Supreme Court Quarterly Digest On Evidence Law [Jan – Mar, 2023]

Close RelativeTestimony 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) 225Circumstantial EvidenceIn 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) 239Law relating to Circumstantial Evidence– Discussed. (Para 5 - 11) Shankar v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 212The 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 1323Every 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 1239In 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 1239Golden 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 335The 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 488Effect of omissions, deficienciesEvidence 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) 225Extra-judicial confessionEvidentiary 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 1464Generally, 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 1464Normally, a...

Supreme Court Quarterly Digest On Evidence Law [Jan – Mar, 2023]

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags