/supreme-court/witness-
statement-recorded-in-absence-of-accused-can-be-used-as-evidence-if-conditions-in-
s299-crpc-are-fulfilled-supreme-court-257472) : AIR 2024 SC 2724 : 2024 Cri LJ 2831

Also Read - Supreme Court Says Its Judgments Must Clarify Their Binding Nature So That HCs
& Trial Courts Don't Get Confused (/supreme-court/supreme-court-says-its-judgments-must-
clarify-their-binding-nature-to-avoid-confusing-hcs-trial-courts-280807)

In absence of direct evidence, case essentially falls back on circumstantial evidence.

The prosecution has failed to complete the chain of circumstances. The
circumstances are far from conclusive and a conclusion of guilt could not be drawn
from them. To sustain a conviction, the Court must form the view that the accused
“must have” committed the offence, and not “may have”. (Para 37 & 38) Mallappa v.
State of Karnataka, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 115 (https://www.livelaw.in/tags/mallappa-
ors-versus-state-of-karnataka) : AIR 2024 SC 1252 : 2024 CriLJ 1137 : (2024) 3 SCC
544

Panchsheel or the five principles essential to be kept in mind while convicting an

accused in a case based on circumstantial evidence: - (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 14) Navas @ Mulanavas v. State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 248
(https://www.livelaw.in/supreme-court/supreme-court-summarises-factors-to-decide-
term-of-sentence-convicts-must-undergo-before-remission-in-murder-cases-252931) :
2024 CriLJ 1797

Proof of case based on circumstantial evidence – Circumstances from which the

conclusion of the guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The accused 'must
be' and not merely 'may be' proved guilty before a court can convict the accused. It is
not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between 'may be proved' and 'must be
or should be proved'. The facts so established should be consistent only with the guilt
of the accused. Suspicion, however strong it may be, cannot take the place of proof
beyond reasonable doubt. An accused cannot be convicted on the ground of
suspicion, and is presumed to be innocent unless proved guilty beyond a reasonable
doubt. Held, chain of circumstances as complete as leading to only the guilt of
accused, not established. (Para 9) Ravishankar Tandon v. State of Chhattisgarh,
2024 LiveLaw (SC) 296 (https://www.livelaw.in/supreme-court/s27-evidence-act-to-
use-statement-of-accused-on-fact-discovery-prosecution-must-establish-no-one-else-
had-information-about-it-supreme-court-254921) : AIR 2024 SC 2087 : 2024 CriLJ
2039

Conviction on the basis of circumstantial evidence – Prosecution to prove case

beyond reasonable doubt – It is necessary for the prosecution that the
circumstances from which the conclusion of the guilt is to be drawn should be fully
established. It is a primary principle that the accused 'must be' and not merely 'may
be' proved guilty before a court can convict the accused. The facts so established
should be consistent only with the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not
be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty. 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 probabilities the act must have been done by the accused. The suspicion,
however strong it may be, cannot take the place of proof beyond reasonable doubt
and an accused cannot be convicted on the ground of suspicion. An accused is
presumed to be innocent unless proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Held, the
prosecution has failed to prove any of the incriminating circumstances beyond
reasonable doubt and in no case, the chain of circumstances, which was so
interlinked to each other that leads to no other conclusion, than the guilt of the
accused persons. Held, the findings of the learned trial Judge are based on correct
appreciation of the material placed on record. (Para 6, 7 & 13) Ballu @ Balram @
Balmukund v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 271
(https://www.livelaw.in/supreme-court/impermissible-for-high-court-to-interfere-with-
acquittal-unless-trial-courts-view-is-perverse-or-impossible-supreme-court-254092) :
AIR 2024 SC 1678
Principles of circumstantial evidence – The circumstances from which the
conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. 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. The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency.
They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved. 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 37)
Mallappa v. State of Karnataka, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 115
(https://www.livelaw.in/tags/mallappa-ors-versus-state-of-karnataka) : AIR 2024 SC
1252 : 2024 Cri.L.J. 1137 : (2024) 3 SCC 544

In this case, the Court emphasized the necessity of proving the guilt of the accused
beyond a reasonable doubt, distinguishing between "may be proved" and "must be
proved." The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence, including the recovery of
a hammer, blood-stained clothes, and CCTV footage. However, the Court found
significant flaws in the evidence: the hammer's recovery from a public canal raised
doubts about its integrity, the recovery of blood-stained clothes was inconclusive due
to possible tampering, and the identification of recovered jewelry was
unsubstantiated. The Court reaffirmed that strong suspicion cannot replace proof
beyond a reasonable doubt. Consequently, the judgments of both the trial court and
the High Court were quashed, and the appellant was acquitted. Vishwajeet Kerba
Masalkar v. State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 809
(https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/supreme-court-appeal-by-man-convicted-of-
murdering-wife-mother-daughter-sentenced-to-death-allowed-272712) : AIR 2024 SC
5286 : 2024 Cri.LJ 4710

Conclusive Evidence
The accused persons had sought to place reliance on income tax returns and income
tax assessment orders. Held, income tax returns and orders may be admissible as
evidence but are not themselves conclusive proof of lawful source of income under
Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and that independent evidence to
corroborate the same would be required. The probative value of value of the Orders of
the Income Tax Authorities, including the Order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal
and the subsequent Assessment Orders, would depend on the nature of the
information furnished and findings recorded in the order, and would not ipso facto
either conclusively prove or disprove a charge. The High Court has rightly not
discharged the appellants based on the Orders of the Income Tax Authorities. (Para
29 & 32) Puneet Sabharwal v. CBI, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 260
(https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/income-tax-orders-not-conclusive-proof-for-
discharge-in-case-under-prevention-of-corruption-act-supreme-court-253390) : AIR
2024 SC 2046

Credibility of Evidence

Surveyor's report is a credible evidence and the court may rely on it until a more
reliable evidence is brought on record. (Para 23) United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v.
Hyundai Engineering & Construction Co. Ltd., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 409
(https://www.livelaw.in/supreme-court/supreme-court-insurance-contracts-
exclusionary-clauses-interpret-strictly-no-conflict-with-main-purpose-258958) : AIR
2024 SC 2868

Credibility of a witness – Statement of witness has substantial variations with his

testimony in court, giving rise to doubts as to the veracity of his testimony. Held, the
threshold for disbelieving a witness must not be mere discrepancy or inconsistency
but material discrepancy and inconsistency, which renders the account narrated by
the witnesses so highly improbable that the same may safely be discarded altogether
from consideration. Further held, it cannot be expected that all the witnesses, when
under attack by the accused persons, possess stellar memories with an accurate
recollection of the events. Although, there are a few inconsistencies in the
testimonies of the witnesses, they are minor and not substantial, so as to erode the
credibility of such witnesses. Hence, the credibility and reliability of the witnesses is
unshaken. (Para 13, 15 & 16) Joy Devaraj v. State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 448
(https://www.livelaw.in/tags/frank-vitus-v-narcotics-control-bureau) : (2024) 8 SCC
102

Delay

Delay in filing the FIR and delay in examination of prosecution witness – The delay
therefore renders the circumstances questionable. Hence, it cannot be said that the
prosecution had succeeded in establishing its case against the two accused persons
beyond reasonable doubt warranting a conviction under Section 302 IPC. (Para 42)
Periyasamy v. State, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 244 (https://www.livelaw.in/supreme-
court/court-has-to-strike-balance-between-testimony-of-injured-witness-interested-
witness-supreme-court-252805) : AIR 2024 SC 1667

Discrepancy

Usually in matters involving criminality, discrepancies are bound to be there in the

account given by a witness, especially when there is a conspicuous disparity between
the date of the incident and the time of deposition. However, if the discrepancies are
such that they create serious doubt on the veracity of a witness, then the Court may
deduce and decline to rely on such evidence. This is especially true when there are
variations in the evidence tendered by prosecution witnesses regarding the sequence
of events as they have occurred. Courts must exercise all the more care and
conscientiousness when such oral evidence may lean towards falsely implicating
innocent persons. (Para 13, Referred : Andhra Pradesh v. Pullagummi Kasi Reddy
Krishna Reddy, (2018) 7 SCC 623) Raju v. State of Uttarakhand, 2024 LiveLaw (SC)
622 (https://www.livelaw.in/supreme-court/courts-must-exercise-more-care-when-
inconsistencies-in-oral-evidence-lean-towards-falsely-implicating-innocent-persons-
supreme-court-268074)

Dock Identification
It is an identification made by witness in Court during trial. (Para 12) P. Sasikumar v.
State rep. by the Inspector of Police, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 460
(https://www.livelaw.in/supreme-court/trial-courts-must-be-cautious-in-accepting-
dock-identification-of-stranger-accused-by-witness-without-test-identification-parade-
supreme-court-263088) : AIR 2024 SC 5507 : (2024) 8 SCC 600

Documentary Evidence

The photocopy of a document is inadmissible in evidence. (Para 36) Manisha

Mahendra Gala v. Shalini Bhagwan Avatramani, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 301
(https://www.livelaw.in/tags/manisha-mahendra-gala-vs-shalini-bhagwan-
avatramani) : AIR 2024 SC 1947 : (2024) 6 SCC 130

Extra judicial confession

It is considered as a weak type of evidence and is generally used as a corroborative

link to lend credibility to the other evidence on record. An extra judicial confession
must be accepted with great care and caution. If it is not supported by other evidence
on record, it fails to inspire confidence and in such a case, it shall not be treated as a
strong piece of evidence for the purpose of arriving at the conclusion of guilt. The
prosecution must establish that a confession was indeed made by the accused, that
it was voluntary in nature and that the contents of the confession were true. The
standard required for proving an extra judicial confession to the satisfaction of the
Court is on the higher side and these essential ingredients must be established
beyond any reasonable doubt. The standard becomes even higher when the entire
case of the prosecution necessarily rests on the extra judicial confession. (Para 14)
Kalinga @ Kushal v. State of Karnataka, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 142
(https://www.livelaw.in/supreme-court/extra-judicial-confession-cant-be-strong-
evidence-if-not-supported-by-other-evidence-on-record-supreme-court-250178) : AIR
2024 SC 1208 : 2024 CriLJ 1282 : (2024) 4 SCC 735

Eyewitness Testimony
Credibility of Prosecution Witness – FIR Registration Discrepancies – Independent
Witness and Police Conduct - The absence of a timestamp on the FIR and its delayed
entry into the court record further fueled suspicions that the FIR was a post-
investigation document, undermining its credibility. Possible manipulation or
concealment of the original complaint by the prosecution. Allarakha Habib Memon v.
State of Gujarat, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 562 (https://www.livelaw.in/tags/allarakha-
habib-memon-etc-v-state-of-gujarat) : AIR 2024 SC 4201

Murder Trial - Eyewitness Testimony – Role of Independent Witness in corroborating

the prosecution's version of the events - Discussed. Allarakha Habib Memon v. State
of Gujarat, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 562 (https://www.livelaw.in/tags/allarakha-habib-
memon-etc-v-state-of-gujarat) : AIR 2024 SC 4201

Hostile Witness

Duty of public prosecutor to cross-examine hostile witness – It is the duty of the

Public Prosecutor to cross-examine a hostile witness in detail and try to elucidate the
truth & also establish that the witness is speaking lie and has deliberately resiled
from his police statement recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. A good,
seasoned and experienced Public Prosecutor will not only bring the contradictions on
record, but will also cross-examine the hostile witness at length to establish that he
or she had actually witnessed the incident as narrated in his/her police statement.
Only bringing the contradictions on record and thereafter proving such contradictions
through the evidence of the Investigating Officer is not sufficient. (Para 69) Anees v.
State Govt of NCT, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 344 (https://www.livelaw.in/tags/anees-v-the-
state-govt-of-nct) : AIR 2024 SC 2297 : 2024 CriLJ 2377

Evidentiary value of a hostile witness – 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. It was further held that the evidence of such witnesses cannot
be treated as effaced or washed off the record altogether but the same can be
accepted to the extent their version is found to be dependable on a careful scrutiny
thereof. (Para 9) Selvamani v. State, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 358
(https://www.livelaw.in/supreme-court/conviction-cant-be-set-aside-merely-because-
prosecution-witness-turned-hostile-supreme-court-257463) : AIR 2024 SC 2273

Hostile witness – Appreciation of the evidence is challenged – The prosecutrix and

her mother and aunt in their cross-examination, which was recorded three and a half
months after the recording of the examination-in-chief, have turned around and not
supported the prosecution case. Held, on account of a long gap between the
examination-in-chief and cross examination, the witnesses were won over by the
accused and they resiled from the version as deposed in the examination-in-chief
which fully incriminates the accused. However, when the evidence of the victim as
well as her mother and aunt is tested with the FIR, the statement recorded under
Section 164 CrPC and the evidence of the Medical Expert), there is sufficient
corroboration to the version given by the prosecutrix in her examination-in-chief.
Hence, no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the trial
court as well as the High Court on appreciation of the evidence. (Para 8, 13 & 15)
Selvamani v. State, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 358 (https://www.livelaw.in/supreme-
court/conviction-cant-be-set-aside-merely-because-prosecution-witness-turned-
hostile-supreme-court-257463) : AIR 2024 SC 2273

Hostile Witness – A witness cannot be disbelieved on the sole ground of him turning
hostile, the hostility of such witness does not particularly dent the prosecution's case.
Held, merely because a witness resiled from his statement given to the police, the
entire case presented by the prosecution cannot be unreliable. (Para 18) Joy Devaraj
v. State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 448 (https://www.livelaw.in/tags/frank-vitus-v-
narcotics-control-bureau) : (2024) 8 SCC 102

illiterate witness

Appreciation of evidence led by such a witness has to be treated differently from

other kinds of witnesses. It cannot be subjected to a hyper-technical inquiry and
much emphasis ought not to be given to imprecise details that may have been
brought out in the evidence. The evidence of a rustic/illiterate witness must not be
disregarded if there were to be certain minor contradictions or inconsistencies in the
deposition. (Para 27) Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 13
(https://www.livelaw.in/tags/darshan-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab) : AIR 2024 SC 627
: (2024) 3 SCC 164 : 2024 CriLJ 1601

illiterate witness - However, the testimony of an illiterate witness suffers not merely
from technical imperfections, there are glaring omissions and improvements that
have been brought out in the cross-examination, which cannot be attributed to the
illiteracy of the individual deposition. If there were minor contradictions and
inconsistencies, that could have been ignored since the recollection of exact details
as to location and time can be attributed to the lack of literacy. (Para 28) Darshan
Singh v. State of Punjab, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 13 (https://www.livelaw.in/tags/darshan-
singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab) : AIR 2024 SC 627 : (2024) 3 SCC 164

Incidental witnesses

The incident, which transpired partly within the confines of the house and extended
slightly beyond the deceased's premises, the family members and close relatives
naturally become the witnesses. These individuals cannot be considered incidental
witnesses; instead, they emerge as the most natural witnesses. (Para 29) State of
Punjab v. Gurpreet Singh, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 218 (https://www.livelaw.in/supreme-
court/if-acquittal-is-based-on-irrelevant-grounds-supreme-court-obligated-to-
interfere-under-article-136-supreme-court-251701) : AIR 2024 SC 3135 : (2024) 4 SCC
469

Independent witness

No independent witnesses were examined – The non-examination of independent

witnesses would not be fatal to a case set up by the prosecution but if witnesses
examined are found to be 'interested' then, the examination of independent witnesses
would assume importance. It is hard to conceive how the Trial Court concluded that
despite being the first cousin of D-1 and himself a person injured in the incident, PW-1
was not an interested witness. Further, considering categorical statement that “the
wine shop is in the main road” and “the wine shop would be crowded always” the
joining of independent witnesses ought not to have been a difficult task but, yet, it
remained unachieved. (Para 31) Periyasamy v. State, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 244
(https://www.livelaw.in/supreme-court/court-has-to-strike-balance-between-
testimony-of-injured-witness-interested-witness-supreme-court-252805) : AIR 2024
SC 1667

Injured Witness

Court has to strike a balance between testimonies of Injured Witness & Interested
Witness. The evidence of an injured witness is considered to be on a higher pedestal
than that of a witness simpliciter. (Para 28 & 34) Periyasamy v. State, 2024 LiveLaw
(SC) 244 (https://www.livelaw.in/supreme-court/court-has-to-strike-balance-between-
testimony-of-injured-witness-interested-witness-supreme-court-252805) : AIR 2024
SC 1667

Injured Witness - The importance of an injured witness in a criminal trial cannot be

overstated. Unless there are compelling circumstances or evidence placed by the
defence to doubt such a witness, this has to be accepted as extremely valuable
evidence in a criminal Trial. (Para 11) Neeraj Sharma v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2024
LiveLaw (SC) 7 (https://www.livelaw.in/supreme-court/no-conviction-possible-under-
s364a-ipc-if-prosecution-doesnt-prove-abduction-was-coupled-with-ransom-demand-
life-threat-supreme-court-245790) : AIR 2024 SC 271 : (2024) 3 SCC 125

Insufficiency of Evidence

Sufficiency of the materials on record - Ordinarily the court should not get into or look
into the sufficiency of the materials on record on the basis of which the requisite
subjective satisfaction is arrived at by the Detaining Authority. However, if the facts of
the case are such that the court is required to go into such issues, it may be done.
The detention of the detenue is only relied upon on his confessional statement before
the police and there is no test identification parade carried out by the police. There is
nothing to indicate that the nefarious activities of the detenu created an atmosphere
of panic and fear in the minds of the people of the concerned locality. Held, it is a
case of and it prima facie, appears that the detenu might have been picked up by the
police on suspicion and then relied upon his confessional statement before the
police. (Para 33) Nenavath Bujji v. State of Telangana, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 253
(https://www.livelaw.in/tags/nenavath-bujji-etc-versus-the-state-of-telangana-and-
ors) : AIR 2024 SC 1610 : 2024 CriLJ 1733

Interested witness

Where a testimony is duly explained and inspires confidence, the Court is not
expected to reject the testimony of an interested witness. However, when the
testimony is full of contradictions and fails to match evenly with the supporting
evidence the Court is bound to sift and weigh the evidence to test its true weight and
credibility. (Para 33) Mallappa v. State of Karnataka, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 115
(https://www.livelaw.in/tags/mallappa-ors-versus-state-of-karnataka) : AIR 2024 SC
1252 : 2024 CriLJ 1137 : (2024) 3 SCC 544

Ocular Evidence

Ocular evidence is sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused even if it unmatches
with the doctor's expert evidence-Undoubtedly, only one kind of weapon i.e. chopper
was used in committing the crime and, therefore, the evidence of the doctor may not
be matching with that of the prosecution, but again, the ocular evidence of PW-3 and
PW-4 is sufficient enough to prove that only chopper was used as a weapon of crime.
In the light of the said evidence of the two eyewitnesses, the suggestion or opinion of
the doctor cannot prevail as the opinion based upon probability is weak evidence in
comparison to the ocular evidence of eyewitnesses. (Para 21) Haalesh @ Haleshi @
Kurubara Haleshi v. State of Karnataka, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 88
(https://www.livelaw.in/supreme-court/supreme-court-refuses-to-set-aside-murder-
conviction-merely-because-of-mismatch-between-doctors-evidence-ocular-evidence-
248624) : AIR 2024 SC 1056 : (2024) 3 SCC 475
Ocular Evidence - No doubt, they are members of the family and may be interested
persons but their testimony cannot be discarded simply for the reason that they are
family members in the scenario of the case that the incident took place inside the
house of the deceased Shivanna, where there could not have been any other
eyewitnesses other than the family members. The evidence of the aforesaid two
eyewitnesses could not be shaken in the cross-examination. (Para 16) Haalesh @
Haleshi @ Kurubara Haleshi v. State of Karnataka, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 88
(https://www.livelaw.in/supreme-court/supreme-court-refuses-to-set-aside-murder-
conviction-merely-because-of-mismatch-between-doctors-evidence-ocular-evidence-
248624) : AIR 2024 SC 1056 : (2024) 3 SCC 475

Onus of proof

Onus to establish the prejudice or miscarriage on account of non-questioning or

inadequate questioning on any incriminating circumstance(s), during the examination
under Section 313, Cr.PC, is on the convict concerned. (Para 21) Naresh Kumar v.
State of Delhi, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 443 (https://www.livelaw.in/supreme-court/s313-
crpc-non-questioning-on-incriminating-circumstances-vitiates-trial-if-it-resulted-in-
material-prejudice-to-accused-supreme-court-262689) : AIR 2024 SC 3233 : 2024
CriLJ 3224

Photograph

Don't accept black and white photographs without permission of court - Supreme
court directs registry. Savita Rasiklal Mandan v. Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (SC)
682 (https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/dont-accept-black-white-photographs-
without-permission-of-court-supreme-court-directs-registry-269189)

Presumption of innocence

The presumption is in favour of accused, unless proven guilty – The presumption

continues at all stages of the trial and finally culminates into a fact when the case
ends in acquittal. The presumption of innocence gets concretized when the case
ends in acquittal. It is so because once the Trial Court, on appreciation of the
evidence on record, finds that the accused was not guilty, the presumption gets
strengthened and a higher threshold is expected to rebut the same in appeal. (Para
24) Mallappa v. State of Karnataka, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 115
(https://www.livelaw.in/tags/mallappa-ors-versus-state-of-karnataka) : AIR 2024 SC
1252 : 2024 Cri.L.J. 1137 : (2024) 3 SCC 544

Prima facie

Prima facie means “at first sight”, “at first view”, or “based on first impression” –
“Evidence sufficient in law to raise a presumption of fact or establish the fact in
question unless rebutted”. In both civil and criminal law, the term is used to denote
that, upon initial examination, a legal claim has sufficient evidence to proceed to trial
or judgment. In most legal proceedings, one party (typically, the plaintiff or the
prosecutor) has a burden of proof, which requires them to present prima facie
evidence for each element of the case or charges against the defendant. If they
cannot present prima facie evidence, the initial claim may be dismissed without any
need for a response by other parties. (Para 49) Anees v. State Govt of NCT, 2024
LiveLaw (SC) 344 (https://www.livelaw.in/tags/anees-v-the-state-govt-of-nct) : AIR
2024 SC 2297 : 2024 CriLJ 2377

