Environment Environment and Wildlife Protection - Supreme Court extends the jurisdiction of a committee constituted by the Tripura High Court to oversee transfer of wild animals pan-India- Court directs that all State and Central Authorities shall forthwith report seizure of wild animals or abandonment of captive wild animals to the Committee and the Committee shall be at liberty...
Environment
Environment and Wildlife Protection - Supreme Court extends the jurisdiction of a committee constituted by the Tripura High Court to oversee transfer of wild animals pan-India- Court directs that all State and Central Authorities shall forthwith report seizure of wild animals or abandonment of captive wild animals to the Committee and the Committee shall be at liberty to recommend transfer of ownership of captive animals or of seized wild animals to any willing rescue centre or zoo for their immediate welfare, care and rehabilitation- The Committee may also consider the request for approval, dispute or grievance, concerning transfer or import into India or procurement or welfare of wild animals by any rescue or rehabilitation centre or zoo. Muruly M.S. v. State of Karnataka, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 164 : AIR 2023 SC 1368
Environment Protection - Supreme Court disapproves of constructing zoos and enclosures within national parks - Prima facie, we do not appreciate the necessity of having a zoo inside the tiger reserves or national parks. The concept of protecting these is to permit animals to reside in their natural environs and not artificial environs. We, therefore, also call upon the National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA) to explain the rationale behind permitting such safaris within tiger reserves and national parks. Until further orders, the authorities are restrained from making any constructions within the core areas of national parks, wildlife sanctuaries, and tiger reserves. In Re: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 104
Stubble Burning - Punjab Preservation of Subsoil Water Act creating problems, need relook : Supreme Court tells Punjab Govt. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 964
Ludicrous that smog towers aren't working: Supreme Court summons Chairperson of Delhi Pollution Control Committee. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 964
The Supreme Court questions the effectiveness of Delhi's 'odd-even' scheme in controlling pollution. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 964
Delhi air pollution - Stop stubble burning forthwith, Supreme Court directs Punjab, Haryana, U.P. and Rajasthan. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 964
Tamil Nadu's ban on reinforced paper cups reasonable, in public interest to control pollution. Tamil Nadu and Puducherry Paper Cup Manufactures Association v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 923
De-sealing of properties in Delhi: Supreme Court forms committee of retired judges to hear challenge to monitoring committee orders. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 886
Registration of all BS VI diesel compliant vehicles permissible in NCT Delhi. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 607
Whether ESI Act excludes NGT jurisdiction? Supreme Court leaves question of law open while affirming NGT award on gas leak compensation. Rourkela Steel plant v. Odisha Pollution Control Board, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 593
NGT cannot pass directions relying on recommendations of an expert committee without giving parties a chance to rebut it. Singrauli Super Thermal Power Station v. Ashwani Kumar Dubey, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 524
Metro rail caters to millions, reduces carbon emissions': Supreme Court refuses to interfere with dmrc phase-iv metro work. In re : Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC), 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 363
The Supreme Court expresses concern about unregulated visits of devotees in places of worship situated in national parks & sanctuaries. In re: T.N. Godavarman v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 362
The Supreme Court modified its previous order mandating a 1 km Eco-Sensitive Zone (ESZ) around protected forests. In Re: T. N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 351
Aarey Case - Supreme Court imposes rs 10 lakh fine on Mumbai Metro Rail Corporation Ltd (MMRCL) for seeking to cut more trees than allowed; but allows it to cut 177 trees. In Re: Felling of Trees in Aarey Forest (Maharashtra), 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 334
'NGT could not have ignored decree affirmed by Supreme Court': SC allows housing society's appeal. Shramjeevi Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. v. Dinesh Johi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 258 : AIR 2023 SC 1558
Appeal maintainable before NGT against corrigendum imposing additional conditions to environmental clearance. IL&FS Tamil Nadu Power Company Ltd. v. T. Muruganandam, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 192 : (2023) 6 SCC 585
The Supreme Court issues directions for installation of vapour recovery system in retail petroleum outlets. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. VBR Menon, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 185 : AIR 2023 SC 1573 : (2023) 7 SCC 368
NGT has powers to execute its orders as decrees of Civil Court. Sushil Raghav v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 140
The Supreme Court disapproves of building zoos inside tiger reserves; stops constructions within core areas of national parks, wildlife sanctuaries. In Re: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 104
Human life is equally important as protection of the environment; Projects necessary for country's economic development can't be stalled. Association for Protection of Democratic Rights v. State of West Bengal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 102
No doubt that the concern for the environment is an important aspect. However, at the same time, developmental works like the metro rail, which will cater to millions of people and also reduce carbon emissions, inasmuch as the number of vehicles on the road would be reduced, cannot be ignored. In re : Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC), 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 363
The contest between development and environmental concerns is ever ongoing. While there is no doubt that ecology and environment need to be protected for the future generations, at the same time, development projects cannot be stalled, which are necessary not only for the economic development of the country, but at times for the safety of the citizens as well. No doubt that the protection of environment and ecology are important. However, at the same time, it cannot be denied that human life is also equally important. Association for Protection of Democratic Rights v. State of West Bengal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 102
Taj Trapezium matter: Supreme Court allows more flights to agra, removes restriction on increasing air traffic. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 82
Make environmental impact assessment mandatory for urban development, recommends supreme court; cites condition of bengaluru as warning. Residents Welfare Association v. Union Territory of Chandigarh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 24 : AIR 2023 SC 570
