Law of Evidence (LLB-303)

This paper is to orient students with importance of evidence for establishment of claims and the related rules and principles on contemporary basis.

1. Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)
SEMESTER: FIFTH
BBALLB III A+B+C & BALLB III A+B+C
NAME OF THE SUBJECT: LAW OF EVIDENCE
UNIT-1
TOPIC: EVIDENCE & ITS RELATIONSHIP WITH SUBSTANTIVE &
PROCEDURAL LAWS
FACULTY NAME: Ms. RidamAggarwal
(Assistant Professor)

2. Meaning ofEvidence
Evidence’isderivedfromtheLatinterm.
“Evidence”whichmeans–“toshowclearly,to
makeplainlycertain,toascertain,toprove”
Taylorsays–(functionaldescriptionofcourt
process)“Theword‘evidence’includesall
legalmeans,exclusiveofmerearguments,
whichtendtoproveordisproveanymatterof
fact,thetruthofwhichissubmittedtojudicial
investigation.”
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

3. Definitions
•ClassicalexpositionofBentham–“Anymatteroffact,theeffect
ortendencyofwhichistoproduceinthemindapersuasion,
affirmativeordisaffirmiveoftheexistenceofsomeothermatter
offact.”(comprehendsbothphysicalandpsychologicalfacts)
•Evidencemaybeartwomeaningsorreferto–
i)MEANS–thattendtocreateabeliefinthemindofjudge;and
ii)FINALBELIEF–actuallycreatedinhismind,knownas
PROOF.
•PROOFISTHEENDANDEVIDENCEISTHEMEANSTO
PROOF.IntheIndianEvidenceAct,1872,theword‘Evidence’is
usedinthesenseof“Means”.
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

4. Extent & Application of Indian
Evidence Act
•Sec-1TheIndianEvidenceAct,1872cameintoforceon1st.September,
1872.
•ItappliestothewholeofIndiaandalsoJ&K.
•ItappliestoallJUDICIALPROCEEDINGSinorbeforeacourt,including
courtmartialsundertheArmyAct,1950,TheNavyAct,1957andtheAir
ForceAct,1950.Notapplicableto–
i)proceedingsunderTheArmyAct,TheNavalDisciplineAct,1934and
theAirForceActpassedbytheBritishParliament.
ii)Affidavits
iii)Arbitrationproceedings.
•TheprovisionsofthisActarenotapplicabletoDepartmentalInquiries/
DomesticInquiries/CommissionsofInquiries/AdministrativeTribunals.
•RefertoCourt–JudicialProceedings–Takingofevidenceonoath.
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

5. Evidence and its Relationship with the
Substantive and Procedural Laws
SirJamesStephendefinesLawofEvidenceas-
“TheLawofEvidenceisthatpartofthelawof
procedure,whichwithaviewtoascertainindividual
rights&liabilitiesinindividualcases,itdecides
•Whatfactsmayormaynotbeprovedinsuchcase
•Whatsortofevidencemustbegiventoafactwhich
maybeprovedand
•Bywhomandinwhatmannertheevidencemustbe
givenbywhichanyfactisproved.”
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

6. Evidence and its Relationship with the
Substantive and Procedural Laws Cont.
LawofEvidencedealswithmodesofLeading
Evidenceaswellasregulatingthatevidenceof
whichfactcanbegivenincourt.Themain
objectofthelawofevidenceistoassistthe
courtinjudgingwhatfactsarerelevantto
ascertainthetruthandtoavoidtheconfusion
andhowsuchrelevantfactswillbeprovedin
courtsbylawfullyleadingtheevidence.
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

7. Evidence and its Relationship with the
Substantive and Procedural Laws Cont.
Lawsmaybedividedinto“Substantive”And
“Procedural”.
•Thelawswhichdefinesrights,duties&
liabilitiesarecalled“SubstantiveLaws”.For
example,IPC.
•Thelawswhichprescribesthemodeor
procedurebywhichapplicationofsubstantive
lawsisregulatedarecalled“Procedural
Laws”.Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

8. Conclusion
LawofEvidenceisaProceduralLaw.
EvidenceActdoesnotdefinerights&
liabilitiesunderthelawbutonlyprescribethe
modebywhichrightsorliabilitiesofpartiesis
curtained.Therefore,itisaProceduralLaw
whichhelpsintheimplementationof
SubstantiveLaw.
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

9. Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)
TOPIC: DEFINITIONS GIVEN UNDER INDIAN
EVIDENCE ACT

10. Fact
•FACTmeansandincludes–
•i)Anything,stateofthingsorrelationofthings
capableofbeingperceivedbythesensescalledas
PhysicalFacts.
•ii)Anymentalconditionofwhichanypersonis
consciouscalledasPsychologicalfacts.
•Factmaybedividedinto–
i)Factinissue(FACTUMPROBANDUM)and
ii)RelevantFact(FACTUMPROBANS) or
EvidentiaryFact
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

11. Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)
Fact
•‘Fact’meansanexistingthing.
•Physical&PsychologicalFacts–Ahorse,aman
arephysicalfacts.
•PsychologicalFacts–Thesensationor
recollectionofwhichmanisconscious,his
desires,hisintentionsindoingaparticularactetc.
•PositiveFacts–Existenceofcertainstateof
things
•NegativeFacts–Nonexistenceofit.

12. Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)
Fact in Issue
Aisacashierinafactory.Itishisdutytobringmoney
frombank&distributeittothelaborers.Acaseunder
Sec.409,IPCofCriminalBreachofTrusthasbeen
filedagainsthim.Thecaseagainsthimisthathe
broughtRs.25,000fromthebank&misappropriated
Rs.13,000outofit.Asaysinhisdefensethathe
broughtthecasefromthebankandashewastogoon
leavethatday,he,accordingtothedirectionofthe
ManageroftheCompany,handeroverRs.25,000toB,
AssistantCashier.

13. Relevant Fact
•Itisasubjectiveconcept.
•Onefactissaidtoberelevanttootherwhenit
isconnectedwiththeotherinsuchamanneras
providedinthesectionsofrelevancyintheact,
ie.,S.6to55.
•Afactcannotberelevantinisolation.Ithasto
beinconnectionwiththeother.Itcannotexist
alone.
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

14. Relevant Fact –Examples
•Merewatchisnotafactbutawatchinpossession
ofapersonisarelevantfact.
•“A&Bhadaquarrelandnextday,Bwasfound
dead”–Inthiscase,thequarrelbetweenA&Bis
arelevantfactu/s8oftheactasitconstitutesthe
MotiveofkillingofBbyA.
•InArushiMurderCase,thefactthathervagina
wascleanedwithwaterisarelevantfactthat
eithershewassexuallyactiveorshewasraped.
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