Re-appreciate Evidence

Power of the High Court to re-appreciate the evidence – There is no inhibition on the
High Court to re-appreciate or re-visit the evidence on record. However, such power is
a qualified power. For re-appreciating evidence, the court must consider, whether the
Trial Court thoroughly appreciated the evidence on record and gave due
consideration to all material pieces of evidence or whether the finding of the Trial
Court is illegal or affected by an error of law or fact or whether the view taken by the
Trial Court is a fairly possible view. (Para 25) Mallappa v. State of Karnataka, 2024
LiveLaw (SC) 115 (https://www.livelaw.in/tags/mallappa-ors-versus-state-of-
karnataka) : 2024 CriLJ 1137 : AIR 2024 SC 1252 : (2024) 3 SCC 544
Re-appreciation of evidence – Reverse an order of acquittal - The Trial Court had
appreciated the entire evidence in a comprehensive sense and the High Court
reversed the view without arriving at any finding of perversity or illegality in the order
of the Trial Court. The High Court, in exercise of appellate powers, may re-appreciate
the entire evidence, however reversal of an order of acquittal is not to be based on
mere existence of a different view or a mere difference of opinion. To reverse an
order of acquittal in appeal, it is essential to arrive at a finding that the order of the
Trial Court was perverse or illegal; or that the Trial Court did not fully appreciate the
evidence on record; or that the view of the Trial Court was not a possible view. The
High Court took a cursory view of the matter and merely arrived at a different
conclusion on a re-appreciation of evidence. (Para 25) Kalinga @ Kushal v. State of
Karnataka, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 142 (https://www.livelaw.in/supreme-court/extra-
judicial-confession-cant-be-strong-evidence-if-not-supported-by-other-evidence-on-
record-supreme-court-250178) : AIR 2024 SC 1208 : 2024 CriLJ 1282 : (2024) 4 SCC
735

Reasonable Doubt

Minor inconsistencies could not be construed as reasonable doubts for ordering

acquittal. A reasonable doubt is essentially a serious doubt which renders the
possibility of guilt as highly doubtful. The inconsistencies in the case of the
prosecution are not minor inconsistencies and the prosecution has miserably failed
to establish a coherent chain of circumstances. The present case does not fall in the
category of a light-hearted acquittal. (Para 29) Kalinga @ Kushal v. State of
Karnataka, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 142 (https://www.livelaw.in/supreme-court/extra-
judicial-confession-cant-be-strong-evidence-if-not-supported-by-other-evidence-on-
record-supreme-court-250178) : AIR 2024 SC 1208 : 2024 CriLJ 1282 : (2024) 4 SCC
735

Sexual Offences
Credibility of testimony of the victim in matters involving sexual offences – The
statement of the prosecutrix ought to be consistent from the beginning to the end
(minor inconsistencies excepted), from the initial statement to the oral testimony,
without creating any doubt qua the prosecution's case. The Court can rely on the
victim as a “sterling witness” without further corroboration, but the quality and
credibility must be exceptionally high. While a victim's testimony is usually enough for
sexual offence cases, an unreliable or insufficient account from the prosecutrix,
marked by identified flaws and gaps, casts serious doubt with regard to the veracity
of the prosecution version and could make it difficult for a conviction to be recorded.
Considering the evidence of a victim subjected to a sexual offence, the Court does
not necessarily demand an almost accurate account of the incident and allows the
victim to provide her version based on her recollection of events, to the extent
reasonably possible for her to recollect. If the Court deems such evidence credible
and free from doubt, there is hardly any insistence on corroboration of that version.
Material contradictions apparent in the depositions of prosecution witnesses,
including the victim, significantly undermine the credibility of the prosecution version.
Enough missing links present to extend the benefit of doubt to the accused. (Para 15,
16, 17 & 22) Nirmal Premkumar v. State, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 221
(https://www.livelaw.in/supreme-court/allegation-of-sexual-harassment-committed-
within-closed-confines-requires-closer-scrutiny-if-victims-statement-is-doubtful-
supreme-court-251910)

Offence of sexual harassment in a public place, as opposed to one committed within

the confines of a room or a house, or even in a public place but away from the view of
the public, stands on different premise. If any doubt arises in the Court's mind
regarding the veracity of the victim's version, the Court may, at its discretion, seek
corroboration from other witnesses who directly observed the incident or from other
attending circumstances to unearth the truth. (Para 18) Nirmal Premkumar v. State,
2024 LiveLaw (SC) 221 (https://www.livelaw.in/supreme-court/allegation-of-sexual-
harassment-committed-within-closed-confines-requires-closer-scrutiny-if-victims-
statement-is-doubtful-supreme-court-251910)
Standard of proof

Beyond reasonable doubt – The prosecution has failed to prove the appellant's guilt
beyond a reasonable doubt. Hence, the impugned orders cannot be sustained, and
they are hereby quashed and set aside. (Para 23) Pankaj Singh v. State of Haryana,
2024 LiveLaw (SC) 274 (https://www.livelaw.in/supreme-court/accused-not-
obligated-to-lead-evidence-of-his-innocence-unless-specified-by-law-supreme-court-
254174) : AIR 2024 SC 3091 : (2023) 14 SCC 147

Standard of proof – In civil cases including matrimonial disputes of a civil nature, the
standard of proof is not proof beyond reasonable doubt 'but' the preponderance of
probabilities tending to draw an inference that the fact must be more probable.
Inference from the evidence and circumstances must be carefully distinguished from
conjectures or speculation. If there are no positive proved facts - oral, documentary,
or circumstantial - from which the inferences can be drawn, the method of inference
would fail and what would remain is mere speculation or conjecture. Held, weighing
the evidence on preponderance of probabilities, it is the appellant who has
established a stronger and more acceptable case. (Para 19, 20 & 35) Maya
Gopinathan v. Anoop S.B., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 327 (https://www.livelaw.in/supreme-
court/stridhan-is-wifes-absolute-property-husband-holds-no-title-over-it-supreme-
court-reiterates-256133) : AIR 2024 SC 2454

Tutored Witness

Benefit of doubt – Held, evidence of the PW2 – PW5 will have to be discarded as
there is a distinct possibility that the said witnesses were tutored by the police on a
day before it was recorded by trial court. This kind of interference by the Police with
the judicial process, amounts to gross misuse of power by the Police machinery.
Hence, there is a serious doubt created about the genuineness of the prosecution
case and the benefit of this substantial doubt must be given to the appellants.
Therefore, both the Sessions Court and the High Court have committed an error in
convicting the appellants. (Para 8 & 9) Manikandan v. State by the Inspector of
Police, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 281 (https://www.livelaw.in/supreme-court/police-cannot-
be-allowed-to-tutor-prosecution-witness-supreme-court-asks-tn-dgp-to-take-action-
against-erring-police-officers-254436) : AIR 2024 SC 1801

Two-views theory

When the appreciation of evidence results into two equally plausible views, the very
existence of an equally plausible view in favour of innocence of the accused is in
itself a reasonable doubt in the case of the prosecution and reinforces the
presumption of innocence of accused. When two views are possible, following the
one in favour of innocence of the accused is the safest course of action. It is also
settled that if the view of the Trial Court, in a case of acquittal, is a plausible view, it is
not open for the High Court to convict the accused by re-appreciating the evidence. If
such a course is permissible, it would make it practically impossible to settle the
rights and liabilities in the eyes of law. (Para 26) Mallappa v. State of Karnataka, 2024
LiveLaw (SC) 115 (https://www.livelaw.in/tags/mallappa-ors-versus-state-of-
karnataka) : AIR 2024 SC 1252 : 2024 CriLJ 1137 : (2024) 3 SCC 544

Victim

Conviction on sole evidence of victim – Conviction undoubtedly can be recorded on

the sole evidence of a victim of crime; however, it must undergo a strict scrutiny
through the well settled legal principles. (Para 22) Nirmal Premkumar v. State, 2024
LiveLaw (SC) 221 (https://www.livelaw.in/supreme-court/allegation-of-sexual-
harassment-committed-within-closed-confines-requires-closer-scrutiny-if-victims-
statement-is-doubtful-supreme-court-251910)

Witness List

Witness who was shown in the prosecution list but not examined by prosecution can
be summoned as a defence witness. (Para 3 & 4) Sunder Lal v. State of Uttar
Pradesh, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 98 (https://www.livelaw.in/supreme-court/supreme-
court-defense-can-examine-witness-discharged-by-prosecution-248877) : (2024) 6
SCC 639
Weapon

Recovery of a bloodstained weapon without connecting evidence is insufficient for

conviction. Allarakha Habib Memon v. State of Gujarat, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 562
(https://www.livelaw.in/tags/allarakha-habib-memon-etc-v-state-of-gujarat) : AIR
2024 SC 4201

BHARATIYA SAKSHYA ADHINIYAM, 2023

Section 2 (1) (b) - Conclusive Proof

["Act" is replaced with "Adhiniyam". Wherever the word “Act” is used in IEA the word
“Adhiniyam” is used in BSA, therefore, this fact will not be specifically mentioned in
this table hereinafter. Word "means" is added.]

The investigating officer had inspected the house and found no direct material,
except some make-up articles. Admittedly, another woman was also residing in the
same portion of the house. The High Court did take note of this fact but explained it
away by observing that since that woman was a widow, the make-up articles could
not have belonged to her as there was no need for her to put on make-up being a
widow. In our opinion, the observation of the High Court is not only legally untenable
but also highly objectionable. A sweeping observation of this nature is not
commensurate with the sensitivity and neutrality expected from a court of law,
specifically when the same is not made out from any evidence on record. Be that as it
may, mere presence of certain make-up articles cannot be a conclusive proof of the
fact that the deceased was residing in the said house, especially when another
woman was admittedly residing there. (Para 27 & 28) Vijay Singh @ Vijay Kr. Sharma
v. State of Bihar, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 746 (https://www.livelaw.in/tags/vijay-singhvijay-
kr-sharma-v-the-state-of-bihar)

Section 4 - Relevancy of facts forming part of same transaction

[No Change]
Section 6 IEA – Res gestae – Relevancy of facts forming part of same transaction –
It is based on spontaneity and immediacy of such statement or fact in relation to the
fact in issue. Provided that if there was an interval which ought to have been
sufficient for purpose of fabrication then the statement recorded, even with slight
delay may not be part of res gestae. Held, idea of search of the house of Accused No.
4, is an afterthought with an admitted time gap of 40­45 minutes. The search
conducted at the residence of the Accused No. 04 is not a continuance of action
based on the secret information received. (Para 27 & 28) Najmunisha v. State of
Gujarat, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 298 (https://www.livelaw.in/tags/najmunisha-v-state-of-
gujarat) : AIR 2024 SC 2778

Section 6 - Motive, preparation and previous or subsequent conduct

[No Change]

Section 8 and 27 IEA – Conduct – The conduct of the appellant in leading the
Investigating Officer and others to a drain nearby his house and the discovery of the
knife from the drain is a relevant fact. It would be admissible as 'conduct' under
Section 8 irrespective of the fact whether the statement made by the accused falls
within the purview of Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The conduct of the accused
alone, though may be relevant under Section 8 of the Evidence Act, cannot form the
basis of conviction is only one of the circumstances which the court may take into
consideration along with the other evidence on record, direct or indirect. (Para 56 &
61) Anees v. State Govt of NCT, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 344
(https://www.livelaw.in/tags/anees-v-the-state-govt-of-nct) : AIR 2024 SC 2297 : 2024
CriLJ 2377

Section 7 - Facts necessary to explain or introduce fact in issue or relevant facts

[Words "fact in issue or" are added in the heading. "A" is replaced by "he".]
Section 9 IEA – Conviction challenged – On grounds that identification of accused is
not correct as the test identification parade (TIP) is not conducted – Where accused
is a stranger to a witness and there has been no Test Identification Parade (TIP), the
trial court should be very cautious while accepting the dock identification by such a
witness. Held, not conducting a TIP was a fatal flaw in the police investigation and in
the absence of TIP, the dock identification of the present appellant remains doubtful.
The prosecution has not been able to prove the identity of the appellant beyond a
reasonable doubt. Hence, the appellant could not have been convicted on the basis
of a doubtful evidence as to the appellant's identity. Conviction is set aside. (Para 12,
13, 16) P. Sasikumar v. State rep. by the Inspector of Police, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 460
(https://www.livelaw.in/supreme-court/trial-courts-must-be-cautious-in-accepting-
dock-identification-of-stranger-accused-by-witness-without-test-identification-parade-
supreme-court-263088) : AIR 2024 SC 5507 : (2024) 8 SCC 600

Section 9 IEA – Test Identification parade – Identification of the appellant by witness

is quite doubtful as no proper identification parade has been conducted. Witness
clearly states that he has identified the accused persons out of two people shown by
the police. In the absence of proper identification parade being conducted, the
identification for the first time in the Court cannot be said to be free from doubt.
(Para 6 & 7) Jafar v. State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 238
(https://www.livelaw.in/supreme-court/identification-of-accused-by-witness-at-police-
station-doubtful-supreme-court-sets-aside-conviction-252559)

Section 12 - Facts showing existence of state of mind, or of body or bodily feeling

[In illustrations, word "coin" is replaced by "currency" and "carriage" is replaced by

"cars".]

Section 14 IEA – State of mind – Held, the accused went absconding after the
murder and could not be traced out for almost 10 years which is also a strong
circumstance pointing towards his guilty state of mind. (Para 45) Sukhpal Singh v.
NCT of Delhi, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 359 (https://www.livelaw.in/supreme-court/witness-
statement-recorded-in-absence-of-accused-can-be-used-as-evidence-if-conditions-in-
s299-crpc-are-fulfilled-supreme-court-257472) : AIR 2024 SC 2724 : 2024 Cri LJ 2831

Section 15 - Admission defined

[No Change]

Sections 17 and 18 IEA – Admission is a conscious and deliberate act and not
something that could be inferred. An admission could be a positive act of
acknowledgement or confession. To constitute an admission, one of the
requirements is a voluntary acknowledgement through a statement of the existence
of certain facts during the judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings, which conclude as
true or valid the allegations made in the proceedings or in the notice. The formal act
of acknowledgement during the proceedings waives or dispenses with the production
of evidence by the contesting party. The admission concedes, for the purpose of
litigation, the proposition of fact claimed by the opponents as true. An admission is
also the best evidence the opposite party can rely upon, and though inconclusive, is
decisive of the matter unless successfully withdrawn or proved erroneous by the
other side. (Para 13.1) Raja Gounder v. M. Sengodan, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 48
(https://www.livelaw.in/supreme-court/children-from-void-marriage-cant-be-denied-
share-in-their-parents-property-supreme-court-247247) : AIR 2024 SC 644

Section 16 - Admission by party to proceeding or his agent

[Headings of paragraphs are excluded and written as subsections and clauses]

Section 18 IEA – A statement made by a person is not only evidence against the
person but is also evidence against those who claim through him. Section 18 of the
Act lays down the conditions and the requirements satisfied for applying to a
statement as an admission. (Para 14) Raja Gounder v. M. Sengodan, 2024 LiveLaw
(SC) 48 (https://www.livelaw.in/supreme-court/children-from-void-marriage-cant-be-
denied-share-in-their-parents-property-supreme-court-247247) : AIR 2024 SC 644
Section 18 IEA – Admission by party to proceeding or his agent - Section 18 of the
Act deals with: (i) admission by a party to a proceeding, (ii) his agent, (iii) by a suitor
in a representative character, (iv) statements made by a party in trusted subject
matter, (v) statements made by a person from whom interest is derived. The
qualifying circumstances to merit as admission are subject to satisfying the
requirements. (Para 13.2 & 13.3) Raja Gounder v. M. Sengodan, 2024 LiveLaw (SC)
48 (https://www.livelaw.in/supreme-court/children-from-void-marriage-cant-be-
denied-share-in-their-parents-property-supreme-court-247247) : AIR 2024 SC 644

Section 23 (1) - Confession to police officer

[Words "not to be proved" are excluded from heading.]

Section 25 IEA – Confession before a police officer – The bar under Section 25 of the
IEA 1872 is not applicable against the admissibility of confessional statement made
to the officers empowered under Section 41 and 42 of the NDPS Act 1985. (Para 50)
Najmunisha v. State of Gujarat, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 298
(https://www.livelaw.in/tags/najmunisha-v-state-of-gujarat) : AIR 2024 SC 2778

Section 25 IEA – Confession before a police office – Confession of an accused

recorded by a Police Officer is not admissible in evidence as the same is hit by
Section 25 of the Evidence Act. (Para 23) Mohammed Khalid v. State of Telangana,
2024 LiveLaw (SC) 183 (https://www.livelaw.in/supreme-court/ndps-act-when-
samples-arent-drawn-following-s52a-fsl-report-is-a-waste-paper-cant-be-read-in-
evidence-supreme-court-251068) : (2024) 5 SCC 393

Sections 25, 26, and 27 IEA - Legality of confessional statements - Admissibility of

eyewitness testimony - Reliability of circumstantial evidence, including CCTV footage
and recovery of the deceased's body parts. The sole eyewitness failed to identify the
accused or provide consistent testimony. Significant omissions and contradictions
between her court testimony and her statement under Section 161 CrPC rendered her
evidence unreliable. Non-examination of her husband, an alleged eyewitness, resulted
in adverse inferences against the prosecution. CCTV footage lacked admissibility due
to the absence of a certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act. Neither the
footage nor the CD containing it was authenticated or properly marked, and the trial
and High Courts failed to view the footage. Recovery evidence, including parts of the
deceased's body, was deemed insufficient to establish guilt without corroborating
evidence. The trial court improperly admitted confessions made by the accused to
police officers in custody, violating Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act. Under
Section 27, only information distinctly leading to the discovery of facts is admissible.
The prosecution failed to adhere to this principle, rendering the confessions
inadmissible. The prosecution failed to establish a complete and consistent chain of
evidence. The prosecution's reliance on inadmissible and inconsistent evidence,
coupled with procedural lapses, led to the failure to establish the guilt of the accused
beyond a reasonable doubt. The conviction was unsustainable and consequently set
aside. Randeep Singh @ Rana v. State of Haryana, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 914
(https://www.livelaw.in/supreme-court/confession-of-accused-cant-be-proved-under-
s27-evidence-act-only-statements-relating-to-discovery-of-facts-admissible-supreme-
court-276133)

Confessional statements recorded by the Police Officers which are part of the
charge-sheet cannot remain a part thereof and the same must be ignored. Sanju
Bansal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 467 (https://www.livelaw.in/top-
stories/confession-before-police-cannot-be-included-in-charge-sheet-supreme-court-
263298)

Section 23 (2) - Confession by accused while in custody of police not to be proved

against him

[Heading is dropped as the section is included as a subsection. Word "whilst" is

replaced by "while" and words "such person" are replaced by "him".]

Section 26 IEA - Confessions made by the accused to the medical officer were
inadmissible, as they were made while in police custody. Allarakha Habib Memon v.
State of Gujarat, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 562 (https://www.livelaw.in/tags/allarakha-
habib-memon-etc-v-state-of-gujarat) : AIR 2024 SC 4201

Sections 25 to 27 - As soon as an accused or suspected person comes into the

hands of a police officer, he is no longer at liberty and is under a check, and is,
therefore, in “custody” within the meaning of Sections 25 to 27 of the Evidence Act.
(Para 28) Perumal Raja @ Perumal v. State rep. by the Inspector of Police, 2024
LiveLaw (SC) 8 (https://www.livelaw.in/tags/perumal-raja-perumal-vs-state) : AIR
2024 SC 460 : 2024 CriLJ 1013

Section 23 Proviso - How much of information received from accused may be proved

[Heading is dropped as the section is included as proviso.]

Section 27 IEA - Disclosure Statements and Link Evidence – Acquittal – Prosecution

had failed to prove the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. The
disclosure statements under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act were not proved
as per law, and no credible discovery resulted from them, as the link evidence
ensuring safe custody of the recovered articles from seizure until reaching the
Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) was absent. The investigating officer's testimony
on disclosure statements was vague and unacceptable, and the FSL reports were
rendered insignificant. The Court set aside the concurrent findings of the lower courts
due to improper appreciation of evidence and perverse findings. The appellants were
acquitted, and their convictions by the Trial Court and High Court were quashed.
Appeals allowed. Convictions set aside. Allarakha Habib Memon v. State of Gujarat,
2024 LiveLaw (SC) 562 (https://www.livelaw.in/tags/allarakha-habib-memon-etc-v-
state-of-gujarat) : AIR 2024 SC 4201

Section 27 IEA - Four conditions to invoke Section 27 - First condition imposed and
necessary for bringing the section into operation is the discovery of a fact which
should be a relevant fact in consequence of information received from a person
accused of an offence. The second is that the discovery of such a fact must be
deposed to. A fact already known to the police will fall foul and not meet this
condition. The third is that at the time of receipt of the information, the accused must
be in police custody. Lastly, it is only so much of information which relates distinctly
to the fact thereby discovered resulting in recovery of a physical object which is
admissible. Rest of the information is to be excluded. The word 'distinctly' is used to
limit and define the scope of the information and means 'directly', 'indubitably',
'strictly' or 'unmistakably'. Only that part of the information which is clear, immediate
and a proximate cause of discovery is admissible. (Para 22) Perumal Raja @
Perumal v. State rep. by the Inspector of Police, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 8
(https://www.livelaw.in/tags/perumal-raja-perumal-vs-state) : AIR 2024 SC 460 : 2024
CriLJ 1013

Section 27 IEA - The expression “custody” under Section 27 of the Evidence Act does
not mean formal custody. It includes any kind of restriction, restraint or even
surveillance by the police. Even if the accused was not formally arrested at the time
of giving information, the accused ought to be deemed, for all practical purposes, in
the custody of the police. (Para 25) Perumal Raja @ Perumal v. State rep. by the
Inspector of Police, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 8 (https://www.livelaw.in/tags/perumal-raja-
perumal-vs-state) : AIR 2024 SC 460 : 2024 CriLJ 1013

Section 27 of the Evidence Act is frequently used by the police, and the courts must
be vigilant about its application to ensure credibility of evidence, as the provision is
vulnerable to abuse. However, this does not mean that in every case invocation of
Section 27 of the Evidence Act must be seen with suspicion and is to be discarded as
perfunctory and unworthy of credence. (Para 24) Perumal Raja @ Perumal v. State
rep. by the Inspector of Police, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 8
(https://www.livelaw.in/tags/perumal-raja-perumal-vs-state) : AIR 2024 SC 460 : 2024
CriLJ 1013

Section 27 IEA – Discovery – It is only so much of the information as relates

distinctly to the fact thereby discovered would be admissible. It will be necessary for
the prosecution to establish that, the information given by the accused while in police
custody had led to the discovery of the fact, which was distinctly within the
knowledge of the maker of the statement. Held, the prosecution will have to establish
that, before the information given by the accused persons on the basis of which the
dead body was recovered, nobody had the knowledge about the existence of the
dead body at the place from where it was recovered. A perusal of the evidence
reveals that the police as well as these witnesses knew about the death and the dead
body being found prior to the statements of the accused persons being recorded
under Section 27. Hence, the prosecution has failed to prove that the discovery of the
dead body was only on the basis of the disclosure statement made by the accused
persons under Section 27 and that nobody knew about the same before that. (Para
13, 14, 21 & 22) Ravishankar Tandon v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2024 LiveLaw (SC)
296 (https://www.livelaw.in/supreme-court/s27-evidence-act-to-use-statement-of-
accused-on-fact-discovery-prosecution-must-establish-no-one-else-had-information-
about-it-supreme-court-254921) : AIR 2024 SC 2087 : 2024 CriLJ 2039