Metro Rail - Supreme Court refused to interfere with the construction work on phase-IV of Delhi Metro, stating that any interference at this stage would also result in a huge escalation of its cost, causing a loss to the public exchequer. In re : Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC), 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 363
Mining within the National Park and Wildlife Sanctuary and within an area of one kilometre from the boundary of such National Park and Wildlife Sanctuary shall not be permissible. In Re: T. N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 351
The Supreme Court prohibits conversion of residential units into floor-wise apartments in Chandigarh phase 1 to protect 'corbusier' heritage. Residents Welfare Association v. Union Territory of Chandigarh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 24
Eco-Sensitive Zone (ESZ) - If the direction as contained in paragraph 56.5 of the order dated June 3, 2022 that even for continuation of existing activities, the permission of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (PCCF) of each State or Union Territory would be necessary, remains unmodified, taking into consideration that in each State or Union Territory there will be hundreds of villages wherein millions of people would be residing, the PCCF would be left with no other job except to consider such applications for permission to continue such activities. Even a farmer desirous to continue farming activities would be required to seek such permission. We find that such a direction is impossible to be implemented. If such a direction is continued, rather than avoiding man-animal conflict, it will intensify the same. In Re: T. N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 351
Eco-Sensitive Zone (ESZ) - If the direction as issued by this Court in paragraph 56.5 of the order dated 3rd June 2022 is continued, then no permanent structure would be permitted to come up for whatsoever purpose in the aforesaid ESZs. Hundreds of villages are situated within the ESZs in the country. If no permanent construction is to be permitted for any purpose, a villager who is desirous to reconstruct his house would not be permitted. Similarly, if the Government decides to construct schools, dispensaries, anganwadis, village stores, water tanks and other basic structures for improvement of the life of the villagers, the same would also not be permitted. The effect of the order will be to prevent the State or the Central Government from constructing roads and provide other facilities to the villagers. In Re: T. N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 351
Eco-Sensitive Zone (ESZ) - The Court modified the directions contained in paragraph 56.5 of the order dated June 3, 2022 as follows: 1. The MoEF & CC and all the State/Union Territory Governments shall strictly follow the provisions in the said Guidelines dated 9th February 2011 and so also the provisions contained in the ESZs notifications pertaining to the respective Protected Areas with regard to prohibited activities, regulated activities and permissible activities. 2. We further direct that while granting Environmental and Forest Clearances for project activities in ESZ and other areas outside the Protected Areas, the Union of India as well as various State/Union Territory Governments shall strictly follow the provisions contained in the Office Memorandum dated 17th May 2022 issued by MoEF & CC. In Re: T. N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 351
Eco-Sensitive Zone (ESZ) - the requirement of declaring ESZs is not to hamper day to day activities of the citizens but is meant to protect the precious forests/Protected Areas from any negative impact, and to refine the environment around the Protected Areas. In Re: T. N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 351
Environmental Clearance - Supreme Court permits IL&FS Tamil Nadu Power Company Limited to continue operating its power plants in Tamil Nadu. IL&FS Tamil Nadu Power Company Ltd. v. T. Muruganandam, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 192 : (2023) 6 SCC 585
Environmental Impact Assessment - Supreme Court recommends making environmental assessment mandatory for urban development - We therefore appeal to the Legislature, the Executive and the Policy Makers at the Centre as well as at the State levels to make necessary provisions for carrying out Environmental Impact Assessment studies before permitting urban development. Residents Welfare Association v. Union Territory of Chandigarh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 24 : AIR 2023 SC 570 : AIR 2023 SC 570 : AIR 2023 SC 570 : (2023) 8 SCC 643
The Supreme Court has expressed concerns at the unregulated number of devotees visiting places of worship which are situated in national parks and sanctuaries. In re: T.N. Godavarman v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 362
The Supreme Court modified its order dated June 3, 2022 to the extent that directions in the said order mandating a 1 km Eco-Sensitive Zone (ESZ) around protected forests would not be applicable to the ESZs in respect of which a draft and final notification has been issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF & CC) and in respect of the proposals which have been received by the Ministry. In Re: T. N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 351
Environment Protection Act, 1986
Environment Protection Act, 1986 - Supreme Court upholds the directions of NGT Chennai that all petroleum outlets in cities having population of more than 10 lakh and having turnover of more than 300 KL/Month shall install the Vapour Recovery System (VRS) mechanism- SC however sets aside NGT directions that new petroleum outlets should mandatorily obtain Consent to Establish and existing outlets should have Consent to Operate. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. VBR Menon, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 185 : AIR 2023 SC 1573 : (2023) 7 SCC 368
Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986
Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 – Rule 5 - The area to be declared as ESZ cannot be uniform and will be Protected Area specific. In some cases, it may be 10 kilometres on one side and 500 meters on the other side. In certain cases, it may not be possible to have a uniform minimum area by virtue of inter-state boundaries or a sea or a river beyond one side of the Protected Area. In any case, a detailed procedure is required to be followed as prescribed under Rule 5 of the 1986 Rules. Once such a notification is issued after following the procedure prescribed under the 1986 Rules, the ESZs will have to be as per the said notification. In Re: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 351
Estoppel and Acquiescence
In the case of acquiescence the representations are to be inferred from silence, but mere silence, mere inaction could not be construed to be a representation and in order to be a representation it must be inaction or silence in circumstances which require a duty to speak and therefore, amounting to fraud or deception - In the absence of any misrepresentation by an act or omission, the mere fact after making objection the plaintiff took some reasonable time to approach the Court for recovery of possession cannot, at any stretch of imagination, be a reason to deny him the relief him of recovery of possession of the encroached land on his establishing his title over it. (Para 18-21) Baini Prasad v. Durga Devi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 78 : AIR 2023 SC 894