15. Evidence Proved
•Afactissaidtobeprovedwhen,afterconsidering
themattersbeforeit,theCourteitherbelievesitto
exist,orconsidersitsexistencesoprobablethata
prudentmanought,underthecircumstancesof
theparticularcase,toactuponthesupposition
thatitexists.
•Eg:Awasfoundinpossessionofthemurder
weapon.Inthiscase,aprudentmanoughttoact
uponthesuppositionthatexists.
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

16. Evidence Disproved
•Afactissaidtobedisprovedwhen,after
consideringthemattersbeforeit,theCourteither
believesthatitdoesnotexist,orconsidersitsnon-
existencesoprobablethataprudentmanought,
underthecircumstancesoftheparticularcase,toact
uponthesuppositionthatitdoesnotexist.
•Eg:AhadanargumentwithB.Later,Bwasfound
dead.Here,Awasabletoprovethathewasnotat
theplaceofmurderasheprovedhewasoutof
India.Here,thisfacthasbeendisproved.
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

17. Not Proved
•Afactissaidnottobeprovedwhenitisneither
provednordisproved.
•Here,thefactisinbetween,ie.,thestatusofthe
factisnotdecided.Ithasnotbeencategorized
betweenprovedordisproved.Itisyettobe
dividedinaparticularcategory.
•Eg:Therewerefingerprintsonthemurder
weaponbutithasstillnotbeenestablishedto
whomdoesthosefingerprintsbelong.Here,itis
inthecategoryofNotProved.
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

18. Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)
Evidence
Theword“Evidence”hasbeenderivedfromthe
Latinword,‘evidence’whichimpliestoshow
distinctlytomakecleartovieworsight,to
discoverclearly,tomakeplainlycertain,to
certain,toascertain,toprove.

19. Oral Evidence
•AllstatementswhichtheCourtpermitsor
requirestobemadebeforeitbywitness,in
relationtomattersofactunderinquiry;such
statementsarecalledOralEvidence.
•OralEvidenceisthatevidencewhichthe
victimhaspersonallyseenorheard.
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

20. Documentary Evidence
•Alldocumentsproducedfortheinspectionof
theCourt;suchdocumentsarecalled
DocumentaryEvidence.
•Ithastobeinawrittenform.
•Itcanbeanykindofdocumentwhichis
relevanttothematterinquestioninthecourt
oflaw.
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

21. Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)
Proved
•Sec.3–Proved–Afactissaidtobeproved
when,afterconsideringthematterbeforeit,
thecourteitherbelievesittoexist,orconsiders
itsexistencesoprobablethataprudentman
ought,underthecircumstancesofthe
particularcase,toactuponthesuppositionthat
itexists.

22. Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)
Proved
•Proof–Itmustmeansuchevidenceaswould
induceareasonablemantocometothe
conclusion–BhanoV.BabuSingh,1998Cr.
LJ4768(Raj),Factsmustbeprovedbythebest
evidenceavailable.
•Proofbeyondreasonabledoubtdoesnotmean
perfectproof,whichmaysoundartificial.

23. Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)
Proved
•Lettersofamarriedwomantoherfather
apprehendingdanger.
•MasskillingbyMob–OvertAct–
ParticipationinCrime.
•Medicalopinionabouthusbandconduct
towardswifedyingburns.
•Hetriedtoholdherbyhishands&prevented
herfromgoingoutofroom.

24. Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)
TOPIC: THEORY OF RELEVANCY & PLEA OF ALIBI

25. Logical Relevancy
•‘LogicalRelevancy’meansalogical
connectionbetweenthetwofacts.
•Foreg:InSantoshSinghcase,thefactthatthe
helmethadavisorinthemorning&itwas
missingintheevening&thefactthatpiecesof
visorwerefoundonthespot&apparentlythe
victimhadbeenhitwithaheavyobjectshowa
logicalconnectionwiththecausationofdeath.
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

26. Legal Relevancy
•Whenalogicallyrelevantfactcanbe
recognizedaslegallyrelevant,itiscalled
‘LegalRelevancy’.
•TheIndianEvidenceActinvarioussections
suchasS.6to55identifiesvariouslogical
relevantfacts&putsthemunderthese
sections.
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

27. Nexus between Logical Relevancy
& Legal Relevancy
•Everylegallyrelevantfactintheactisalso
logicallyrelevantbuttheoretically,itcanbe
saidthateverylogicallyrelevantfactmaynot
belegallyrelevant.
•Onlythoselogicalfactswhicharecovered
underSection6to55canbecalledLegally
Relevant.
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

28. Admissibility
•S.165(Proviso1)-Judge'spowertoputquestionsor
orderproduction
•S.5-Evidencemaybegivenoffactsinissueand
relevantfacts.
•S.155-Impeachingcreditofwitness.
•S.136-Judgetodecideastoa,dmissibilityof
evidence.
•S.104-Burdenofprovingfacttobeprovedtomake
evidence-'admissible.
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

29. Reliability
•ReliabilityofEvidencesisaprocesswhereitisseen
ifanevidencegiventoprovearelevantfactis
sufficienttothesatisfactionofthecourt.
•Thereisnomechanismgivenassuchtoproveitbut
variousotherprovisionsassistinthissuchas
–CrossExamination
–Confession
–Contradiction
–Re-examination
–Examination-in-chief
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

30. Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)
Alibi
•Thepleaofabsenceofaperson,chargedwithan
offence,fromtheplaceofoccurrenceatthetimeof
thecommissionoftheoffenceiscalled‘Pleaof
Alibi’.
•RajinderSinghV.StateofU.P.[AIR2007SC2791]
–Nofindingofpleaofalibicanberecordedbythe
HighCourtforthefirsttimeinaposition
–S.161,Cr.P.C.–statementrecorded–
inadmissible.

31. Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)
Case Law
BinayKumar&OthersV.StateofBihar
(AIR1997SC321)
•ItwasheldbySupremeCourtthatitisbasiclaw
inthecriminalcaseinwhichtheaccusedis
allegedtohaveinflictedphysicalinjuryto
anotherperson.Theburdenofproofison
prosecutiontoprovethattheaccusedwas
presentatthesceneandhasanticipatedinthe
crime.

32. Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)
TOPIC: DOCTRINE OF RES GESTAE

33. Meaning
•Theterm'Res'isaLatinwordwhichmeans"thing"andthe
expression"ResGestae"literallywhichmeans“thethingdone,a
subjectmatter,atransactionoressentialcircumstances
surroundingthesubject".
•Inthelawofevidence,itmeansthingsdoneincludingwords
spoken,formingpartofthesametransaction.
•Thereisafactstorybehindeverycasebeforethecourtoflaw.In
(factstory)containscertainacts,omissionsorstatements,which
arenotinissuebutarecapableofthrowingsomelightonthe
natureofthetransactionrevealingitstruequalityandcharacter.
•Suchacts,omissions,orstatementsfrompartofthesame
transactioninissueandareallowedtobeproved.
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

34. Definition of Res Gestae
Halsburydefines'Resgaste'as"Factswhich
formpartoftheresgestaeandare
consequentlyprovableasfactsrelevanttothe
issue;includeacts,declarationsandincidents
whichthemselvesconstituteoraccompanyand
explainthefactsortransactioninissue.
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

35. Section 6
• S.6embodiestheruleofAdmissionofEvidenceknowasResgestae.
Thisphrasemeanssimplyatransaction,thingdone,subjectmatterRes
gestaeofanycaseproperlyconsistofthatportionofactualhappeningof
theworldoutoftherightsorliability,complainedorassertedinthe
proceeding,necessarily,arise
•Thisphrasehasbeenusedintwosenses.
a)Intherestrictedsensesitmeansworld'shappeningoutofwhichtherightor
liabilityinquestionarises.InrestrictedmeaningResgestaeimportsthe
conceptionofactionbysomepersonproducingtheeffectsforwhichthe
liabilityissoughttobeenforcedanaction.
b)Inthewidersenseitcoversalltheprobativefactsbywhichresgestaeare
reproducedtothetribunalwheretheDirectEvidenceofwitnessor
perceptionbytheCourtareunattainable.
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

36. Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)
Section 7
Factswhicharetheoccasion,causeoreffect
offactsinissue
Factswhicharetheoccasion,cause,oreffect,
immediatelyorotherwise,ofrelevantfacts,or
factsinissue,orwhichconstitutethestateof
thingsunderwhichtheyhappened,orwhich
affordedanopportunityfortheiroccurrenceor
transaction,arerelevant.

37. Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)
Section 8
Motive,preparationandpreviousorsubsequentconduct
•Anyfactisrelevantwhichshowsorconstitutesamotiveor
preparationforanyfactinissueorrelevantfact.
•Theconductofanyparty,orofanyagenttoanyparty,to
anysuitorproceeding,inreferencetosuchsuitor
proceeding,orinreferencetoanyfactinissuethereinor
relevantthereto,andtheconductofanypersonanoffence
againstwhomissubjectofanyproceeding,isrelevant,if
suchconductinfluencesorisinfluencedbyanyfactins
issueorrelevantfact,andwhetheritwaspreviousor
subsequentthereto.

38. Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)
Section 8 Cont.
•Explanation1-Thework"conduct"inthissectiondoesnot
includestatements,unlessthosestatementsaccompanyand
explainactsotherthanstatements,butthisexplanationis
nottoaffecttherelevancyofstatementsunderanyother
sectionofthisAct.
•Explanation2—Whentheconductofanypersonis
relevant,anystatementmadetohimorinhispresenceand
hearing,whichaffectssuchconductisrelevant.

39. Case Laws
•SupremeCourtinPunjabraov.DPMeshram,AIR1965SC
1179,heldthattheEvidenceoftheconversionofamemberof
ScheduledCastetoBuddhismmaybeCorroboratedbytheEvidence
ofhisconductsubsequenttohisconversion.InPershadiv.State,
AIR1957SC211,heldthatinacaseofmurdersoonafterthe
murdertheaccusedwhohadearlierheldoutofathreattothevictim
toldthefatherofthevictimthathehadahandinthisappearanceof
theaccused,isAdmissibleu/s.6oftheIndianEvidenceAct.
•SupremeCourtinChanderKalav.RamKishan,AIRSC
1268,heldthatwhenthecomplainantnarratedtheincidentto
therelativeofthedeceasedandhedeposedtothateffectin
Court,suchEvidenceisAdmissibleinEvidence.
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

40. Case Laws Cont.
•In state ofAndhra Pradesh v. Panna Satyanarayan, AIR
2000 SC 2138 ,held that when the accused murdered his
wife and daughter, the statement by the father of the
deceased wife that father of the accused told him on
telephone that his son has killed the deceased. Absence of a
finding as to whatever information given by accused's father
to the deceased's father that the accused had killed the
deceased was either of the time of commission of the crime
or immediately thereafter. So as to form the part of the same
transaction, the statement cannot be considered as relevant
u/s. 6.
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

41. Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)
TOPIC: TEST IDENTIFICATION PARADE -
TIP

42. Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)
Test Identification Parade
•Theidentificationofanaccusedeitherintest
identificationparadeorinCourtisnotasine
quanonineverycaseiffromthe
circumstancesthequiltisotherwise
established.
•Manyatimescrimesarecommittedunderthe
coverofdarknesswhennonisabletoidentify
theaccused.

43. Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)
Test Identification Parade
•Mullav.StateofUP(2010)3SCC508
“Theidentificationparadesarenotprimarilymeantfor
thecourt.Theyaremeantforinvestigationpurposes.”
•Therearetwopurposesnamely,:
–EnableWitnessestosatisfythemselvesthatthe
accusedwhomtheysuspectisreallytheonewho
wasseenbytheminconnectionwiththe
commissionofcrime.
–InvestigationAuthority–Suspectisarealperson.

44. Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)
Case Law
RajeshGovindJageshav.StateofMaharashtra
AIR2000SC160:2000CrLJ380(SC)
–IftheTestIdentificationParaderegarding
accusedwasnotconductedproperlyand
sufferedfromunexplaineddelay,heis
entitledtobenefitofdoubt.

45. Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)
Case Law
MullagiriVajiramv.StateofAndhraPradesh
AIR1993SC1243
Whenconvictionwasbasedonevidenceofan
eyewitnessandnotonidentificationparade,it
cannotbesetasideonthegroundthat
identificationwasnotreliable.

46. ChanderprabhuJainCollegeofHigherStudies&SchoolofLaw
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi – 110040
(AffiliatedtoGuruGobindSinghIndraprasthaUniversityandApprovedbyGovtofNCTofDelhi&BarCouncilofIndia)
Case Law
RajNathv.StateofUttarPradesh
1988Cr.LJ422:AIR1988SC345
–Ifthereisunexplainedandunreasonable
delayinputtinguptheaccusedpersonsfor
atestidentification,thedelaybyitself
detractsfromthecredibilityofthetest.

47. Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)
TOPIC: CONSPIRACY

48. Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)
Role of Conspirator
Section10:Thingssaidordonebyconspiratorinreferenceto
commondesign
Wherethereisreasonablegroundtobelievethattwoormore
personshaveconspiredtogethertocommitanoffenceoran
actionablewrong,anythingsaid,doneorwrittenbyanyoneof
suchpersonsinreferencetotheircommonintention,afterthe
timewhensuchintentionwasfirstentertainedbyanyoneof
them,isarelevantfactasagainsteachofthepersonsbelieved
tobesoconspiring,aswellforthepurposeofprovingthe
existenceoftheconspiracyasforthepurposeofshowingthat
anysuchpersonwasapartytoit.

49. Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)
Section 11
Section11-Whenfactsnototherwiserelevantbecome
relevant
Factsnototherwiserelevantarerelevant-
(1)Iftheyareinconsistentwithanyfactisissueorrelevant
fact;
(2)Ifbythemselvesorinconnectionwithotherfactsthey
maketheexistenceornon-existenceofanyfactinissueor
relevantfacthighlyprobableorimprobable

50. Illustration –Section 11
Thequestionis,whetherAcommittedacrimeat
Calcuttaonacertainday.
–Thefactthat,onthatday,AwasatLahoreis
relevant.
–Thefactthat,nearthetimewhenthecrimewas
committed,Awasatadistancefromtheplace
whereitwascommitted.Whichwouldrenderit
highlyimprobable,thoughnotimpossible,thathe
committedit,isrelevant.
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

51. Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)
Case Law
State of Maharashtra v. Damu Gopinath Shinde
AIR 2000 SC 1671
–There was no doubt that there was reasonable
ground to believe that four of the accused
conspirators had conspired to commit the offence
of abduction and murder of children involved in
the case.
–Accused had spoken to each other in reference to
common intention.

52. Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)
Case Law
Bhagwandasv.StateofMaharashtra
AIR1974SC878
–Anythingwrittenbyaconspiratorwillnot
beadmissibleagainsthimorothersifitis
notdoneinreferencetothecommon
intentionoftheconspiracy.

53. Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)
UNIT-2
ADMISSIONS

54. Introduction
•Admission plays a very important part in judicial proceedings. If one party to a suit
or any other proceeding proves that the other party has admitted his case, the work
of the court becomes easier.
•AnAdmissionmaybeprovedbyoronbehalfofthepersonmakingitundercertain
exceptionalcircumstances.TheEvidenceAct,Sections17to23dealswiththe
Admissions.
•The expression 'Admission' means "Voluntarily acknowledgment of the existence or
truth of a particular fact". But In the Evidence Act, the term 'Admission' has not
been used in this wider sense.It deals with admissions by statements only oral or
written or contained in an electronic form. Admission plays a very important role in
judicial proceedings. If one party to the suit or any other proceeding proves that the
other party has admitted his case, the work of court becomes easier. An Admission
must be clear, precise and not vague or ambiguous.
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

55. Definition of Admission
•Accordingto17ofIndianEvidenceAct,"Anadmissionisastatement,oralor
documentaryor[containedinelectronicform(Amendmentw.e.f.17/10/2000)]
whichsuggestsanyinferenceastoanyfactinissueorrelevantfact,andwhichis
madebyanyofthepersonsandunderthecircumstanceshereinaftermentioned.”
•Therearethreepartsofthedefinition:
•
1)Itdefinesterm"admission“
2)Itsaysthatanadmissionwillberelevantonlyifitismadebyanyoftheperson
specifiedintheAct.
3)"Admission"isRelevantonlyinthecircumstancesmentionedintheAct.
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

56. Features of Admission
Toconstituteadmission,thefollowingcharacteristicsaretobepresentasperdefinition
statedabove.
1)Itmaybeoralordocumentary
2)Itisastatementtosuggestanyinferencetoanyfactinissueorrelevantfact.
3)ItmustbemadebyanypersonprescribedundertheAct;and
4)ItmustbemadeunderthecircumstanceprescribedundertheAct.
ChanderprabhuJainCollegeofHigherStudies&SchoolofLaw
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi – 110040
(AffiliatedtoGuruGobindSinghIndraprasthaUniversityandApprovedbyGovtofNCTofDelhi&BarCouncilofIndia)

57. Features of Admission Cont.
Theadmissionmustbeclearandunambiguous.Theadmissionisadmissiblebecauseofthe
followingreasons:
a)Admissionasawaiverofproof;
b)Admissionasastatementagainstinterest;
c)Admissionasevidenceofcontradictorystatement;
d)Admissionasevidenceoftruth.
Admissionisthebestsubstantiveevidencethatanoppositepartycanrelyupon.
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

58. Nature of Admissions
Thestatementsmadebypartiesduringjudicialproceedingare'selfregarding
statements'.Theselfregardingstatementsmaybeclassifiedundertwoheads-
i)Self-servingstatements;and
ii)Self-harmingstatements.
i)Self-servingStatements-Self-servingstatementsarethose,whichserve,
promoteoradvancetheinterestofthepersonmakingit.Hencetheyarenot
allowedtobeproved.Theyenabletocreateevidenceforthemselves.
ii)Self-harming-Self-harmingstatementsarethosewhichharmorprejudice
orinjuretheinterestofthepersonmakingit.Theseself-harmingstatements
alltechnicallyknownas“Admissions"andareallowedtobeproved.
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

59. Who can make Admission?
(S. 18 to 20)
AnAdmissionisrelevantifitismadeby:
1)Apartytotheproceeding;
2)Anagentauthorizedbysuchparty.
3)Apartysuingorbeingsuedinarepresentativecharactermakingadmissionwhile
holdingsuchcharacter.
4)Apersonwhohasaproprietaryorpecuniaryinterestinthesubjectmatterofthesuit
duringthecontinuanceofsuchinterest.
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

60. Who can make Admission?
(S. 18 to 20) Cont.
5)Apersonfromwhomthepartiestothesuithavederivedtheirinterestinthesubject
matterofthesuitduringthecontinuanceofsuchinterest.(Section18)
6)Apersonwhosepositionitisnecessarytoproveinasuit,ifsuchstatementswould
berelevantinasuitbroughtbyagainsthimself(Section19.)
7)Apersontowhomapartytothesuithasexpresslyreferredforinformationin
referencetoamatterinDispute(Section20.)
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

61. Proof of admission against persons making them, and by or
on their behalf (Section 21)
Admissionsarerelevantandmaybeprovedasagainstthepersonwhomakesthem,or
hisrepresentativeininterest;buttheycannotbeprovedbyoronbehalfoftheperson
whomakesthemorbyhisrepresentativeininterest,exceptinthefollowingcases.
(1)Anadmissionmaybeprovedbyoronbehalfofthepersonmakingit,whenitisof
suchanaturethat,ifthepersonmakingitweredeaditwouldberelevantasbetween
thethirdpersonundersection32.
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

62. Proof of admission against persons making them, and by or
on their behalf (Section 21) Cont.
•(2)Anadmissionmaybeprovedbyoronbehalfofthepersonmakingit,whenit
consistsofastatementoftheexistenceofanystateofmindorbody,relevantorin
issue,madeatoraboutthetimewhensuchstateofmindorbodyexisted,andis
accompaniedbyconductrenderingitsfalsehoodimprobable.
(3)Anadmissionmaybeprovedbyoronbehalfofthepersonmakingitifitisrelevant
otherwisethanasanadmission.
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