Section 27 IEA – Discovery – Rationale behind the provision – If a fact is actually

discovered in consequence of the information supplied, it affords some guarantee
that the information is true and it can therefore be safely allowed to be admitted in
evidence as an incriminating factor against the accused. (Para 13) Ravishankar
Tandon v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 296
(https://www.livelaw.in/supreme-court/s27-evidence-act-to-use-statement-of-
accused-on-fact-discovery-prosecution-must-establish-no-one-else-had-information-
about-it-supreme-court-254921) : AIR 2024 SC 2087 : 2024 CriLJ 2039

Section 27 IEA – To prove disclosure statement and the discoveries made in

furtherance – The statement of an accused recorded by a police officer under
Section 27 of the Evidence Act is basically a memorandum of confession of the
accused recorded by the Investigating Officer (IO) during interrogation and taken
down in writing. The confessional part of such statement is inadmissible and only the
part which distinctly leads to discovery of fact is admissible in evidence. Held, mere
exhibiting of memorandum prepared by the IO during investigation cannot
tantamount to proof of its contents and the IO, while testifying on oath, would be
required to narrate the sequence of events which transpired leading to the recording
of the disclosure statement. By the interrogation memos, it is clear that the IO gave
no description of the disclosure statements. Hence, the disclosure statements
cannot be read in evidence and the recoveries made in furtherance thereof are non
est in the eyes of law. (Para 59, 65 & 66) Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar v. State of
Karnataka, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 316 (https://www.livelaw.in/tags/babu-sahebagouda-
rudragoudar-and-others-v-state-of-karnataka) : AIR 2024 SC 2252 : (2024) 8 SCC 149 :
2024 CriLJ 2021

Section 27 IEA – Recovery of incriminating materials based on a statement given by

the accused en route the police station before the recording of the statement under
Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act at the police station is not admissible. Suresh
Chandra Tiwari v. State of Uttarakhand, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 932
(https://www.livelaw.in/supreme-court/s-27-evidence-act-recovery-based-on-
statement-by-accused-before-recording-of-s27-disclosure-not-admissible-supreme-
court-276664)

Section 24 - Consideration of proved confession affecting person making it and others

jointly under trial for same offence

[A new explanation II is added, mentioning that "A trial of more persons than one held
in the absence of the accused who has absconded or who fails to comply with a
proclamation issued under Section 84 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,
2023, shall be deemed to be a joint trial for the purpose of this section."]

Section 30 IEA - Enforcement Directorate cannot start with a statement of a co-

accused to implicate the accused. An incriminating statement of a co-accused would
not amount to substantive evidence. (Para 37) Prem Prakash v. Union of India, 2024
LiveLaw (SC) 617 (https://www.livelaw.in/tags/prem-prakash-v-union-of-india-
through-the-directorate-of-enforcement) : AIR 2024 SC 4286

Section 26 - Cases in which statement of relevant fact by person who is dead or cannot
be found, etc., is relevant.
[Word "namely" is added and headings of subsections are dropped. In illustration
word "ravished" is replaced by "raped" and word "banya" is replaced by "business".]

When the conviction was based on the deceased's oral dying declaration to a close
relative, the courts must exercise due caution in believing the testimony of the close
relative to convict the accused. State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ramjan Khan, 2024
LiveLaw (SC) 844 (https://www.livelaw.in/supreme-court/oral-dying-declaration-
made-to-close-relatives-requires-cautious-assessment-before-being-used-to-convict-
accused-supreme-court-273706)

Section 32(1) IEA – Dying Declaration – Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act is an
exception to the general rule that hearsay evidence is not admissible. Once a dying
declaration is found to be authentic inspiring confidence of the court, then the same
can be relied upon and can be the sole basis for conviction without any
corroboration. However, before accepting such a dying declaration, court must be
satisfied that it was rendered voluntarily, it is consistent and credible and that it is
devoid of any tutoring. Held, the contents of the dying declaration have been proved
by prosecution witnesses. Certain inconsistencies in evidence of witness may take
place due to the time gap of 5 years from the date of incident to the date of evidence
given. Further held, though there are inconsistencies and improvements in the version
of the prosecution witnesses, there is however convergence with the core of the
narration of the deceased made in the dying declaration and the medical history
recorded by the doctor. Hence, dying declaration is accepted as a valid piece of
evidence and it clearly establishes the guilt of the appellant beyond all reasonable
doubt. (Para 24, 25 & 35) Rajendra Ramdas Kolhe v. State of Maharashtra, 2024
LiveLaw (SC) 406 (https://www.livelaw.in/supreme-court/principles-relating-to-dying-
declaration-supreme-court-explains-258841) : AIR 2024 SC 2682

Dying declaration can be the sole basis of the conviction if it inspires the full
confidence of the court. The Court is required to satisfy itself that the deceased was
in a fit state of mind at the time of making the statement and that it was not the
result of tutoring, prompting or imagination. Where the Court is satisfied about the
dying declaration being true and voluntary, it can base its conviction without any
further corroboration. There cannot be an absolute rule of law that the dying
declaration cannot form the sole basis of conviction unless it is corroborated. The
rule requiring corroboration is merely a rule of prudence. If after careful scrutiny, the
court is satisfied that it is true and free from any effort to induce the deceased to
make a false statement and if it is coherent and consistent, there shall be no legal
impediment to make it the basis of conviction, even if there is no corroboration. (Para
7) Naeem v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 199
(https://www.livelaw.in/supreme-court/conviction-can-be-solely-based-on-dying-
declaration-if-it-inspires-confidence-supreme-court-251436) : AIR 2024 SC 1381

Section 32 - The dying declaration cannot be ex facie accepted to be correct unless it

stands corroborated by any other cogent evidence. (Para 16) Jitendra Kumar Mishra
@ Jittu v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 20
(https://www.livelaw.in/supreme-court/acquittal-under-prevention-of-corruption-act-
should-not-be-based-solely-on-invalid-sanction-supreme-court-247478) : (2024) 2
SCC 666

Section 27 - Relevancy of certain evidence for proving, in subsequent proceeding, truth

of facts therein stated.

[No change except that word "that" is replaced by "and" in proviso.]

Section 33 IEA – Record of evidence in absence of accused – Deposition of any

witness taken in the absence of an accused may be used against him if the deponent
is dead or incapable of giving evidence or cannot be found or his presence cannot be
procured without any amount of delay, expense or inconvenience which, under the
circumstances of the case, would be unreasonable. Held, despite ample efforts
made, the witness cannot be traced and produced in the witness box for deposition
during trial after the accused had been arrested. Hence, the statement earlier
recorded was fit to be read as a piece of substantive evidence against the accused.
(Para 31, 38 & 39) Sukhpal Singh v. NCT of Delhi, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 359
(https://www.livelaw.in/supreme-court/witness-statement-recorded-in-absence-of-
accused-can-be-used-as-evidence-if-conditions-in-s299-crpc-are-fulfilled-supreme-
court-257472) : AIR 2024 SC 2724 : 2024 Cri LJ 2831

Section 29 - Relevancy of entry in public record or an electronic record made in

performance of duty

[No change]

Section 35 IEA - The dispute involved the ownership and possession of land claimed
by the respondents (plaintiffs) based on revenue records and challenged by the
appellants (State of Haryana and PWD) on the grounds of adverse possession. The
Supreme Court upheld the title of the plaintiffs, based on jamabandi entries,
registered sale deeds, and mutation records, which carried a presumption of
correctness under Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The appellants' failure
to deny the plaintiffs' title specifically amounted to an implied admission under Order
VIII Rule 5 of the CPC. The Court reiterated that the State, being a welfare entity,
cannot claim title over citizens' property through adverse possession and
emphasizing the principle that such claims undermine constitutional rights. The
appellants' acts of temporary occupation, such as storage of materials, lacked the
elements of hostility, continuity, and requisite duration to substantiate adverse
possession. The High Court was within its jurisdiction under Section 100 of the CPC
to address substantial questions of law, including whether the plea of adverse
possession implied an admission of the plaintiffs' title and whether findings of the
First Appellate Court were perverse. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal,
affirming the High Court's judgment that restored the Trial Court's decree in favor of
the plaintiffs, recognizing their ownership and granting possession. The plea of
adverse possession by the State was rejected as being untenable in law. State of
Haryana v. Amin Lal, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 900 (https://www.livelaw.in/tags/the-state-
of-haryana-v-amin-lal)

Section 39 (1) - Opinions of experts.

[Words "or any other field" are added. Thus, scope is expanded greatly]

Ballistic Expert - It is not that in each and every case where the death of the victim is
due to gunshot injury that the opinion of the ballistic expert should be obtained and
the expert be examined. When there is direct eye witness account which is found to
be credible, omission to obtain ballistic report and non-examination of ballistic expert
may not be fatal to the prosecution case but if the evidence tendered including that of
eyewitnesses do not inspire confidence or suffer from glaring inconsistencies
coupled with omission to examine material witnesses, the omission to seek ballistic
opinion and examination of the ballistic expert may be fatal to the prosecution case.
(Para 29) Ram Singh v. State of U.P., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 144
(https://www.livelaw.in/supreme-court/non-examination-of-ballistic-expert-fatal-to-
prosecution-case-if-inconsistencies-found-in-witness-testimonies-supreme-court-
250185) : AIR 2024 SC 1176 : 2024 CriLJ 1297 : (2024) 4 SCC 208

Section 55 - Oral evidence to be direct

[In heading word "must" is replaced by "to" and paragraph are numbered as clauses
(i), (ii), (iii)and (iv). Word "also" is replaced by "further".]

Section 60 IEA – Oral evidence must be direct – The section mandates that no
secondary/hearsay evidence can be given in case of oral evidence, except for the
circumstances enumerated in the section. In case of a person who asserts to have
heard a fact, only his evidence must be given in respect of the same. (Para 61) Babu
Sahebagouda Rudragoudar v. State of Karnataka, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 316
(https://www.livelaw.in/tags/babu-sahebagouda-rudragoudar-and-others-v-state-of-
karnataka) : AIR 2024 SC 2252 : (2024) 8 SCC 149 : 2024 CriLJ 2021

Section 63 - Admissibility of electronic records

[Words "or semiconductor memory" "or any communication device or otherwise

stored, recorded, or copied in any electronic form" is added in subsection (1). Words
"communication device", "create" are added in subsection (2). In subsection (3), the
word "computer" is replaced by "by means of one or more computers or
communication devices," and new clauses (a) to (e) are added newly. In subsection
(4), the words "that is to say" are replaced by "shall be submitted along with the
electronic record at each instance where it is being submitted for admission,
namely:". The words "or a communication device referred to in clauses (a) to (e) of
sub-section (3)" are added to clause (b) of subsection (4), and in clause (c), the words
"person occupying a responsible official position in relation to the operation of the
relevant device or the management of the relevant activities" are replaced by "person
in charge of the computer or communication device or the management of the
relevant activities". The words "and an expert" and "in the certificate specified in the
schedule" are added. Clause (b) of subsection (5) of IEA is excluded and now (c)
corresponds to (b), where words "communication device" and "or by other electronic
means as referred to in clauses (a) to (e) of sub- section (3)". are added.]