Evidence Act, 1872
Evidence Act, 1872 - Murder trial - Principle of corpus delicti – non-recovery of the corpse would have relevance in considering the links of chain of circumstances. (Para 16) Indrajit Das v. State of Tripura, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 152 : AIR 2023 SC 1239
Section 6 - Relevancy of facts forming part of same transaction
Evidence Act, 1872; Section 6 - Principle of res gestae - Relevancy of facts forming part of same transaction - The rule embodied in Section 6 is usually known as the rule of res gestae. What it means is that a fact which, though not in issue, is so connected with the fact in issue “as to form part of the same transaction” becomes relevant by itself. To form particular statement as part of the same transaction utterances must be simultaneous with the incident or substantial contemporaneous that is made either during or immediately before or after its occurrence. (Para 49) Balu Sudam Khalde v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 279 : AIR 2023 SC 1736
Section 9 - Facts necessary to explain or introduce relevant facts
Evidence Act, 1872; Section 9 - Test Identification Parade - The entire necessity for holding an investigation parade can arise only when the accused are not previously known to the witnesses. The whole idea of a test identification parade is that witnesses who claim to have seen the culprits at the time of occurrence are to identify them from the midst of other persons without any aid or any other source - Investigation parade does not hold much value when the identity of the accused is already known to the witness. (Para 9) Udayakumar v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 242
Section 24 - Confession caused by inducement, threat or promise, when irrelevant in criminal proceeding
Evidence Act, 1872; Section 24 - When prosecution relies upon the evidence of extra judicial confession, normally, the evidence of the persons before whom extra judicial confession is allegedly made, must be of sterling quality. (Para 7) Prabhatbhai Aatabhai Dabhi v. State of Gujarat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 989
Section 27 - How much of information received from accused may be proved
Evidence Act, 1872; Section 27 - The recovery of a weapon from an open place accessible to all is not reliable. (Para 25 & 26) Manjunath v. State of Karnataka, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 961
Evidence Act, 1872; Section 27 - As far as the recovery is concerned, the recovery is again weak. The socalled alleged place of crime and the recovery of tractor or the place where the tractor was abandoned had already been disclosed by the coaccused by the time the present appellant was arrested. Therefore, making a disclosure about the place of occurrence or the place where the tractor was abandoned is of no consequence. As far as the recovery of watch, currency notes of Rs. 250/, hair and 'Parna' from the residence of the accused are concerned, the currency notes and hair have not been identified with the deceased. What we can call as discovery here under Section 27 of the Act, is the discovery of 'Parna' and watch of the deceased. This evidence in itself is not sufficient to fix guilt on the accused. (Para 15) Dinesh Kumar v. State of Haryana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 395 : AIR 2023 SC 2795
Evidence Act, 1872; Section 27 - Disclosure statements, consequential discoveries and their connect with crime - Having doubted the recovery of clothes at the instance of the accused, the circumstance that the clothes carried blood of same group as of the deceased is rendered meaningless because there is no admissible evidence to connect the clothes with the two accused. The disclosure statement made to the police, even if not discarded, was not admissible for proving that the clothes recovered were the one which the accused were wearing at the time of murder. The reason being that only so much of the disclosure would be admissible under Section 27 of the IEA, 1872 as distinctly relates to the fact thereby discovered which, in the instant case, would be the place where the clothes were concealed. (Para 76) Santosh @ Bhure v. State (G.N.C.T.) of Delhi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 418
Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 27 permits the derivative use of custodial statement in the ordinary course of events. There is no automatic presumption that the custodial statements have been extracted through compulsion. A fact discovered is an information supplied by the accused in his disclosure statement is a relevant fact and that is only admissible in evidence if something new is discovered or recovered at the instance of the accused which was not within the knowledge of the police before recording the disclosure statement of the accused. The statement of an accused recorded while being in police custody can be split into its components and can be separated from the admissible portions. Such of those components or portions which were the immediate cause of the discovery would be the legal evidence and the rest can be rejected. (Para 18) Siju Kurian v. State of Karnataka, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 338 : AIR 2023 SC 2239
Evidence Act, 1872; Section 27 – Confessional statement not liable to be rejected merely because it was recorded in a language not known to the accused through translator. Siju Kurian v. State of Karnataka, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 338 : AIR 2023 SC 2239
Evidence Act, 1872; Section 27 - The law expects the IO to draw the discovery panchnama as contemplated under Section 27. (Para 25-26) Boby v. State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 50 : (2023) 1 SCR 335
Evidence Act, 1872; Section 27 - There is no statement of accused recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act - The prosecution has failed to prove the circumstance that the dead body of the deceased was recovered at the instance of the accused - Section 27 of the Evidence Act requires that the fact discovered embraces the place from which the object is produced and the knowledge of the accused as to this, and the information given must relate distinctly to the said fact. The information as to past user, or the past history, of the object produced is not related to its discovery. (Para 20 -26) Boby v. State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 50 : (2023) 1 SCR 335
Evidence Act, 1872; Section 27 - Two essential requirements for the application of Section 27 - (1) the person giving information must be an accused of any offence and (2) he must also be in police custody - The provisions of Section 27 of the Evidence Act are based on the view that if a fact is actually discovered in consequence of information given, some guarantee is afforded thereby that the information was true and consequently the said information can safely be allowed to be given in evidence. (Para 31-33) Boby v. State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 50 : (2023) 1 SCR 335
Section 32 - Cases in which statement of relevant fact by person who is dead or cannot be found, etc.
Evidence Act, 1872; Section 32 - Principles in regard to Dying Declarations – The basic premise is “nemo moriturus praesumitur mentire” i.e. man will not meet his maker with a lie in his mouth. For a statement to be termed a “dying declaration”, and thereby be admissible under Section 32 of IEA, the circumstances discussed / disclosed therein “must have some proximate relation to the actual occurrence”. A dying declaration inspires confidence of the court it can, even sans corroboration, form the sole basis of conviction. If such a declaration does not inspire confidence in the mind of the court, i.e., there exist doubts about the correctness and genuineness thereof, it should not be acted upon, in the absence of corroborative evidence. The Court must be satisfied that at the time of making such a statement, the deceased was in a “fit state of mind”. In case of a plurality of such statements, it is not the plurality but the reliability of such declaration determines its evidentiary value. The presence of a Magistrate in recording of a dying declaration, is not a necessity but only a rule of Prudence. Dying Declaration is not to be discarded by reason of its brevity. Examination of the person who reduced into writing, the dying declaration, is essential. It is required that such statement be free from tutoring, prompting, or not be a product of imagination. (Para 11 & 20) Manjunath v. State of Karnataka, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 961
Evidence Act, 1872; Section 32 - Dying Declaration - If the scribe, for reasons beyond control, such as incapacitation or death, would be unavailable, it would be open for the prosecution to take necessary aid of secondary evidence. That not being the case however, such unexplained nonexamination would, render the case to be doubtful if not, land a fatal blow to the prosecution case. (Para 19) Manjunath v. State of Karnataka, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 961
Evidence Act, 1872; Section 32- Dying declaration - The physical disability suffered by deceased on account of the burn injuries sustained would not disentitle her to make statement, if said statement had been made consciously knowing the consequences thereof and such statement or declaration cannot be brushed aside only on the ground of burn injuries (in the instant case 70% to 80%) having been sustained by her. (Para 12) Paranagouda v. State of Karnataka, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 915
Section 63 - Secondary Evidence
Evidence Act, 1872; Section 63 - Principles relevant for examining the admissibility of secondary evidence - Explained. (Para 33) Vijay v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1022
Section 65B - Admissibility of electronic records
Evidence Act, 1872; Section 65B - A certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act to prove electronic evidence can be produced at any stage of the trial. (Para 11) State of Karnataka v. T. Naseer @ Thadiantavida Naseer, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 965
Evidence Act, 1872; Section 65B - Fair trial in a criminal case does not mean that it should be fair to one of the parties. Rather, the object is that no guilty should go scot-free and no innocent should be punished. A certificate under Section 65-B of the Act, which is sought to be produced by the prosecution is not an evidence which has been created now. It is meeting the requirement of law to prove a report on record. By permitting the prosecution to produce the certificate under Section 65B of the Act at this stage will not result in any irreversible prejudice to the accused. The accused will have full opportunity to rebut the evidence led by the prosecution. This is the purpose for which Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. is there. The object of the Code is to arrive at truth. However, the power under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. can be exercised to subserve the cause of justice and public interest. In the case in hand, this exercise of power is required to uphold the truth, as no prejudice as such is going to be caused to the accused. (Para 15) State of Karnataka v. T. Naseer @ Thadiantavida Naseer, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 965
Section 69 - Proof where no attesting witness found
Evidence Act, 1872; Section 69 - In the event where attesting witnesses may have died, or cannot be found, the propounder is not helpless, as Section 69 of the Evidence Act, 1872 is applicable. (Para 17) Ashutosh Samanta v. Ranjan Bala Dasi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 190 : AIR 2023 SC 1422 : (2023) 2 SCR 237
Section 74 - Public documents
Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 74, 76 - Copy of the chargesheet along with the necessary documents cannot be said to be public documents within the definition of Public Documents as per Section 74 of the Evidence Act - As per Section 75 of the Evidence Act all other documents other than the documents mentioned in Section 74 of the Evidence Act are all private documents. Therefore, the chargesheet / documents along with the chargesheet cannot be said to be public documents under Section 74 of the Evidence Act, reliance placed upon Sections 74 & 76 of the Evidence Act is absolutely misplaced. (Para 5) Saurav Das v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 52 : AIR 2023 SC 615
Section 90 - Presumption as to documents thirty years old
Evidence Act, 1872; Section 90 - Wills cannot be proved only on the basis of their age – the presumption under Section 90 as to the regularity of documents more than 30 years of age is inapplicable when it comes to proof of wills - Wills have to be proved in terms of Sections 63(c) of the Succession Act, 1925, and Section 68 of the Evidence Act, 1872. (Para 13) Ashutosh Samanta v. Ranjan Bala Dasi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 190 : AIR 2023 SC 1422 : (2023) 2 SCR 237
Section 101 - Burden of Proof
Evidence Act, 1872; Section 101 and 106 – Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge - Section 106 of the Act is an exception to the rule which is Section 101 of the Act, and it comes into play only in a limited sense where the evidence is of a nature which is especially within the knowledge of that person and then the burden of proving that fact shifts upon him that person. The burden of proof is always with the prosecution. It is the prosecution which has to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Section 106 of the Act does not alter that position. It only places burden for disclosure of a fact on the establishment of certain circumstances. (Para 12) Dinesh Kumar v. State of Haryana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 395 : AIR 2023 SC 2795
Evidence Act, 1872; Section 101 - 102 - Declaration of Title - Onus of proof, no doubt shifts and the shifting is a continuous process in the evaluation of evidence, but this happens when in a suit for title and possession, the plaintiff has been able to create a high degree of probability to shift the onus on the defendant. In the absence of such evidence, the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff and can be discharged only when he is able to prove title. The weakness of the defence cannot be a justification to decree the suit. Smriti Debbarma v. Prabha Ranjan Debbarma, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 19 : AIR 2023 SC 379 : (2023) 1 SCR 355
Section 106 - Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge
Evidence Act, 1872; Section 106 – Last Seen Theory - What has to be kept in mind is that Section 106 of the Act, only comes into play when the other facts have been established by the prosecution. In this case when the evidence of last seen itself is on a weak footing, considering the long gap of time between last seen by PW10 and the time of death of the deceased. Section 106 of the Act would not be applicable under the peculiar facts and the circumstances of the case. In the present case the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence of last seen, only leads upto a point and no further. It fails to link it further to make a complete chain. All we have here is the evidence of last seen, which as we have seen looses much of its weight under the circumstances of the case, due to the long duration of time between last seen and the possible time of death. (Para 13, 15) Dinesh Kumar v. State of Haryana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 395 : AIR 2023 SC 2795
Evidence Act, 1872; Section 106 - It is true that the burden to prove the guilt of the accused is always on the prosecution, however in view of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, when any fact is within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. (Para 6) Ram Gopal Mansharam v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 120 : AIR 2023 SC 1145 : (2023) 5 SCC 534 : (2023) 2 SCR 402
Evidence Act, 1872; Section 106 - It is, of course, the duty of prosecution to lead the primary evidence of proving its case beyond reasonable doubt but, when necessary evidence had indeed been led, the corresponding burden was heavy on the accused in terms of Section 106 of the Evidence Act to explain as to what had happened at the time of incident and as to how the death of the deceased occurred. (Para 16.4.1) Prem Singh v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 2 : AIR 2023 SC 193 : (2023) 3 SCC 372
Evidence Act, 1872; Section 106 - Last seen theory - On its own, last seen theory is considered to be a weak basis for conviction. However, when the same is coupled with other factors such as when the deceased was last seen with the accused, proximity of time to the recovery of the body of deceased etc., the accused is bound to give an explanation under Section 106 of the Evidence Act, 1872. If he does not do so, or furnishes what may be termed as wrong explanation or if a motive is established – pleading securely to the conviction of the accused closing out the possibility of any other hypothesis, then a conviction can be based thereon. (Para 17.7) Ravasaheb @ Ravasahebgouda v. State of Karnataka, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 225 : (2023) 5 SCC 391 : (2023) 2 SCR 965
Section 113A - Presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married woman
Evidence Act, 1872; Section 113A - Penal Code, 1860; Section 306 - Mere fact of commission of suicide by itself would not be sufficient for the court to raise the presumption under Section 113A of the Evidence Act, and to hold the accused guilty of Section 306 IPC. (Para 14) Kashibai v. State of Karnataka, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 149
Section 114 - Court may presume existence of certain facts
Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 114 - If courts find evidence in possession of a party that has not been produced it can assume that production of the same would be unfavourable to the person who withholds it as per illustration (g) of Section 114 of the Evidence Act. However, on the basis of the fact that an evidence that ought to have been adduced was not adduced, the High Court cannot remand the matter - merely because a particular evidence which ought to have been adduced but had not been adduced, the Appellate Court cannot adopt the soft course of remanding the matter. (Para 14) Sirajudheen v. Zeenath, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 145
Section 134 - Number of witnesses
Evidence Act, 1872; Section 134 - Evidence has to be weighed and not counted. In other words, it is the quality of evidence that matters and not the quantity - Even in a case of murder, it is not necessary to insist upon a plurality of witnesses and the oral evidence of a single witness, if found to be reliable and trustworthy, could lead to a conviction - Discrepancies do creep in, when a witness deposes in a natural manner after lapse of some time, and if such discrepancies are comparatively of a minor nature and do not go to the root of the prosecution story, then the same may not be given undue importance - Generally speaking, oral testimony may be classified into three categories, viz.: (i) Wholly reliable; (ii) Wholly unreliable; (iii) Neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. The first two category of cases may not pose serious difficulty for the court in arriving at its conclusion(s). However, in the third category of cases, the court has to be circumspect and look for corroboration of any material particulars by reliable testimony, direct or circumstantial, as a requirement of the rule of prudence. (Para 28) Munna Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 60 : AIR 2023 SC 634 : 2023 Cri LJ 1726
Section 145 - Cross- examination as to previous statements in writing
Evidence Act, 1872; Section 145 - No doubt statement given before police during investigation under Section 161 are “previous statements” under Section 145 of the Evidence Act and therefore can be used to cross examine a witness. But this is only for a limited purpose, to “contradict” such a witness. Even if the defence is successful in contradicting a witness, it would not always mean that the contradiction in her two statements would result in totally discrediting this witness. (Para 19) Birbal Nath v. State of Rajasthan, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 941 : AIR 2023 SC 5644
Evidence Act, 1872; Section 145 - The rural setting, the degree of articulation of such a witness in a Court of Law are relevant considerations while evaluating the credibility of such a witness. Moreover, the lengthy cross examination of a witness may invariably result in contradictions. But these contradictions are not always sufficient to discredit a witness. (Para 20) Birbal Nath v. State of Rajasthan, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 941 : AIR 2023 SC 5644
Section 154 - Question by party to his own witness
Evidence Act, 1872; Section 154 - Testimony of a hostile witness can be accepted to the extent that the version is found to be dependable on careful scrutiny thereof. Testimony of such a witness can be relied upon and cannot be treated as being washed off the record. (Para 19) Sajeev v. State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 974
Evidence Law
Absconding
Effects of Absconding - Mere absconding by itself cannot constitute a sole factor to convict a person. It may be because an accused may abscond as he might fear an illegal arrest. (Para 25) Harvinder Singh @ Bachhu v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 889
Admission
Any concession or admission of a fact by a defence counsel would definitely be binding on his client, except the concession on the point of law. (Para 39) Balu Sudam Khalde v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 279 : AIR 2023 SC 1736
Adverse Inference
It is not axiomatic that in every case where the eyewitnesses are withheld from the court, an adverse inference must be drawn against the prosecution. The totality of the circumstances must be considered for concluding whether an adverse inference could be drawn. (Para 8) Maheshwari Yadav v. State of Bihar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1063
When independent witnesses are available who are not connected with the rival parties, and the prosecution omits to examine them by confining its case to examining related witnesses, an adverse inference can undoubtedly be drawn against the prosecution. When the evidence of the eyewitnesses is of sterling quality, an adverse inference need not be drawn. Quality is more important than quantity. (Para 10) Maheshwari Yadav v. State of Bihar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1063
