50 Landmark Cases under Indian Evidence Act
@lawwithstuti
1. State of U.P. v. Rajesh Gautam, AIR 2003 SC 2506 – Extra-
judicial confession is a weak type of evidence.
2. Pakala Narayan Swami v. Emperor, AIR 1939 PC 47 –
Confession must admit offence or essential facts constituting it.
3. State of Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram, AIR 2006 SC 1449 –
Presumption can be drawn under Section 114 if accused absconds.
4. Selvi v. State of Karnataka, AIR 2010 SC 1974 – Narco-
analysis, brain mapping without consent violates Article 20(3).
5. Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, AIR
1984 SC 1622 – Laid down 5 golden principles for circumstantial
evidence.
6. R.M. Malkani v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1973 SC 157 –
Tape recordings are admissible if not coerced or tampered.
7. K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1962 SC 605 –
Circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain.
8. Kehar Singh v. State (Delhi Administration), AIR 1988 SC
1883 – Conspiracy may be proved by circumstantial evidence.
9. Queen Empress v. Khimat Singh, (1889) ILR 11 All 148 –
Established admissibility of dying declaration.
10. Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat, AIR
1983 SC 753 – Testimony of rape victim doesn't require
corroboration.
11. Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1983 SC 753
– Victim's testimony alone can be sufficient for conviction.
12. Satpal v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1976 SC 294 – Dying
declaration is admissible even if not recorded by Magistrate.
13. State of Punjab v. Wassan Singh, AIR 1981 SC 1192 –
Evidence of chance witness must be credible.
14. Laxman v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2002 SC 2973 –
Dying declaration admissible if made in fit mental state.
15. Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1958 SC 465 – Intention
inferred from nature and location of injury.
16. State of Haryana v. Ram Singh, AIR 2002 SC 620 –
Testimony of police witness should be approached cautiously.
17. Bhupinder Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 2006 SC 3510 –
Admissibility of dying declaration can't be rejected merely for lack
of signature.
18. Khushal Rao v. State of Bombay, AIR 1958 SC 22 – Dying
declaration can be sole basis for conviction.
19. Bodhisattwa Gautam v. Subhra Chakraborty, AIR 1996 SC
922 – Compensation can be awarded in rape cases at interim stage.
20. State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh, AIR 1996 SC 1393 –
Testimony of prosecutrix requires no corroboration.
21. Dhananjoy Chatterjee v. State of W.B., AIR 1994 SC 626 –
Delay in FIR in rape case not always fatal.
22. Krishna Mochi v. State of Bihar, AIR 2002 SC 1965 –
Testimony of injured witness given great weight.
23. Tahsildar Singh v. State of UP, AIR 1959 SC 1012 –
Contradictions under Section 145 must be substantive.
24. Nishi Kant Jha v. State of Bihar, AIR 1969 SC 422 –
Circumstantial evidence must be consistent only with guilt.
25. Wakil Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR 1981 SC 1392 –
Circumstantial evidence must exclude every hypothesis except
guilt.
26. State of Bihar v. Basawan Singh, AIR 1958 SC 500 –
Sanction under Section 197 CrPC required for prosecution of
public servant.
27. Gubba Narasiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1983 SC
452 – Section 6 facts forming part of same transaction are
admissible.
28. Tehsildar Singh v. State of UP, AIR 1959 SC 1012 –
Omissions in previous statements are contradictions if significant.
29. Khatri v. State of Bihar, AIR 1981 SC 1068 – Right to free
legal aid is a fundamental right.
30. Ravinder Singh v. State of Haryana, AIR 1975 SC 856 –
Testimony of hostile witness can be relied upon if corroborated.
31. Sat Paul v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1976 SC 294 –
Hostile witness testimony admissible to extent it supports
prosecution.
32. State of Maharashtra v. Damu, AIR 2000 SC 1691 –
Recovery under Section 27 must connect to crime.
33. Pulukuri Kotayya v. King Emperor, AIR 1947 PC 67 –
Section 27 admissibility restricted to facts distinctly discovered.
34. State of U.P. v. Deoman Upadhyaya, AIR 1960 SC 1125 –
Confession before police officer inadmissible.
35. Rameshwar v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1952 SC 54 –
Corroboration of child witness not a rule, but prudence.
36. V.C. Shukla v. State (Delhi Administration), AIR 1980 SC
1382 – Entries in books of account not alone sufficient evidence.
37. M.C. Verghese v. T.J. Ponnan, AIR 1970 SC 1876 – Section
122 bars disclosure of private communication between spouses.
38. State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad, AIR 1961 SC 1808 –
Specimen signatures and handwriting not hit by Article 20(3).
39. Pakhar Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1972 SC 1585 –
Identification parade not substantive evidence, only corroborative.
40. Dudh Nath Pandey v. State of U.P., AIR 1981 SC 911 – Test
identification must be conducted fairly.
41. Vijender v. State of Delhi, AIR 1997 SC 3822 – Chain of
evidence must be complete in case of circumstantial proof.
42. Subramaniam v. Public Prosecutor, AIR 1956 PC 65 –
Hearsay rule explained—statements admissible to show state of
mind.
43. Queen Empress v. Abdullah, (1885) ILR 7 All 385 – Expert
opinion under Section 45 must be from skilled person.
44. Baljeet Singh v. State of Haryana, AIR 2004 SC 1714 – FIR
not substantive evidence but can corroborate.
45. Rai Sandeep v. State (NCT of Delhi), AIR 2012 SC 3157 –
Testimony of 'sterling witness' needs no corroboration.
46. Bhagwan Singh v. State of M.P., AIR 2003 SC 1088 –
Recovery based on voluntary confession admissible under Section
27.
47. Lal Singh v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2001 SC 3681 –
Recovery must be proved beyond doubt for Section 27 to apply.
48. State of Rajasthan v. Ani, AIR 1997 SC 1023 – Testimony of
child witness is reliable if found competent.