Section 65B IEA – Admissibility of electronic record – Certificate to prove electronic

evidence – The call records were discarded by the High Court as there was no
certification under Section 65B of the Evidence Act. The Investigating Officer, was not
aware of the procedure to be followed for obtaining a certificate under Section 65B of
the Evidence Act. The State Government must ensure that the Police Officers are
imparted proper training on this aspect. William Stephen v. State of Tamil Nadu,
2024 LiveLaw (SC) 168 (https://www.livelaw.in/tags/william-stephen-v-state-of-tamil-
nadu) : (2024) 5 SCC 258

Section 67 - Proof of execution of document required by law to be attested

[No change]

Section 68 IEA - The depositions of the attestors of the Will also remained unshaken
and clearly evidenced that the same was signed by the deceased in their presence
and they, in turn, affixed their own signatures in his presence. Once such evidence
was adduced in terms of Section 68 of the Evidence Act, 1872, and the mandatory
requirements prescribed under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, were
duly satisfied, the Will stood proved in the eye of law and the same ought not to have
been brushed aside lightly by the High Court. (Para 15) Savitri Bai v. Savitri Bai, 2024
LiveLaw (SC) 178 (https://www.livelaw.in/supreme-court/ownership-over-property-
cant-be-claimed-when-sale-deed-is-executed-by-person-having-no-title-supreme-
court-250991) : AIR 2024 SC 1193 : (2024) 4 SCC 282

Section 72 - Comparison of signature, writing or seal with others admitted or proved

[Paragraph are numbered as Subsections (1), (2) and (3).]

Section 73 IEA - Certified copy of a document issued by a Bank is itself admissible

under the Bankers' Books Evidence Act, 1891 without any formal proof thereof.
Hence, in an appropriate case, the certified copy of the specimen signature
maintained by the Bank can be procured with a request to the Court to compare the
same with the signature appearing on the cheque by exercising powers under Section
73 of the Act. (Para 15) Ajitsinh Chehuji Rathod v. State of Gujarat, 2024 LiveLaw
(SC) 64 (https://www.livelaw.in/tags/ajitsinh-chehuji-rathod-v-state-of-gujarat) : AIR
2024 SC 787 : (2024) 4 SCC 453

Section 92 - Presumption as to documents thirty years old

[A new explanation same as of section 80 is added. In illustration "is" is replaced by

"shall be"]

Section 90 IEA – Presumption for 30 years old documents – If the document is more
than 30 years old and is being produced from proper custody, a presumption is
available to the effect that signatures and every other part of such document, which
purports to be in the handwriting of any particular person, is in that person's
handwriting and in case a document is executed or attested, the same was executed
and attested by the persons by whom it purports to be executed and attested. This
does not lead to a presumption that recitals therein are correct. (Para 17) Urban
Improvement Trust v. Ganga Bai Menariya, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 153
(https://www.livelaw.in/supreme-court/injunction-suit-to-protect-possession-not-
maintainable-when-plaintiffs-title-is-disputed-supreme-court-250281)

Section 94 - Evidence of terms of contracts, grants and other dispositions of property

reduced to form of document

[No change]

Section 91 of the Evidence Act excludes oral evidence of the terms of the written
document by requiring those terms to be proved by the document itself. Section 92
excludes oral evidence for contradicting, varying, adding to or subtracting to such
terms. These two sections do not prevent parties from adducing evidence on the
issue of whether the parties to the documents had agreed to contract on the terms
set forth in the document. (Para 11) Maharaj Singh v. Karan Singh, 2024 LiveLaw
(SC) 473 (https://www.livelaw.in/supreme-court/specific-performance-suit-plaintiff-
need-not-seek-cancellation-of-subsequent-sale-deed-executed-with-prior-knowledge-
of-agreement-to-sell-supreme-court-263478) : AIR 2024 SC 3328 : (2024) 8 SCC 83

Section 104 - Burden of proof

[No change]

The onus of proving the first part i.e. that the person had bought goods/availed
services for a consideration, rests on the complainant himself. The onus of proving
that the person falls within the carve out, i.e. to exclude the complainants from
availing benefits under the Act, must necessarily rest on the service provider and not
the complainant. Only if, the service provider discharges its onus of showing that the
service was availed, in fact for a commercial purpose, does the onus shift back to the
complainant to bring its case within the third part, i.e. the Explanation (a) to Section
2(7) – to show that the service was obtained exclusively for the purpose of earning
its livelihood by means of self-employment. This is in sync with the general principle
embodied in Section 101 and 102 of the Evidence Act that 'one who pleads must
prove'. Since it is always the service provider who pleads that the service was
obtained for a commercial purpose, the onus of proving the same would have to be
borne by it. Hence, the onus to prove that the service was obtained for a commercial
purpose is on the service provider. (Para 20, 21 & 22) Shriram Chits (India) Pvt. Ltd.
v. Raghachand Associates, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 368 (https://www.livelaw.in/supreme-
court/consumer-protection-act-1986-onus-of-proving-that-service-was-availed-for-
commercial-purpose-is-on-service-provider-supreme-court-257661) : AIR 2024 SC
3044 : (2024) 9 SCC 509

Burden of Proof in insurance contracts – In the context of insurance contracts, the

burden is on the insurer to prove the allegation of non-disclosure of a material fact
and that the non-disclosure was fraudulent. Held, the onus was on the insurer to
show that the insured had fraudulently given false information and the said
information was related to a material fact. Held, mere mentioning of certain details in
an affidavit of evidence is not proof of the facts unless that is supported either by
other documentary and/or oral evidence. The respondents have failed to prove the
fact that the insured-deceased had fraudulently suppressed the information about
the existing policies with other insurance companies while entering into the insurance
contracts. Therefore, the repudiation of the policy was without any basis or
justification. (Para 17, 38, 45, 51) Mahakali Sujatha v. Future Generali India Life
Insurance Company Ltd., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 300 (https://www.livelaw.in/supreme-
court/insurance-law-insurers-burden-to-prove-insured-suppressed-material-facts-
supreme-court-254975) : AIR 2024 SC 2019 : (2024) 8 SCC 712

The threshold of the 'burden of proof' required to be discharged, when challenging a

particular charge as an “illegal charge”, is only on the preponderance of probabilities,
upon which the onus will shift on the authorities to establish how the particular
charge is valid. Railways failed to establish that 444 kms was the correct chargeable
distance, hence, it was declared that the said computation was illegal. (Para 121)
Union of India v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 256
(https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/supreme-court-railways-indian-oil-freight-
overcharge-illegal-charge-refund-claim-253318) : AIR 2024 SC 1820

Section 105 - On whom burden of proof lies

[No change]

Section 102 IEA - Burden of Proof - The Court reiterated that under Section 102 of the
Evidence Act, the burden of proof lies on the party who would fail in the absence of
evidence on either side. The plaintiff must typically begin unless specific admissions
shift this onus. Jami Venkata Suryaprabha v. Tarini Prasad Nayak, 2024 LiveLaw (SC)
1015 (https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/when-defendant-can-be-asked-to-begin-
evidence-in-suit-supreme-court-explains-order-xviii-rule-1-cpc-278830)

Section 108 - Burden of proving that case of accused comes within exceptions

[The words "the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)" are replaced by "the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023".]

Section 105 IEA – Presumption – Burden to prove case within exception – It is for the
accused to show the applicability of Exception 4 of Section 302. (Para 78) Anees v.
State Govt of NCT, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 344 (https://www.livelaw.in/tags/anees-v-the-
state-govt-of-nct) : AIR 2024 SC 2297 : 2024 CriLJ 2377

Section 109 - Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge

[No change]

Section 106 IEA – Burden of proof – The burden is upon the accused to prove. Held,
the bald plea of denial offered by the accused is not sufficient to absolve him of the
burden cast upon him. Failure of the accused to offer explanation for the homicidal
death of his wife in the night time when only the accused and deceased were present
in the house lead to the interference of guilt of accused. (Para 46 & 47) Sukhpal
Singh v. NCT of Delhi, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 359 (https://www.livelaw.in/supreme-
court/witness-statement-recorded-in-absence-of-accused-can-be-used-as-evidence-
if-conditions-in-s299-crpc-are-fulfilled-supreme-court-257472) : AIR 2024 SC 2724 :
2024 Cri LJ 2831

Section 106 IEA – Burden of proof – When any fact is especially within the
knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. The word
“especially” means facts that are pre-eminently or exceptionally within the knowledge
of the accused. Section 106 of the Evidence Act is an exception to Section 101 of the
Evidence Act. Section 101 with its illustration (a) lays down the general rule that in a
criminal case the burden of proof is on the prosecution and Section 106 is certainly
not intended to relieve it of that duty. On the contrary, it is designed to meet certain
exceptional cases in which it would be impossible, or at any rate disproportionately
difficult, for the prosecution to establish the facts which are, “especially within the
knowledge of the accused and which, he can prove without difficulty or
inconvenience”. Section 106 of the Evidence Act would apply to cases where the
prosecution could be said to have succeeded in proving facts from which a
reasonable inference can be drawn regarding guilt of the accused. (Para 35, 36 & 50)
Anees v. State Govt of NCT, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 344
(https://www.livelaw.in/tags/anees-v-the-state-govt-of-nct) : AIR 2024 SC 2297 : 2024
CriLJ 2377

Section 106 IEA – Burden of proof – When any fact is especially within the
knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. Section 106 is
not intended to relieve the prosecution of its duty. However, in exceptional cases
where it could be impossible or at any rate disproportionately difficult for the
prosecution to establish the facts which are especially within the knowledge of the
accused, the burden will be on the accused since he could prove as to what
transpired in such scenario, without difficulty or inconvenience. In this case, when an
offence like multiple murders is committed inside a house in secrecy, the initial
burden has to be discharged by the prosecution and once the prosecution
successfully discharged the burden cast upon it, the burden did shift upon the
appellant being the only other person inside the four corners of the house to offer a
cogent and plausible explanation as to how the offences came to be committed. The
appellant has miserably failed to prove. (Para 12) Navas @ Mulanavas v. State of
Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 248 (https://www.livelaw.in/supreme-court/supreme-
court-summarises-factors-to-decide-term-of-sentence-convicts-must-undergo-before-
remission-in-murder-cases-252931) : 2024 CriLJ 1797

Section 106 IEA - Accused has duty to offer explanations when offence was
committed within privacy of their house. Uma v. State, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 843
(https://www.livelaw.in/supreme-court/s106-evidence-act-accused-has-duty-to-offer-
explanations-when-offence-was-committed-within-privacy-of-their-house-supreme-
court-273628)

Section 106 IEA - Accused can't be asked to discharge burden of proof when prima
facie case wasn't established by prosecution. Manharan Rajwade v. State of
Chhattisgarh, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 531 (https://www.livelaw.in/tags/manharan-
rajwade-versus-state-of-chhattisgarh)

Section 106 of the Evidence Act also put burden on the husband who went to sleep
with her in the same room, but escaped unscathed to explain as to how the death had
occurred as it was within the special knowledge within the meaning of said Section.
(Para 8) Damodar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 607
(https://www.livelaw.in/supreme-court/husband-who-slept-in-same-room-escaped-
unscathed-when-wife-died-due-to-burn-injuries-supreme-court-affirms-conviction-for-
dowry-death-267642)

Section 117 - Presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married woman

[The words "section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)" are replaced by
"section 86 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023" in the explanation.]
Section 113A IEA – Presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married women –
The words 'may presume' makes the presumption discretionary. Before the
presumption under Section 113A is raised, the prosecution must show (1) that her
husband or relatives subjected her to cruelty and (2) that the married woman
committed suicide within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage. The
presumption would not be automatically applied on the mere fact that the deceased
committed suicide within a period of seven years of her marriage. The legislative
mandate is that where a woman commits suicide within seven years of her marriage
and it is shown that her husband or any relative of her husband had subjected her to
cruelty, the presumption under Section 113A of the Evidence Act may be raised,
having regard to all other circumstances of the case, that such suicide had been
abetted by her husband or by such relative of her husband. Naresh Kumar v. State of
Haryana, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 166 (https://www.livelaw.in/tags/naresh-kumar-v-state-
of-haryana) : (2024) 3 SCC 573 : 2024 Cri LJ 1561

Section 118 - Presumption as to dowry death

[The words "section 304B of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)" are replaced by
"section 80 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023" in explanation.]