Alibi
Principles relating to plea of alibi & delaying in registering FIR : Supreme Court explains. Kamal Prasad v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 891
Ballistic Expert
In cases where injuries are caused by firearms, the opinion of the ballistic expert is of a considerable importance where both the firearm and the crime cartridge are recovered during the investigation to connect an accused with the crime. Failure to produce the expert opinion before the trial court in such cases affects the creditworthiness of the prosecution case to a great extent. (Para 23, 24) Pritinder Singh @ Lovely v. State of Punjab, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 516
Burden of Proof
Burden of Proof - There are two senses in which the phrase 'burden of proof' is used in the Evidence Act. One is the burden of proof arising as a matter of pleading and the other is the one which deals with the question as to who has first to prove a particular fact. The former is called the 'legal burden' and it never shifts, the latter is called the 'evidential burden' and it shifts from one side to the other. (Para 29) Rajesh Jain v. Ajay Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 866
Principles of applying Section 106 of Evidence Act : Supreme Court explains. Balvir Singh v. State of Uttarakhand, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 861
Certified Copy
Certified copy can be produced to prove original sale deed in trial. Appaiya v. Andimuthu @ Thangapandi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 811
Chance Witness
Deposition of a chance witness whose presence at the place of incident remains doubtful should be discarded. Ravi Mandal v. State of Uttarakhand, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 470 : AIR 2023 SC 2554
Child Witness
Corroboration of the testimony of a child witness is not a rule but a measure of caution and prudence. A child witness of tender age is easily susceptible to tutoring. However, that by itself is no ground to reject the evidence of a child witness. The Court must make careful scrutiny of the evidence of a child witness. The Court must apply its mind to the question whether there is a possibility of the child witness being tutored. Therefore, scrutiny of the evidence of a child witness is required to be made by the Court with care and caution. (Para 8) Pradeep v. State of Haryana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 501 : AIR 2023 SC 3245
Trial Courts should make proper preliminary examination of child witnesses before recording their evidence. Pradeep v. State of Haryana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 501 : AIR 2023 SC 3245
Close Relative
Testimony of a close relative - A witness being a close relative is not a ground enough to reject his testimony. Mechanical rejection of an even “partisan” or “interested” witness may lead to failure of justice. The principle of “falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus” is not one of general application. (Para 17.4) Ravasaheb @ Ravasahebgouda v. State of Karnataka, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 225 : (2023) 5 SCC 391 : (2023) 2 SCR 965
Circumstantial Evidence
Circumstantial Evidence - One has to be circumspect and cautious while undertaking the exercise of linking the evidence available. Courts should not lose sight of the fact that such evidence should unerringly lead and point out the accused alone, of course, on the facts of each case. (Para 22) Harvinder Singh @ Bachhu v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 889
Circumstantial Evidence - In a case resting on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a chain of unbroken events unerringly pointing to the guilt of the accused and none other. (Para 14) Rajesh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 814
Law with regard to conviction based upon circumstantial evidence - Circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established - Circumstances concerned “must or should” and not “may be” established - There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between “may be proved” and “must be or should be proved” - 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 - Circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one sought to be proved, and that there must be a chain of evidence so complete so 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 - However strong a suspicion may be, it cannot take place of a proof beyond reasonable doubt. (Para 18, 19) Kamal v. State (NCT) of Delhi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 617
Circumstantial Evidence - Cases are frequently coming before the Courts where the husbands, due to strained marital relations and doubt as regards the character, have gone to the extent of killing the wife. These crimes are generally committed in complete secrecy inside the house and it becomes very difficult for the prosecution to lead evidence - No member of the family, even if he is a witness of the crime, would come forward to depose against another family member - If an offence takes place inside the four walls of a house and in such circumstances where the assailants have all the opportunity to plan and commit the offence at the time and in the circumstances of their choice, it will be extremely difficult for the prosecution to lead evidence to establish the guilt of the accused, if the strict principle of circumstantial evidence, is insisted upon by the Courts. Wazir Khan v. State of Uttarakhand. 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 601
Murder case based on circumstantial evidence - Death caused by firearms - In view of the serious doubt with regard to the credibility of the witnesses on the issue of extra-judicial confession and last seen theory, the failure to examine Ballistic Expert would be a glaring defect in the prosecution case - Prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and, as such, the accused are entitled to benefit of doubt - Accused acquitted. Pritinder Singh @ Lovely v. State of Punjab, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 516
The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established - Circumstances concerned “must or should” and not “may be” established -There 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 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 and they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one sought to be proved, and there must be a chain of evidence so complete so 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 - However strong a suspicion may be, it cannot take place of a proof beyond reasonable doubt. (Para 5-8) Pritinder Singh @ Lovely v. State of Punjab, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 516
In a criminal trial, the prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. This heavy burden has to be discharged by the prosecution. It becomes even more difficult in a case of circumstantial evidence. In the present case, the nature of circumstantial evidence is weak. In order to establish a charge of guilt on the accused, the chain of evidence must be completed and the chain must point out to one and only one conclusion, which is that it is only the accused who have committed the crime and none else. We are afraid the prosecution has not been able to discharge this burden. (Para 15) Dinesh Kumar v. State of Haryana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 395 : AIR 2023 SC 2795