63. Illustrations
(a)ThequestionbetweenAandBis,whetheracertaindeedisorisnotforged.A
affirmsthatitisgenuine,Bthatitisforged.
AmayproveastatementbyBthatthedeedisgenuine,andBmayproveastatement
byAthatthedeedisforged;butAcannotproveastatementbyhimselfthatthedeedis
genuinenorconBProveastatementbyhimselfthatthedeedisForged.
(b)'A'thecaptainofaship,istriedforcastingheraway.
Evidenceisgiventoshowthattheshipwastakenoutofherpropercourse.Aproduces
abookkeptbyhimintheordinarycourseofhisbusinessshowingobservationsalleged
tohavebeentakenbyhimfromdaytoday,andindicatingthattheshipwasnottaken
outofherpropercourse.Amayprovethesestatement,becausetheywouldbe
admissiblebetweenthirdparties,ifheweredeadunderSection32,Clause(2).
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

64. Illustrations Cont.
C)AisaccusedofacrimecommittedbyhimatCalcutta.
HeproducesaletterwrittenbyhimanddatedatLahoreonthatday,andbearingthe
Lahorepost-markofthatday.Thestatementinthedateoftheletterisadmissible,
becauseifAweredeaditwouldbeadmissibleunderSection32,Clause(2).
(d)Aisaccusedofreceivingstolengoodsknowingthemtobestolen.
Heofficerstoprovethatherefusedtosellthembelowtheirvalue.
Amayprovethesestatementsthoughtheyareadmissions,becausetheyare
explanatoryofconductinfluencedbyfactsinissue.
(e)Aisaccusedoffraudulentlyhavinginhispossessioncounterfeitcoinwhichhe
knewtobecounterfeit.Heofferstoprovethatheaskedaskillfulpersontoexaminethe
coinsashedoubtedwhetheritwascounterfeitornot,andthatpersondidexamineit
andtoldhimitwasgenuine.
Amayprovethesefactsforthereasonsstatedinthelastproceedingillustration
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

65. When oral admission as to contents of documents are relevant
(Section 22)
Oraladmissionsastothecontentsofadocumentarenotrelevantunlessanduntilthe
partyproposingthemshowsthatheisentitledtogivesecondaryevidenceofthe
contentsofsuchdocumentundertheruleshereinaftercontained,orunlessthe
genuinenessofadocumentproducedisinquestion.
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

66. When oral admissions as to contents of electronic records are
relevant Section (22A)
Whenoraladmissionsastocontentsofelectronicrecordsarerelevant.—Oral
admissionsastothecontentsofelectronicrecordsarenotrelevant,unlessthe
genuinenessoftheelectronicrecordproducedisinquestion.[Insertedbythe
InformationTechnologyAct,2000,w.e.f.17-10-2000.]
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

67. Case Law
ARamaiahV.StateofA.P.(1997SC496)
Inthiscase,SupremeCourtheldthatthestatementinFIRfurnishedbyoneofthe
accusedcannotbeusedagainstanotheraccusedunlessitsmakersofferedhimselfasa
witnessinthetrial.IthasverylimiteduseofitasevidenceunderSection21oftheAct
againstitsmakeraloneunlesstheadmissiondoesnotamountconfession.
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

68. Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)
CONFESSIONS

69. Introduction
•Theword“confession”appearsforthefirsttimeinSection24oftheIndian
EvidenceAct.ThissectioncomesundertheheadingofAdmissionsoitisclearthat
theconfessionsaremerelyonespeciesofadmission.Confessionisnotdefinedin
theAct.Mr.JusticeStepheninhisDigestofthelawofEvidencedefinesconfession
as“confessionisanadmissionmadeatanytimebyapersonchargedwithacrime
statingorsuggestingtheinferencethathecommittedthatcrime.”
•InPakalaNarayanSwamivEmperor(AIR1939PC47)
LordAtkinobserved“Aconfessionmusteitheradmitintermstheoffenceoratany
ratesubstantiallyallthefactswhichconstitutetheoffence.Anadmissionofagravely
incriminatingfact,evenaconclusivelyincriminatingfactisnotinitselfaconfession”.
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

70. Types of Confessions
Aconfessionmayoccurinmanyforms.Whenitismadetothecourtitselfthenitwill
becalledjudicialconfessionandwhenitismadetoanybodyoutsidethecourt,inthat
caseitwillbecalledextra-judicialconfession.Itmayevenconsistofconversationto
oneself,whichmaybeproducedinevidenceifoverheardbyanother.Forexample,in
Sahoov.StateofU.P.theaccusedwhowaschargedwiththemurderofhisdaughter-in-
lawwithwhomhewasalwaysquarrelingwasseenonthedayofthemurdergoingout
ofthehouse,sayingwordstotheeffect:“Ihavefinishedherandwithherthedaily
quarrels.”Thestatementwasheldtobeaconfessionrelevantinevidence,foritisnot
necessaryfortherelevancyofaconfessionthatitshouldbecommunicatedtosome
otherperson.
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

71. Types of Confessions Cont.
•Judicialconfession-Arethosewhicharemadebeforeamagistrateorincourtinthe
duecourseoflegalproceedings.Ajudicialconfessionhasbeendefinedtomean
“pleaofguiltyonarrangement(madebeforeacourt)ifmadefreelybyapersonina
fitstateofmind.
•Extra-judicialconfessions-Arethosewhicharemadebytheaccusedelsewhere
thanbeforeamagistrateorincourt.Itisnotnecessarythatthestatementsshould
havebeenaddressedtoanydefiniteindividual.Itmayhavetakenplaceintheform
ofaprayer.Itmaybeaconfessiontoaprivateperson.Anextra-judicialconfession
hasbeendefinedtomean“afreeandvoluntaryconfessionofguiltbyaperson
accusedofacrimeinthecourseofconversationwithpersonsotherthanjudgeor
magistrateseizedofthechargeagainsthimself.Amanafterthecommissionofa
crimemaywritealettertohisrelationorfriendexpressinghissorrowoverthe
matter.Thismayamounttoconfession.Extra-judicialconfessioncanbeaccepted
andcanbethebasisofaconvictionifitpassesthetestofcredibility.
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

72. S.24 -Confession caused by inducement, threat or promise,
when irrelevant in criminal proceeding
ToattracttheprohibitionenactedinSection24thefollowingfactsmustbeestablished:
•Thatthestatementinquestionisaconfession,
•Thatsuchconfessionhasbeenmadebytheaccused,
•Thatithasbeenmadetoapersoninauthority,
•Thattheconfessionhasbeenobtainedbyreasonofanyinducement,threatorpromise,
proceedingfromapersoninauthority,
•Suchinducement,threatorpromisemusthavereferencetothechargeagainsttheaccused,
and
•Theinducement,threatorpromisemustintheopinionofthecourtbesufficienttogivethe
accusedground,whichwouldappeartohimreasonable,forsupportingthatbymakingithe
wouldgainanyadvantageoravoidanyevilofatemporalnatureinreferencetothe
proceedingsagainsthim.
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