Section 113B IEA - The High Court reversed the acquittal passed by the trial court,
holding that the death occurred within seven years of marriage due to 100% burn
injuries at the matrimonial home. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's
conviction, emphasizing the presumption of dowry death under Section 113B of the
Indian Evidence Act, and held that the appellants failed to discharge their burden of
proof. The appeal was dismissed. Damodar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2024 LiveLaw
(SC) 607 (https://www.livelaw.in/supreme-court/husband-who-slept-in-same-room-
escaped-unscathed-when-wife-died-due-to-burn-injuries-supreme-court-affirms-
conviction-for-dowry-death-267642)
Section 113B IEA - For a conviction under Section 304-B IPC, mere allegations of
dowry demand are insufficient. There must be credible evidence of harassment or
cruelty directly linked to dowry demands and occurring “soon before” the death,
fulfilling the essential ingredients required to invoke Section 113-B of the Evidence
Act. Shoor Singh v. State of Uttarakhand, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 726
(https://www.livelaw.in/supreme-court/s-304-b-ipc-factum-of-dowry-demand-not-
proved-in-connection-with-marriage-supreme-court-acquits-parents-in-law-270304) :
AIR 2024 SC 4551

Section 120 - Presumption as to absence of consent in certain prosecution for rape

[IPC sections are replaced by corresponding BNS sections.]

Section 114A IEA – Applicability of presumption as to absence of consent for

offences under Section 376(2) – The condition precedent for applicability of Section
114A is that the prosecution must be for the offence of rape under various clauses
set out under Section 376(2) of the IPC. No charge was framed against the appellant
accused for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(f) of the IPC. In the
absence of the charge framed under Section 376(2)(f) of the IPC, neither the
prosecution nor the victim can contend that Section 376(2)(f) of the IPC was
applicable. Therefore, the presumption under Section 114A of the Evidence Act will
not apply, and the burden will be on the prosecution to prove that the sexual
intercourse was without the consent of the Prosecutrix. (Para 11) Pankaj Singh v.
State of Haryana, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 274 (https://www.livelaw.in/supreme-
court/accused-not-obligated-to-lead-evidence-of-his-innocence-unless-specified-by-
law-supreme-court-254174) : AIR 2024 SC 3091 : (2023) 14 SCC 147

Section 130 - Official communications

[No change]
Section 124 IEA – Scope of right to information in the context of deciding the
disclosure of evidence relating to affairs of the State – Conflict between public
interest and private interest – Article 19(1)(a) has been held to guarantee the right to
information to citizens. It is the role of citizens to hold the State accountable for its
actions and inactions and they must possess information about State action for
them to accomplish this role effectively. Provisions of the Indian Evidence Act
stipulate that evidence which is relevant and material to proceedings need not be
disclosed to the party if the disclosure would violate public interest. When such
disclosure is denied on the ground that it would violate public interest, there is a
conflict between private interest and public interest. There is a public interest in the
impartial administration of justice which can only be secured by the disclosure of
relevant and material documents. There is a close relationship between the right to
information and open governance. Citizens have a duty to hold the government of the
day accountable for their actions and inactions, and they can effectively fulfil this
duty only if the government is open and not clothed in secrecy. The right to
information has an instrumental exegesis, which recognizes the value of the right in
facilitating the realization of democratic goals. But beyond that, the right to
information has an intrinsic constitutional value; one that recognizes that it is not just
a means to an end but an end in itself. Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union
of India, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 118 (https://www.livelaw.in/tags/association-for-
democratic-reforms-anr-v-union-of-india-ors) : AIR 2024 SC 1441 : (2024) 5 SCC 1

Section 137 - Witness not excused from answering on ground that answer will criminate

[Word "Proviso" is excluded.]

Section 132 IEA - A witness who gives an incriminating statement cannot take a
shield under proviso of Section 132 of the Evidence Act to claim immunity from
prosecution if there exists other substantial evidence or material against him proving
his prima facie involvement in the crime. Raghuveer Sharan v. District Sahakari
Krishi Gramin Vikas Bank, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 686 (https://www.livelaw.in/supreme-
court/no-bar-on-summoning-witness-who-made-self-incriminating-statements-as-
additional-accused-based-on-other-materials-supreme-court-269343) : AIR 2024 SC
4390

Section 139 - Number of witnesses

[No change]

Section 134 IEA – Sole witness – Conviction on grounds of sole witness testimony is
challenged – Held, no particular number of witnesses is required, in any case, to
prove a fact. It is the quality of evidence and not the quantity that matters. If the
evidence of a solitary witness appeals to the court to be wholly reliable, the same can
form the foundation for recording a conviction. Hence, the conviction of the appellant
does not call for interference based on the sole testimony which is found to be
reliable. (Para 17) Joy Devaraj v. State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 448
(https://www.livelaw.in/tags/frank-vitus-v-narcotics-control-bureau) : (2024) 8 SCC
102

Section 143 - Order of examinations

[Paragraph are numbered as subsections (1), (2) and (3), and word "in-chief" included.
The words in paragraph heading "Direction of reexamination" are excluded.]

Section 138 IEA – The general rule is that witnesses shall be examined in the order
laid down in Section 138 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. An exception to this rule is
Section 242(3) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 under which, in a warrant case, the
learned Magistrate, by recording reasons, can permit cross-examination of a witness
to be postponed till a particular witness or witnesses are examined. Held, recording
only the examination-in-chief of 12 prosecution witnesses without recording cross-
examination is contrary to the law. (Para 6 & 7) Ekene Godwin v. State of Tamil Nadu,
2024 LiveLaw (SC) 261 (https://www.livelaw.in/supreme-court/examination-in-chief-
of-witnesses-without-recording-their-cross-examination-is-contrary-to-law-supreme-
court-253392)
Section 148 - Cross- examination as to previous statements in writing

[No change]

Section 145 IEA – To contradict the witness – While recording the deposition of a
witness, it becomes the duty of the trial court to ensure that the part of the police
statement with which it is intended to contradict the witness is brought to the notice
of the witness in his cross-examination by reproducing it. If the witness admits the
part intended to contradict him, it stands proved and there is no need of further proof
of contradiction and it will be read while appreciating the evidence. If he denies
having made that part of the statement, the contradiction is merely brought on
record, but it is yet to be proved. (Para 66) Anees v. State Govt of NCT, 2024 LiveLaw
(SC) 344 (https://www.livelaw.in/tags/anees-v-the-state-govt-of-nct) : AIR 2024 SC
2297 : 2024 CriLJ 2377

Section 145 IEA – The statement made by a witness before the police under Section
161(1) Cr.P.C. can be used only for the purpose of contradicting such witness on
what he has stated at the trial. The statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. recorded
during the investigation are not substantive pieces of evidence but can be used
primarily for the limited purpose: (i) of contradicting such witness by an accused
under Section 145 of the Evidence Act; (ii) the contradiction of such witness also by
the prosecution but with the leave of the Court; and (iii) the re-examination of the
witness if necessary. (Para 63) Anees v. State Govt of NCT, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 344
(https://www.livelaw.in/tags/anees-v-the-state-govt-of-nct) : AIR 2024 SC 2297 : 2024
CriLJ 2377

Section 160 - Former statements of witness may be proved to corroborate later

testimony as to same fact

[No change]
Section 157 IEA - A statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC is not a substantive
piece of evidence but holds significant evidentiary value for corroboration and
contradiction under Section 157 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Such statements,
recorded by a Judicial Magistrate, carry greater credibility than statements under
Section 161 CrPC and are not constrained by the limitations of Section 162 CrPC. The
primary objectives of recording a statement under Section 164 CrPC are to deter the
witness from retracting or altering their version and to ensure accountability under
law. These statements gain importance, especially when witnesses are susceptible to
influence due to their association with the accused or the influence of the accused.
The reliability and weight of these statements depend on the witness's consistency
and the surrounding circumstances, including any retraction and its reasons. The
ultimate test of such statements lies in the trial process, where their reliability is
assessed in conjunction with other evidence. Vijaya Singh v. State of Uttarakhand,
2024 LiveLaw (SC) 928 (https://www.livelaw.in/supreme-court/s164-crpc-statement-
recorded-by-judicial-magistrate-cant-be-retracted-by-witness-on-flimsy-grounds-
supreme-court-276566)

Section 164 - Right of adverse party as to writing used to refresh memory

[Word "must" is replaced by "shall".]

Section 145 and 161 IEA - When a police officer uses a case diary for refreshing his
memory, an accused automatically gets a right to peruse that part of the prior
statement as recorded in the police officer's diary by taking recourse to Section 145
or Section 161, as the case may be, of the Evidence Act. (Para 26) Shailesh Kumar v.
State of U.P., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 162 (https://www.livelaw.in/tags/shailesh-kumar-v-
state-of-up-now-state-of-uttarakhand)

Section 145 and 161 IEA - Accused has a right to cross-examine a police officer as to
the recording made in the case diary whenever the police officer uses it to refresh his
memory. Similarly, in a case where the court uses a case diary for the purpose of
contradicting a police officer, then an accused is entitled to peruse the said
statement so recorded which is relevant, and cross-examine the police officer on that
count. Although the accused or his agents have no right to seek production of the
case diaries as per Section 172(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, whenever the
police officer uses it to refresh his memory, the accused will get a right to access it
for the purpose of cross-examination. (Para 22, 26 & 27) Shailesh Kumar v. State of
U.P., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 162 (https://www.livelaw.in/tags/shailesh-kumar-v-state-of-
up-now-state-of-uttarakhand)

Section 145 and 161 IEA - While it is the responsibility and duty of the Investigating
Officer to make a due recording in his case diary, there is no corresponding right
under subsection (3) of Section 172 of CrPC for accused to seek production of such
diaries, or to peruse them, except in a case where they are used by a police officer
maintaining them to refresh his memory, or in a case where the court uses them for
the purpose of contradicting the police officer. In such a case, the provision of
Section 145 or Section 161, as the case may be, of the Evidence Act, shall apply.
(Para 22) Shailesh Kumar v. State of U.P., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 162
(https://www.livelaw.in/tags/shailesh-kumar-v-state-of-up-now-state-of-uttarakhand)

Section 145 and 161 IEA - Whenever a case is made out either under Section 145 or
under Section 161 of the Evidence Act, the benefit conferred thereunder along with
the benefit of Section 172(3) of CrPC has to be extended to an accused. Thus, the
accused has a right to cross-examine a police officer as to the recording made in the
case diary whenever the police officer uses it to refresh his memory. Though Section
161 of the Evidence Act does not restrict itself to a case of refreshing memory by
perusing a case diary alone, there is no exclusion for doing so. Similarly, in a case
where the court uses a case diary for the purpose of contradicting a police officer,
then an accused is entitled to peruse the said statement so recorded which is
relevant, and cross-examine the police officer on that count. What is relevant in such
a case is the process of using it for the purpose of contradiction and not the
conclusion. To make the position clear, though Section 145 read with Section 161 of
the Evidence Act deals with the right of a party including an accused, such a right is
limited and restrictive when it is applied to Section 172 of CrPC. Suffice it is to state
that the said right cannot be declined when the author of a case diary uses it to
refresh his memory or the court uses it for the purpose of contradiction. Therefore,
held that Section 145 and Section 161 of the Evidence Act on the one hand and
Section 172(3) of CrPC on the other are to be read in consonance with each other,
subject to the limited right conferred under sub-section (3) of Section 172 of CrPC.
(Para 27) Shailesh Kumar v. State of U.P., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 162
(https://www.livelaw.in/tags/shailesh-kumar-v-state-of-up-now-state-of-uttarakhand)

Section 168 - Judge's power to put questions or order production

[Words "proper", "please" and "relevant or irrelevant" are excluded. Word "agents" is
replaced by "representatives".]

Section 165 IEA - A conjoint reading of Section 311 CrPC and Section 165 of the
Evidence Act makes it clear that the trial Court is under an obligation not to act as a
mere spectator and should proactively participate in the trial proceedings, so as to
ensure that neither any extraneous material is permitted to be brought on record nor
any relevant fact is left out. It is the duty of the trial Court to ensure that all such
evidence which is essential for the just decision of the case is brought on record
irrespective of the fact that the party concerned omits to do so. (Para 48) Gaurav
Maini v. State of Haryana, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 471 (https://www.livelaw.in/supreme-
court/trial-court-must-proactively-participate-in-trial-to-ensure-relevant-fact-isnt-left-
out-supreme-court-263417) : AIR 2024 SC 3601 : 2024 Cri LJ 3620

Section 165 IEA - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973; Section 311 – The courts have to
take a participatory role in the trial and not act as mere tape recorders to record
whatever is being stated by the witnesses. The judge has uninhibited power to put
questions to the witness either during the chief examination or cross-examination or
even during re-examination for this purpose. The trial judge must exercise the vast
powers conferred under Section 165 of the Evidence Act and Section 311 of the
Cr.P.C. respectively to elicit all the necessary materials by playing an active role in the
 evidence collecting process. (Para 69, 73 & 74) Anees v. State Govt of NCT, 2024
LiveLaw (SC) 344 (https://www.livelaw.in/tags/anees-v-the-state-govt-of-nct) : AIR
2024 SC 2297 : 2024 CriLJ 2377

Tags Supreme Court Digests (https://www.livelaw.in/tags/supreme-court-digests)

#Digests (https://www.livelaw.in/tags/digests)

Supreme Court 2024 (https://www.livelaw.in/tags/supreme-court-2024)

Annual Digest 2024 (https://www.livelaw.in/tags/annual-digest-2024)

#Annual Digest (https://www.livelaw.in/tags/annual-digest)

#Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (https://www.livelaw.in/tags/bharatiya-sakshya-adhiniyam)

Indian Evidence Act (https://www.livelaw.in/tags/indian-evidence-act)

(https://www.whatsapp.com/channel/0029Va4PBvv5EjxsW8MeA63j)

Similar Posts
S.113B Evidence Act | Dowry Death Can't Be Presumed Without Clear Evidence Of Incessant
Harassment: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court (on January 09), while acquitting an accused of cruelty and abetment of suicide,
observed that to apply Section 113B (Presumption as to dowry death) of the Indian Evidence Act, clea
evidence for incessant harassment is essential. The Court stressed that in the absence of such
evidence, it cannot straightaway invoke this...
(/supreme-court/supreme-court-apply-section-113b-of-the-indian-evidence-act-clear-evidence-incessant-
harassment-essential-280896)

(/supreme-court/state-govt-employee-who-worked-on-deputation-in-central-govt-dept-not-entitled-to-
pension-as-per-ccs-rules-supreme-court-280879)
State Govt Employee Who Worked On Deputation In Central Govt Dept Not Entitled To Pension As Pe
CCS Rules : Supreme Court
The deputee does not become a regular employee in the borrowed service/department, the Court held
NDPS Act |'Taxi Driver Not Expected To Give Passenger Details' : Supreme Court Acquits Driver Of
Taxi From Which Contraband Was Seized
The Supreme Court recently acquitted a taxi driver who was implicated under the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), solely for failing to provide details of passengers who
had carried contraband in his taxi. The Court held that a taxi driver's inability to provide details of
passengers carrying contraband could not...
(/supreme-court/ndps-act-taxi-driver-not-expected-to-give-passenger-details-supreme-court-acquits-driver-
of-taxi-from-which-contraband-was-seized-280854)

(/supreme-court/supreme-court-says-its-judgments-must-clarify-their-binding-nature-to-avoid-confusing-
hcs-trial-courts-280807)
Supreme Court Says Its Judgments Must Clarify Their Binding Nature So That HCs & Trial Courts
Don't Get Confused
The Supreme Court recently highlighted the need to clearly state the intent behind a judgment within
the judgment itself. The Court clarified that not every judgment is meant to be a binding precedent
under Article 141 of the Constitution. Therefore, the judgment needs to specify whether the decision is
intended to resolve a specific dispute...

(/top-stories/supreme-court-weekly-round-up-january-6-2025-to-january-12-2025-280804)
Supreme Court Weekly Round-up: January 6, 2025 To January 12, 2025

Nominal IndexCitationM/S Naresh Potteries v. M/S Aarti Industries and Anr., SLP(Crl) No. 8659-2023
2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1Bernard Francis Joseph Vaz and Ors v. Government of Karnataka and Ors 2025
LiveLaw (SC) 2Urmila Dixit v. Sunil Sharan Dixit and others 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 3BN John v. State of UP
& Anr., SLP (Crl.) No. 2184 of 2024 2025 LiveLaw...

No Strict Rule That Money Claim Can't Be Decided Under Writ Jurisdiction; Non-Payment Of Admitte
Dues Arbitrary : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court (on January 08) reiterated that it is not a stringent rule that the High Court cannot
decide a money claim under its writ jurisdiction. The Court reasoned that non-payment of admitted
dues by the State authorities may be considered an arbitrary action and thus a writ petition may lie
against the same. The Bench of Justices...
(/supreme-court/supreme-court-reiterated-not-a-stringent-rule-that-high-court-cannot-decide-money-claim-
under-writ-jurisdiction-280792)

(/top-stories/pc-act-was-sanction-granted-by-competent-authority-matter-of-evidence-supreme-court-sets-
aside-hc-order-which-invoked-s482-crpc-to-quash-trial-280784)
PC Act | Whether Sanction Granted By Competent Authority Matter Of Evidence : Supreme Court Set
Aside HC Order Which Invoked S.482 CrPC To Quash Trial
The question whether sanction for prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act)
was granted by a competent authority is a matter of evidence, observed the Supreme Court, while
setting aside an order of the High Court which quashed the proceedings in exercise of powers under
Section 482 CrPC.The Court also reiterated that a...

(/supreme-court/maintenance-proceedings-under-s125-crpc-are-civil-proceedings-though-breach-may-
Maintenance Proceedings Under S.125 CrPC Are Civil Proceedings Though Breach May Result In
Penal Consequences: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court noted that maintenance proceedings under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. are
essentially civil in nature and should not be equated with criminal proceedings merely because they
involve a penal consequence.“even if non-compliance with an order for payment of maintenance entai
penal consequences, as may other decrees of a Civil Court,...
result-in-penal-consequences-supreme-court-280776)

Specific Relief Act | Relinquishment Of Claims Under S.12(3) For Part Performance Can Be Made At
Any Stage Of Litigation : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court observed that while seeking a part performance of the contract under Section
12(3) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, the plea regarding the relinquishment of claims regarding the
remaining part of the contract and all rights to compensation can be made at any stage of
litigation,including the Appellate Stage. “we may only say...
(/supreme-court/specific-relief-act-relinquishment-of-claims-under-s123-for-part-performance-can-be-
made-at-any-stage-of-litigation-supreme-court-280772)

(/top-stories/principles-to-evaluate-circumstantial-evidence-in-criminal-cases-supreme-court-explains-
280771)
Principles To Evaluate Circumstantial Evidence In Criminal Cases : Supreme Court Explains

In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court enunciated the principles that courts must adhere to while
appreciating and evaluating evidence in cases based on circumstantial evidence.While dismissing the
appeal against the conviction in a rape-murder case, a bench comprising Justice BR Gavai, Justice KV
Viswanathan and Justice Sandeep Mehta summarised...

(/supreme-court/rape-cases-conviction-based-sole-evidence-of-single-witness-even-that-of-the-victim-
'Prosecutrix's Testimony Doesn't Inspire Confidence' : Supreme Court Affirms Acquittal In Rape Case

The Supreme Court (on January 07), observed that in rape cases if a conviction is based on the sole
evidence of a single witness, even that of the victim herself, such evidence should inspire confidence i
the Court. The Court agreed that while the victim's statement is given a very high value, the Court mus
carefully examine the same. ...
court-must-carefully-examine-the-samesupreme-court-280760)

Know The Law | When Can Part Performance Of Contract Be Allowed As Per Section 12(3) Specific
Relief Act?
The Supreme Court ruled that part performance of the contract under Section 12(3) of the Specific
Relief Act, 1963 (“SRA”) cannot be claimed when the unperformed portion is substantial and non-
segregable, and the plaintiff neither relinquishes claims for the unperformed part or damages nor
shows readiness to perform the contract. As per Section...
(/supreme-court/know-the-law-when-can-part-performance-of-contract-be-allowed-as-per-section-123-
specific-relief-act-280749)

(/)

(https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?
id=com.sinergialabs.livelaw&hl=en_IN)
 (https://apps.apple.com/in/app/livelaw/id910652359)

Top Stories (/top-stories) Law Schools (/lawschool) Tax (/tax-cases)

Supreme Court (/supreme-court) IBC News (/ibc-cases) Digests (/digests)

High Court (/high-court) Arbitration (/arbitration-cases) Know The Law (/know-the-law)

Consumer cases (/consumer-cases) Job Updates (/job-updates) Environment (/environment)

Round Ups (/round-ups) Book Review (/book-reviews) Podcast (/podcast)

International (/more/international) Events Corner (/events-corner) Videos (/videos)

Law Schools Corner

(/more/law-schools-corner) 

Law Firms
(/law-firms) 

Who We Are Contact Us Advertise with usCareers Privacy Policy T&C

| | | |
(/who-we-are) (/contact-us) (/advertise) (/career) (/privacy-statement) (/terms-and-conditions)

 
(https://www.facebook.com/livelaw.in) 
(https://twitter.com/LiveLawIndia)


(https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029Va4PBvv5EjxsW8MeA63j) (https://www.youtube.com/livelawindia)

 
(https://www.linkedin.com/company/livelaw/) 
(https://www.instagram.com/livelaw.in/)
(https://t.me/livelawindia)

2025 © All Rights Reserved @LiveLaw

Powered By Hocalwire (http://www.hocalwire.com)