In a case where there is no direct eye witness to the crime, the prosecution has to build its case on the circumstantial evidence. It is a very heavy burden cast on the prosecution. The chain of circumstances collected by the prosecution must complete the chain, which should point to only one conclusion which is that it is the accused who had committed the crime, and none else. Each evidence which completes the chain of evidences must stand on firm grounds. In our considered opinion, the evidence placed by the prosecution in this case does not pass muster the standard required in a case of circumstantial evidence. (Para 15) Dinesh Kumar v. State of Haryana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 395 : AIR 2023 SC 2795
Failure to render plausible explanation - In a case based on circumstantial evidence, false explanation or non-explanation can only be used as an additional circumstance when the prosecution has proved the chain of circumstances leading to a definite conclusion with regard to the guilt of the accused. (Para 83) Santosh @ Bhure v. State (G.N.C.T.) of Delhi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 418
In cases where heavy reliance is placed on circumstantial evidence, is that where two views are possible, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other towards his innocence, the one which is favourable to the accused must be adopted. Pradeep Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 239 : (2023) 2 SCR 682 : (2023) 5 SCC 350
Law relating to Circumstantial Evidence– Discussed. (Para 5 - 11) Shankar v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 212 : (2023) 2 SCR 661
The law with regard to conviction in the case of circumstance evidence – Explained. (Para 8 to 10) Nikhil Chandra Mondal v. State of West Bengal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 171 : AIR 2023 SC 1323 : AIR 2023 SC 1323 : (2023) 2 SCR 20
Every link in the chain of circumstances necessary to establish the guilt of the accused must be established beyond reasonable doubt - All the circumstances must be consistently pointing towards the guilt of the accused. (Para 10) Indrajit Das v. State of Tripura, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 152 : AIR 2023 SC 1239
In a case of circumstantial evidence, motive has an important role to play. It is an important link in the chain of circumstances - The basic links in the chain of circumstances starts with motive, then move on to last seen theory, recovery, medical evidence, expert opinions if any and any other additional link which may be part of the chain of circumstances. (Para 12, 15) Indrajit Das v. State of Tripura, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 152 : AIR 2023 SC 1239
Golden principles with regard to conviction in a case which rests entirely on circumstantial evidence - It is necessary for the prosecution that the 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' guilty before a court can convict the accused - There 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, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty - The circumstances should be such that they 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 probabilities the act must have been done by the accused. (Para 9-10) Boby v. State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 50 : (2023) 1 SCR 335
The prosecution is obliged to prove each circumstance, beyond reasonable doubt, as well the as the links between all circumstances; such circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability, the crime was committed by the accused and none else; further, the facts so proved should unerringly point towards the guilt of the accused. The circumstantial evidence, in order to sustain conviction, must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused, and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence - These panchsheel precepts, so to say, are now fundamental rules, iterated time and again, and require adherence not only for their precedential weight, but as the only safe bases upon which conviction in circumstantial evidence cases can soundly rest. (Para 21) Jabir v. State of Uttarakhand, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 41 : AIR 2023 SC 488 : (2023) 1 SCR 969
Cross-examination
Supreme Court deprecates advocates raising unnecessary objections to questions in cross-examinations, urges bar to co-operate with trial courts. Brihan Karan Sugar Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. v. Yashwantrao Mohite Krushna Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 784 : AIR 2023 SC 4321 : (2024) 2 SCC 577
Cross-Examination - Huge pendency of suits in the Trial Courts - If the members of the Bar do not cooperate with the Trial Courts, it will be very difficult for our Courts to deal with the huge arrears. While a trial is being conducted, the members of the Bar are expected to act as officers of the Court. They are expected to conduct themselves in a reasonable and fair manner. The members of the Bar must remember that fairness is a hallmark of great advocacy. If the advocates start objecting to every question asked in the cross-examination, the trial cannot go on smoothly. The trial gets delayed. In the facts of the case, looking at the persistent objections raised by the learned advocate, the Court was required to record a substantial part of the cross-examination in question-and-answer form which consumed a lot of time of the Court. (Para 19) Brihan Karan Sugar Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. v. Yashwantrao Mohite Krushna Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 784 : AIR 2023 SC 4321 : (2024) 2 SCC 577
During the course of cross-examination with a view to discredit the witness or to establish the defence on preponderance of probabilities suggestions are hurled on the witness but if such suggestions, the answer to those incriminate the accused in any manner then the same would definitely be binding and could be taken into consideration along with other evidence on record in support of the same. (Para 44) Balu Sudam Khalde v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 279 : AIR 2023 SC 1736
The main object of cross-examination is to find out the truth on record and to help the Court in knowing the truth of the case. It is a matter of common experience that many a times the defence lawyers themselves get the discrepancies clarified arising during the cross-examination in one paragraph and getting themselves contradicted in the other paragraph. The line of cross-examination is always on the basis of the defence which the counsel would keep in mind to defend the accused. (Para 43) Balu Sudam Khalde v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 279 : AIR 2023 SC 1736
Delayed Disclosure
A mere chance witness, whose presence at the spot, at that hour, is not satisfactorily explained therefore, bearing in mind that he kept silent for unusually long i.e. for more than three and a half months, his testimony is not worthy of any credit. The courts below erred by placing reliance on his testimony. Ravi Mandal v. State of Uttarakhand, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 470 : AIR 2023 SC 2554
Testimony of witnesses who made a delayed disclosure of the incriminating circumstances of which he was aware much earlier - If a witness professes to know about a gravely incriminating circumstance against a person accused of the offence of murder and the witness keeps silent for over two months regarding the said incriminating circumstance against the accused, his statement relating to the incriminating circumstance, in the absence of any cogent reason, is bound to lose most of its value. Ravi Mandal v. State of Uttarakhand, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 470 : AIR 2023 SC 2554
Disclosure Statement
Section 27 Evidence Act - Disclosure statements cannot be the sole basis for conviction. Manoj Kumar Soni v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 629 : AIR 2023 SC 3857
Discovery
S. 27 Evidence Act - Discovery can't be proved against a person if he wasn't accused of any offence & wasn't in custody of police at the time of confession. Rajesh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 814
Double Presumption
When the view of the trial court, which had the benefit of seeing the demeanour of the witnesses, is both a possible and plausible one, it shall not be replaced by yet another one. The presumption of innocence in favour of the accused gets strengthened by the decision of the trial court when he gets an order of acquittal. (Para 23) Harvinder Singh @ Bachhu v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 889
Dying Declaration
Examination of person who recorded dying declaration essential. Manjunath v. State of Karnataka, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 961
Principles to be followed in case of multiple dying declarations: Supreme Court explains. Abhishek Sharma v. State(Govt of NCT of Delhi), 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 907 : AIR 2023 SC 5271
FIR is a public document u/s74 Evidence Act; Injured person's statement recorded as FIR can be treated as dying declaration. Harendra Rai v. State of Bihar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 664
Effect of omissions, deficiencies
Evidence examined as a whole, must reflect/ring of truth. The court must not give undue importance to omissions and discrepancies which do not shake the foundations of the prosecution's case. (Para 17.2) Ravasaheb @ Ravasahebgouda v. State of Karnataka, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 225 : (2023) 5 SCC 391 : (2023) 2 SCR 965
Electronic Records
S.65B Evidence Act certificate can be produced at any stage of trial: Supreme Court allows prosecution plea in 2008 Bangalore Blasts Case. State of Karnataka v. T. Naseer @ Thadiantavida Naseer, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 965
Expert Opinion
Admissibility of the FSL Report - Handwriting Expert Opinion - though it is not impermissible to base a finding with regard to authorship of a document solely on the opinion of a handwriting expert but, as a rule of prudence, because of imperfect nature of the science of identification of handwriting and its accepted fallibility, such opinion has to be relied with caution and may be accepted if, on its own assessment, the Court is satisfied that the internal and external evidence relating to the document in question supports the opinion of the expert and it is safe to accept his opinion. (Para 65) Santosh @ Bhure v. State (G.N.C.T.) of Delhi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 418
Handwriting Expert Opinion - Suicide Letter - Taking into account that the accused has denied the incriminating circumstance of writing the suicide letter and no internal or external evidence, save the expert report, supports the writing of suicide letter by the accused, though the expert evidence was admissible as an opinion on the writing in the suicide letter but, on overall assessment of the evidence led by the prosecution, solely on its basis, it would be extremely unsafe to hold that the suicide letter retrieved from the trouser of the deceased was written by the accused. (Para 69) Santosh @ Bhure v. State (G.N.C.T.) of Delhi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 418
Extra-judicial confession
Extra-judicial confession must be of sterling quality: Supreme Court doubts 'confession' to brother of deceased. Prabhatbhai Aatabhai Dabhi v. State of Gujarat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 989
Newspaper reports only hearsay evidence, extra-judicial confession has no greater credibility because newspapers reported. Dinesh B.S v. State of Karnataka, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 594
While extra-judicial confessions are typically considered weak pieces of evidence, they can still serve as grounds for conviction if proven to be voluntary, truthful, and free of inducement. The court must be convinced of the reliability of the confession, and this evaluation takes into account the surrounding circumstances. (Para 6) Moorthy v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 679 : AIR 2023 SC 3960
Extra-judicial confession must be established to be true and made voluntarily and in a fit state of mind. The words of the witnesses must be clear, unambiguous and should clearly convey that the accused is the perpetrator of the crime. The extrajudicial confession can be accepted and can be the basis of conviction, if it passes the test of credibility. The extra-judicial confession should inspire confidence and the court should find out whether there are other cogent circumstances on record to support. (Para 12) Pritinder Singh @ Lovely v. State of Punjab, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 516
Evidentiary value of extra-judicial confession also depends on the person to whom it is made. Pawan Kumar Chourasia v. State of Bihar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 197 : AIR 2023 SC 1464 : (2023) 2 SCR 875
Generally, it is a weak piece of evidence. However, a conviction can be sustained on the basis of extra-judicial confession provided that the confession is proved to be voluntary and truthful. It should be free of any inducement. The evidentiary value of such confession also depends on the person to whom it is made. Going by the natural course of human conduct, normally, a person would confide about a crime committed by him only with such a person in whom he has implicit faith. (Para 5) Pawan Kumar Chourasia v. State of Bihar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 197 : AIR 2023 SC 1464 : (2023) 2 SCR 875
Normally, a person would not make a confession to someone who is totally a stranger to him. Moreover, the Court has to be satisfied with the reliability of the confession keeping in view the circumstances in which it is made. As a matter of rule, corroboration is not required. However, if an extra-judicial confession is corroborated by other evidence on record, it acquires more credibility. (Para 5) Pawan Kumar Chourasia v. State of Bihar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 197 : AIR 2023 SC 1464 : (2023) 2 SCR 875
Extra-Judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence, independent corroboration needed. Nikhil Chandra Mondal v. State of West Bengal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 171 : AIR 2023 SC 1323 : AIR 2023 SC 1323 : (2023) 2 SCR 20
It is a settled principle of law that extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence. It has been held that where an extra-judicial confession is surrounded by suspicious circumstances, its credibility becomes doubtful and it loses its importance. It has further been held that it is well-settled that it is a rule of caution where the court would generally look for an independent reliable corroboration before placing any reliance upon such extra-judicial confession. It has been held that there is no doubt that conviction can be based on extra-judicial confession, but in the very nature of things, it is a weak piece of evidence. (Para 15) Nikhil Chandra Mondal v. State of West Bengal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 171 : AIR 2023 SC 1323 : AIR 2023 SC 1323 : (2023) 2 SCR 20
The extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence and especially when it has been retracted during trial. It requires strong evidence to corroborate it and also it must be established that it was completely voluntary and truthful. (Para 21) Indrajit Das v. State of Tripura, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 152 : AIR 2023 SC 1239