Complete Supreme Court Half Yearly Digest 2025 [Part-2]

BHARATIYA SAKSHYA ADHINIYAM, 2023, (BSA) / INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872, (IEA)Section 6. Motive, preparation and previous or subsequent conductSection 8 IEA - Circumstantial Evidence and Motive - In murder trials relying on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete chain of evidence that eliminates reasonable doubt, but proof of motive is not mandatory. A fact is considered proved when it excludes reasonable doubt based on reason and common sense, not trivial or fanciful doubts. Circumstantial evidence must form a cohesive chain, with each circumstance independently verified, consistently pointing to the accused's guilt and excluding alternative hypotheses. The Supreme Court upheld the accused's conviction for murder based on circumstantial evidence, finding a clear pattern of evidence establishing guilt. The appeal was dismissed, reaffirming that the law requires elimination of reasonable doubt, not proof beyond all doubt. (Para 10) Chetan v. State of Karnataka, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 657 : 2025 INSC 793Section 8 IEA - Forensic Evidence - Incriminating evidence, including the recovery of the murder weapon (gun and pellets) linked to the deceased's injuries through forensic and ballistic analysis, bolstered the prosecution's case. The accused's silence and failure to explain the recovery of the weapon further strengthened the prosecution's case. (Para 10) Chetan v. State of Karnataka, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 657 : 2025 INSC 793Section 7. Facts necessary to explain or introduce fact in issue or relevant facts.Section 9 IEA - Test Identification Parade - Evidentiary Value - Non-examination of Witness in Trial – Held, a Test Identification Parade (TIP) loses its evidentiary value for identification purposes if the witness who identified the accused during the TIP is not examined in court. Without the witness's testimony and cross-examination, the TIP report, which may corroborate or contradict the identification, becomes irrelevant, as there is a risk of the witness being tutored or exposed to the accused before the TIP. In this case, the appellant, convicted of dacoity and Arms Act offences by the trial court and High Court, was acquitted due to the non-examination of the three witnesses who identified him during the TIP. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and granted the appellant the benefit of doubt. (Paras 14, 15) Vinod @ Nasmulla v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 215 : 2025 INSC 220 : AIR 2025 SC 1194 : 2025 Cri LJ 1237 : (2025) 4 SCC 312Section 9. When facts not otherwise relevant become relevant.Omission to name some accused in FIR is a relevant fact under Section 11 Evidence Act. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Raghuvir Singh, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 158Section 15. Admission definedSections 17, 21, 25, 30 IEA - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 161 - Inadmissibility of Section 161 Cr.P.C. Statements Against Co-Accused at Bail Stage - Whether statements of an accused recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., implicating a co-accused, can be considered at the stage of regular or anticipatory bail. Held, statements recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. by an accused implicating a co-accused are inadmissible at the stage of regular or anticipatory bail. Such statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, cannot be used against a co-accused. (Para 28, 39, 47, 50, 53) P. Krishna Mohan Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 598 : 2025 INSC 725Sections 17, 21, 25, 30 IEA - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 315 - Exculpatory Statements - Lack credibility and cannot be tested by cross-examination unless the maker testifies under Section 315 of the Cr.P.C. They can only be used to contradict the maker or ascertain their stance, not to implicate a co-accused. (Para 28, 39, 47, 50, 53) P. Krishna Mohan Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 598 : 2025 INSC 725Sections 17, 21, 25, 30 IEA - Inculpatory Statements - If confessional, they are inadmissible under Section 25 of the Evidence Act unless proven during trial under Section 30, and only if the confession implicates both the maker and the co-accused in a joint trial. Admissions are admissible only against the maker per Sections 17 and 21 of the Evidence Act. (Para 28, 39, 47, 50, 53) P. Krishna Mohan Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 598 : 2025 INSC 725Sections 17, 21, 25, 30 IEA - Conditions for using confessions against co-accused - A confession implicating a co-accused can be considered only during trial, subject to: relevance and admissibility under the Evidence Act; being duly proven against the maker; implicating both the maker and the co-accused; both accused undergoing a joint trial for the same offence. (Para 28, 39, 47, 50, 53) P. Krishna Mohan Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 598 : 2025 INSC 725Sections 17, 21, 25, and 26 IEA - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 161 - Criticism of High Court's approach - The Supreme Court...

Complete Supreme Court Half Yearly Digest 2025 [Part-2]

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Complete Supreme Court Half Yearly Digest 2025 [Part-2]

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers