Cdhsieejejddjdjdfjfjfjfjfjfjffjfjfjases.pptx

Ppt

1. RELEVANCY AND ADMISSIBILITY

2. Ram Bihari Yadav v. state of Bihar, 1994 The Supreme Court held that terms ‘relevancy’ and ‘admissibility’ are not co- extensive or interchangeable terms. Their legal incidents are different. All admissible evidence are usually relevant, but all relevant evidence are not admissible. Collector of Gorakhpur v. Palakdhari Singh, 1890 Where a judge is in doubt as to the admissibility of a particular piece of evidence, he should declare in favor of admissibility rather than inadmissibility.

3. CASE LAWS SECTION 32 DYING DECLARATION INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872

4. CASE: UKA RAM v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN, 2001 No person will die with a lie on his lips. The Supreme court held that a sense of impending death produces in man’s mind the same feeling as that of a virtuous man under oath and chances of falsehood are totally nullified. CASE: SAMPAT BABSO KALE v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, 2019 Supreme Court held that though can solely be based on dying declaration, corroborative evidence may be required when there is doubt as to whether the victim was in a fit state of mind to make the statement.

5. CASE: STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH v. VEERPAL, 2022 S.C held that there can be conviction solely based upon dying declaration without corroboration if the court is satisfied that the dying declaration is true and voluntary it can base its conviction on it, without corroboration. CASE: K. RAMACHAND REDDY v. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, 1976 When the injured person lodged F.I.R and then died it can be held as relevant dying declaration

6. DOCUMENTARY AND ORAL EVIDENCE

7. P Gopalakrishnan @ Dileep v. State of Kerala and others, 2019 Supreme Court held that the contents of a memory card in relation to a crime amount to a document and not a material object. State of Maharashtra v. Praful B. Desai, 2003 Evidence can be produced by way of electronic records. This would include video conferencing.

8. Pruthiviraj Jayantibhai Vanol v. Dinesh Dayabhai Vala , 2021 Ocular evidence is considered the best evidence unless there are reasons to doubt it. The ocular evidence may be disbelieved only when there is gross contradiction between medical evidence and oral evidence, and the medical evidence makes the ocular testimony improbable and rules out all possibility of ocular evidence being true. Jagmail Singh v. Karamjit Singh, 2020 Under evidence Act facts have to be established by primary evidence and secondary evidence is only an exception to the rule for which foundational facts have to be established to account for the existence of primary evidence

9. Anglo American Metallurgical Coal ltd. v. MMTC ltd, 2021 Patent ambiguity must be understood as ambiguity inherent in the words and incapable of being dispelled, either by any legal rules of construction. It is based on the principle that intention of the parties should be construed not by vague evidence of their intention but by expression themselves. A latent ambiguity arises when the words in the instrument are clear, but their application to the circumstances is doubtful.

10. CASE LAWS ON ADMISSION AND CONFESSION

11. ADMISSION Hanumant Narain v. State of M.P., 1975 Admission cannot be used in parts. It can be either used as a whole or rejected as a whole. CBI v. V.C. Shukla , 1998 An admission is not an evidence against others. An admission may become evidence against others only if it amounts to a confession. It may then be used as an evidence under section 10 or under section 30 as confession of co-accused.

12. CONFESSION 1. Pakla Narayan Swami v. Emperor, 1939 Palvinder Kaur v. State of Punjab, 1952 The term confession was defined by Lord Atkin . The definition given by privy council was approved by the Indian Supreme Court in Palvinder Kaur’s case. A confession must either admit in terms the offence or at any rate substantially all the facts which constitute the fact. 2. Palvinder Kaur v. State of Punjab, 1952 Confession must either be accepted as whole or rejected as a whole. 3. State (N.C.T of Delhi) v. Navjot , 2005 Confessions are considered highly reliable because no rational person would make an admission against himself unless prompted by his conscious to tell the truth.

13. BURDEN OF PROOF

14. Paul v. State of Kerala, 2020 The burden of proving that the case falls within exceptions under Section 300 IPC is on the accused. Even without adducing any evidence it may be possible for the accused to discharge the said burden with reference to the materials appearing by virtue of prosecution evidence which includes cross examination of prosecution witnesses. The test is based on preponderance of probabilities. Satye singh v. State of Uttarakhnad , 2022 Supreme Court held that Section 106 of Evidence Act is not intended to relieve the prosecution from discharging its duty to prove the guilt of the accused. The burden could not be shifted on the accused by pressing into service the provisions contained in Section 106 of the Evidence Act.

15. PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATIONS

16. M.C. Verghese v. T.J. Ponnan, 1970 It was held that bar under section 122 is only applicable on spouses and not on third person. Further the bar under Section 122 would even continue after dissolution of marriage. The status at the time of communication has to be seen rather than the status at the time of giving evidence. State of UP v. Raj Narain, AIR 1975 Section 123 is based on the maxim ‘salus populi est suprema lex ’ , which means that regard for public welfare is the highest law. With respect to secrtion 123 court held that the foundation of law is based on public interest. Public interest which demands evidence to be withheld must be weighed against public interest.