73. Evidentiary Value of Confession
ValueofJudicialConfession-
•Acasewherethereisnoproofofcorpusdelictimustbedistinguishedfromanother
wherethatisproved.Intheabsenceofthecorpusdelictiaconfessionalonemay
notsufficetojustifyconviction.
•Thesettledlawisthataconvictioncanbebasedonconfessiononlyifitisproved
tobevoluntaryandtrue.Ifcorroborationisneededitisenoughthatthegeneral
trendoftheconfessionissubstantiatedbysomeevidencewhichwouldtallywith
thecontentsoftheconfession.Generalcorroborationisenough.
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

74. Evidentiary Value of Confession Cont.
Valueofextra-judicialconfession-
Extra-judicialconfessionsarenotusuallyconsideredwithfavourbutthatdoesnot
meanthatsuchaconfessioncomingfromapersonwhohasnoreasontostatefalsely
andtowhomitismadeinthecircumstanceswhichsupporthisstatementshouldnotbe
believed.
Extra-judicialconfessionshavetoreceivedwithgreatcautionandcareandwhenthe
foundationoftheconvictionistheconfessionallegedtohavebeenmadebythe
accusedtherearethreethingswhichtheprosecutionmustestablish.First,thata
confessionwasmade,secondly,thatevidenceofitcanbegiventhatistosaythatitwas
voluntaryandthirdlythatitistrue.Suchaconfessionmustbeprovedbyan
independentorsatisfactoryevidence.
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

75. Section 25 –Confession to Police officer-not to be proved
Noconfessionmadetoapoliceofficershallbeprovedasagainstapersonaccusedof
anyoffence.
Reasonsforexclusionofconfessiontopolice-anothervarietyofconfessionsthatare
undertheevidenceactregardedasinvoluntaryarethosemadetoapersonnel.Section
25expresslydeclaresthatsuchconfessionsshallnotbeproved.
Ifconfessionstopolicewereallowedtobeprovedinevidence,thepolicewouldtorture
theaccusedandthusforcehimtoconfesstoacrimewhichhemightnothavea
committed.Aconfessionsoobtainedwouldnaturallybeunreliable.Itwouldnotwould
bevoluntary.Suchaconfessionwillbeirrelevantwhatevermaybeitsform,direct,
express,impliedorinferredfromconduct.Thereasonsforwhichthispolicywas
adoptedwhentheactwaspassedin1872areprobablystillvalid.
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

76. Case Laws on Section 25
InDagduv.StateofMaharashtra,A.I.R.1977S.C.1579
Supremecourtnoted:
Thearchaicattempttosecureconfessionsbyhookorbycrookseemstobethebe-all
andend-allofthepoliceinvestigation.Thepoliceshouldrememberthatconfession
maynotalwaysbeashort-cuttosolution.Insteadoftryingto“start”fromaconfession
theyshouldstriveto“arrive”atit.Else,whentheyarebusyontheirshort-routeto
success,goodevidencemaydisappearduetoinattentiontorealclues.Oncea
confessionisobtained,thereisoftenflaggingofzealforafullandthrough
investigationwithaviewtoestablishthecasedehorstheconfession,later,being
inadmissibleforonereasonorother,thecasefondlesinthecourt.
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

77. Case Laws on Section 25 Cont.
•InRv.MuruganRamasay,(1964)64C.N.L.R.265(P.C.)
Policeauthorityitself,however,carefullycontrolled,carriesamenacetothosebrought
suddenlyunderitsshadowandthelawrecognisesandprovidesagainstthedangerof
suchpersonsmakingincriminatingconfessionswiththeintentionofplacatingauthority
andwithoutregardtothetruthofwhattheyaresaying.
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

78. S. 26 -Confession by accused while in custody of Police not to
be proved against him
•Section26providesthataconfessionwhichismadeincustodyofapoliceofficer
cannotbeprovedagainsthim.Unlessitismadebeforeamagistrate.
•Thewordcustodyisusedhereinwidesense.Apolicemanmaylayhishandona
person,hand-cuffhimortiehiswaistwitharopeandmaytakehimwithhim.
Againapoliceofficermaynoteventouchapersonbutmaykeepsuchacontrol
overhimthatthepersonsocontrolledcannotgoanywayhelikes.Hismovementis
inthecontrolofthepoliceofficer.ApoliceofficercomestoAandaskshimto
followtothepolicestationasheiswantedinconnectionwithadacoitycase.A
followshim.Heisincustodyofthepoliceofficer.
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

79. Case Law on Section 26
•InKishoreChandv.StateofHimachalPradesh,theextrajudicialconfession
wasmadetoPradhanwhowasaccompaniedbyPolice(enquiry)Officer.Theonly
interferencewhichcouldbedrawnfromthecircumstanceofthecase,isthatthe
confessionwasmadeatthetimewhentheaccusedwasinthecustodyofpoliceand
itcouldnotbeprovedagainsttheaccused.Itcouldnotbebelievedthat,whena
policeofficerhasseentheaccusedwithdeceasedatlastoccasion,hewillnottake
theaccusedinthecustody.
InthecaseitisevidentthatthePoliceOfficerhascreatedasceneandtoavoidSection
25and26,thePoliceOfficerhaslefttheaccusedinthecustodyofvillageheadman
(pradhan).
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

80. Case Law on Section 26 Cont.
•ThePoliceOfficerinthiscasehasnodifficultytotaketheaccusedtotheJudicial
Magistrateandtotakeextra-judicialconfessionundersection164ofCr.P.Cwhich
hasgotmoreprobablevalueanditgivesanopportunitytomaketherequired
warning,thatthisconfessionwillbeusedagainsttheaccusedandafterthiswarning
herecordstheconfession.Undersection26,noconfessionmadebyanaccusedto
anypersonwhileincustodyofapoliceofficershallbeprovedagainsthim.
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

81. S. 27 -How much of information received from accused,
maybe proved
•Providedthat,whenanyfactisdeposedtoasdiscoveredinconsequenceof
informationreceivedfromapersonaccusedofanyoffence,inthecustody
ofapoliceofficer,somuchofsuchinformation,whetheritamountstoa
confessionornot,asrelatesdistinctlytothefacttherebydiscovered,may
beproved.
•Principle-thissectionoftheactisfoundedontheprinciplethatifthe
confessionoftheaccusedissupportedbythediscoveryofafactthenit
maybepresumedtobetrueandnottohavebeenextracted.Itcomesinto
operationonly-
•Ifandwhencertainfactsaredeposedtoasdiscoveredinconsequenceof
informationreceivedfromanaccusedpersoninpolicecustody,and
•Iftheinformationrelatesdistinctlytothefactdiscovered.
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

82. S. 27 -How much of information received from accused,
maybe proved Cont.
Thissectionisbasedontheviewthatifafactisactuallydiscoveredinconsequenceof
informationgiven,someguaranteeisaffordedtherebythattheinformationwastrue
andaccordinglycanbesafelyallowedtobegiveninevidence.Butclearlytheextentof
theinformationadmissiblemustdependontheexactnatureofthefactdiscoveredto
whichsuchinformationisrequiredtorelate.
InPanduRangKalluPatilv.StateofMaharashtra,itwasheldbySupremeCourt
thatsection27ofevidenceactwasenactedasprovisoto.Theprovisionsofsectionsof
Section25and26,whichimposedacompletebanonadmissibilityofanyconfession
madebyaccusedeithertopoliceoratanyonewhileinpolicecustody.Nonethelessthe
banwouldbeliftedifthestatementisdistinctlyrelatedtodiscoveryoffacts.Theobject
ofmakingprovisioninsection27wastopermitacertainportionofstatementmadeby
anaccusedtoPoliceOfficeradmissibleinevidencewhetherornotsuchstatementis
confessionalornonconfessional
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

83. S. 28 -Confession made after removal of impression caused
by inducement, threat or promise, relevant
Ifsuchaconfessionasisreferredtoinsection24ismadeaftertheimpressioncaused
byanysuchinducement,threatorpromisehas,intheopinionofthecourt,beenfully
removed,itisrelevant.
ConfessionAfterRemovalOfThreatOrPromise-undersection24wehaveseenthatif
theopinionofacourtaconfessionseemstohavebeencausedbyanyinducement,
threatorpromisehavingreferencetothechargeandproceedingfromapersonin
authority,itisirrelevantandcannotbeprovedevenagainstapersonmakingthe
confession,
Section28providesthatifthereisinducement,threatorpromisegiventotheaccused
inordertoobtainconfessionofguiltfromhimbuttheconfessionismadeafterthe
impressioncausedbyanysuchinducement,threatorpromisehas,intheopinionofthe
courtbeenfullyremoved,theconfessionwillberelevantbecomespreandvoluntary.
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

84. S. 29 -Confession otherwise relevant not to become irrelevant
because of promise of secrecy
Insuchaconfessionisotherwiserelevant,itdoesnotbecomeirrelevantmerely
becauseitwasmadeunderapromiseofsecrecy,orinconsequenceofdeception
practicedontheaccusedpersonforthepurposeofobtainingit,orwhenhewasdrunk,
orbecauseitwasmadeinanswertoquestionwhichheneednothaveanswered,
whatevermayhavebeentheformofthosequestions,becausehewasnotwarnedthat
hewasnotboundtomakesuchconfession,andthatevidenceifitmightbegiven
againsthim.
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

85. S. 30 -Consideration of proved confession affecting person
making it and others jointly under trial for same offence
Whenmorepersonsthanonearebeingtriedjointlyforthesameoffenceanda
confessionmadebyonesuchpersonsaffectinghimselfandsomeothersuchpersonsis
proved,thecourtmaytakeintoconsiderationsuchconfessionasagainstsuchother
personaswellasagainstthepersonwhomakessuchconfession.
PrincipleUnderlying:whenmorepersonsthanonearejointlytriedforthesame
offence,theconfessionmadebyoneofthem,ifadmissibleinevidence,shouldbetaken
intoconsiderationagainstalltheaccused,andnotagainstthepersonwhoalonemade
it.Itappearstobeverystrangethattheconfessionofonepersonistobetakeninto
considerationagainstanother.Wheretheconfessionofoneaccusedisprovedatthe
trial,theotheraccusedpersonshavenootheropportunitytocrossexaminehim.Itis
opposedtotheprincipleofjurisprudencetouseastatementagainstapersonwithout
givinghimtheopportunitytocrossexaminethepersonmakingthestatement.This
sectionisanexceptiontotherulethattheconfessionofonepersonisentirely
admissibleagainsttheoth
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

86. Case Law on Section 30
InKashmiraSinghv.StateofMP,theaccusedKashmirawhowasanAssistantFood
ProcurementInspector,hisservicesalongwiththeanotherfoodinspectorwere
terminatedonareportofthefoodofficerwhentheyweregettingthericepolishedina
ricemill.Kashmirawasheardtwicesayingthathewouldteachalessontothefood
officer.Afterafewmonthsthesonofthefoodofficerwasfoundmissingandhisbody
wasfoundinawell.Kashmira,GurudayalbrotherofKashmira,Prithipalsonof
GurudayalandoneGurubachan,arickshawpullerinthiscaseweretriedofconspiracy
andkillingthechild.TheprosecutionstorywasthatPrirthipalledthechild,whenhe
wasplayingneartheGurudwara,forsomedistanceandthenthechildwastakenonthe
cyclebyKashmiratoahousewherehewasmurdered.Accordingtothejudgmentof
theSCGuruibachanwasnotarickshawpullerbyprofessionandtherickshawwas
hiredonlyforthatnightforthedisposalofthebodyofthedeceased.
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

87. Case Law on Section 30 Cont.
Hence,beforetheconfessionofoneaccusedmaybetakenintoconsiderationagainst
others,ithastobeshownthat:
1)Thepersonconfessingandtheothersarebeingtriedjointly.
2)Theyarebeingtriedforthesameoffence.
3)Theconfessionisaffectingthepersonconfessingandtheother
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

88. Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)
DYING DECLARATION

89. Introduction
•DyingDeclarationisoftheutmostimportanceandtheevidenceastoitshouldbe
exactandfullaspossible.Thegeneralruleis,'hearsayevidenceisnoevidenceand
isnotadmissibleinevidence.'Section32and33oftheEvidenceActareamongthe
Exceptions,assuchdyingDeclarationisanexceptiontothisgeneralrule.
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

90. Statementmade by a person who cannot be called as Witness
Section32-Casesinwhichstatementofrelevantfactbypersonwhoisdeadorcannot
befoundetcisrelevant:
Statements,writtenorverbal,ofrelevantfactsmadebyapersonwhoisdead,orcannot
befound,orwhohasbecomeincapableofgivingevidence,orwhoseattendancecannot
beproducedwithoutanamountofdelayorexpensewhichunderthecircumstancesof
thecaseappearstothecourtunreasonable,arethemselvesrelevantfactsinthe
followingcases.
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

91. When it relates to cause of death
Whenthestatementismadebyapersonastothecauseofhisdeath,orastoanyofthe
circumstancesofthetransactionwhichresultedinhisdeath,inwhichcasesthecauseof
thatperson'sdeathcomesintoquestion.
Suchstatementsarerelevantwhetherthepersonwhomadethemwasorwasnot,atthe
timewhentheymade,underexpectationofdeath,andwhatevermaybethenatureof
theproceedinginwhichthecauseofhisdeathcomesintoquestion.
Followingaretheclassesofpersonwhocannotbecalledaswitnessundersection32
andtheirstatementsallowedtobeprovedintheirabsence.
1)Personwhoisdead:
2)Personwhocannotbefound
3)Whohasbecomeincapableofgivingevidence:or
4)Whoseattendancecannotbeproducedwithoutunreasonabledelayorexpense?
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

92. Meaning and Definition
"Adyingdeclarationisadeclarationwrittenorverbalmadebyaperson,astothecause
ofhisdeathorastoanyofthecircumstancesofthetransaction,whichresultedinhis
death"
Illustration
BhasbeenattackedbyA.IfB,shortlybeforedeathmakesadeclarationholdingA,
responsibleforhisinjuries,itiscalled"DyingDeclaration'.
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

93. Section 32(1)
Section32(1)ofTheIndianEvidenceActdefinesDyingdeclarationas"astatement
verbalorwrittenmadebyapersonwhoisdeadorcannotbefound,whohasbecome
incapableofgivingevidenceorwhoseattendancecannotbeprocuredwithoutan
amountofdelayorexpense,whichunderthecircumstanceofthecase,appearstothe
courtunreasonable,arethemselvesrelevantfactsinthefollowingcases:
a)Whenitrelatestocauseofdeath
b)Whenitismadeincourseofbusiness;or
c)Againsttheinterestofmaker;or
d)Givesopinionastopublicrightorcustomormattersofgeneralinterest;or
e)Relatestoexistenceofrelationship;or
f)Whenitismadeinwillordeedrelatingtothefamilyaffairs;or
g)Indocumentrelatingtotransactionmentionedinsection13(a);
h)Whenitismadebyseveralpersonsandexpressesfeelingrelevanttomatterin
question
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

94. Section 32(1) explained further
•Beforesuchstatementsareadmittedinevidence,itmustbeprovedthatwhomade
thestatementisdeadandgoneandthereforecannotappearbeforethecourtunless
thisfactisproved,thestatementisnotadmissible.
•Whenthestatementisadmittedunderanyoftheclauseofthissection,itis
substantiveevidenceandhastobeconsideredalongwithotherevidence.
•Dyingdeclarationisanexceptiontothegeneralrulesastorelevancyoffact.
•Therelevancyoffactprovidesthatthestatementmadebywitnessinconnectionof
factorfactinissuearerelevantbutunderSection32astatementmadeunder
certaincircumstancesbecomerelevant,eventhoughpersonisnotcalledasa
witnessbeforethecourt.Dyingdeclarationinfactisasurvivingdeclaration.
Declarantdiedandstatementsurvives.Itisdeclarationofadeadperson.
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

95. Conditions
Therearecertainconditionsinthesectionwhichareasfollows:
•Itmustbeastatement,writtenorverbal
•Thepersonmakingstatementmusthavedied.
•Thestatementrelatetothecauseofhisdeathorthecircumstancesofthetransaction
whichrelatedinhisdeathandnotthecauseofthedeathofsomeoneelse.
•Thecauseoftheperson'sdeathmustbeinquestion.
•Thepersonmakingstatementmustbeinafitconditiontomakethestatement.
•Thestatementmustbecompetent
•Declarationmustbecompetent
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

96. Reasons For admissibility of Dying Declaration
Dyingdeclarationisadmissibleforthefollowingtworeasons:
•AstheVictimissoleEyeWitness,Exclusionofhisevidencedefeatstheendsof
justice.
•Declarationmadebyapersonunderexceptionofdeathispresumedtobetrue.
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

97. Merits of Dying Declaration
•Thereisheavyconscience–
Thelawpresumethatthereisapossibilityoftruestatementastothecauseofhisdeath.
Ithasmoralandreligiousaspectbehinditbecauseapersonwhoisonthebedofdeath,
abouttodiegenerallyspeakstrue,soastoattainspiritualbenefitsinotherworld.This
isrelativeelement,whichchangesfrompersontoperson,personalityandmentality
personmakingDyingDeclaration.Soapersonwhoisabouttodie,tellsthetruthand
truthonlyisahalftruthasincaseofhardencriminals.Soitisthe
personality,circumstancesandthecharacterofthepersonmakingDyingDeclaration
thatdecidestherelevancyofDyingDeclaration.
•Thereisnoreasontoimplicatewrongperson:
ThepersonmakingDyingDeclarationandmentioninginthenameoftheperson
responsiblewhohascausedinjuriestohimwhicharelikelytoresultinhisdeath,
generallywillnotimplicateinawrongpersonwhoisnotatallresponsibleforsuch
injuries.
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

98. Merits of Dying Declaration Cont.
•Thereisnoreasonwhyhewillavoidthenameofthepersonwhoisresponsible
forhisdeathandhisworstenemyinhislife.
ItismorelogicalandrealisticconceptbecausepersonwhoisonthebedofDeathwill
notimplicatethenameofwrongpersonforthecauseofhisdeath,buthewillnotallow
hisenemytogounpunishedwhoisresponsibleforhisdeath.
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

99. Demerits of Dying Declaration
•Thereisnooathadministered:
WhenapersoniscalledaswitnessintheCourthehastomakeastatementonoath.
Thisistohavehisinnerconsciencesaytruthandtruthonly.Lawpresumeandexpect
persontostatethetruth.Thisisthetheoreticalaspectasitmaybecorrecttheoretically
butnotpractically.
•Thereisnocross-examinationofsuchpersonmakingDyingDeclaration:
Theneedofcross-examinationistojudgethecredibilityofthewitness.Itistherightof
DefenceCouncil.Questionsareputtothewitnessestoextractthetruthincaseof
DyingDeclarationotherpartyordefencecouncilhavenoopportunityofcross-
examinationofthewitnesswhoisdead.
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

100. Demerits of Dying Declaration Cont.
•WitnessisnotpresentbeforetheCourt:
Behaviour,mannerofansweringthequestionofwitnessbeforetheCourtisavital
aspectinlawbecauseitgivesopportunitytothejudgestojudgethecharacter,
personalityofthewitnessthiselementisabsentindyingdeclarationandhenceitisnot
acceptedasarule
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

101. Evidentiary Value of Dying Declaration
Theevidentiaryvalueofdyingdeclarationwillvaryaccordingtothecircumstancesof
aparticularcaseinwhichitismade.
DyingDeclarationisevidencebutitisaweakpieceofevidence.Itistobe
corroboratedbyotherevidenceforexampleotherfactsandevidencesupportingDying
Declaration.
ItgivesguidancetotheCourt,thehastoaccepttheDyingDeclarationasasuspicious
statement,itisdutyofthejudgetoconsiderthevaluationofDyingDeclaration.
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

102. Evidentiary Value of Dying Declaration Cont.
Such valuation of Dying Declaration depends upon many things as under
1) State of mind of declarant.
2) State of the body of declarant.
3) To whom the Declaration/Statement is made.
4) Who recorded the statement?
5)Whether the statement is recorded in the same language and in a same word of the
declarant. Even though Dying Declaration is said to be of weak piece ofevidence it is
relevant in the Indian Evidence Act, because it is the best available evidence as to the
cause of his death after his death.
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

103. Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)
PRESUMPTIONS

104. Meaning
•Presumptiongenerallymeansaprocessofascertainingfewfactsonthebasisof
possibilityoritistheconsequenceofsomeactsingeneralwhichstrengthenthe
possibilityandwhensuchpossibilityhasgreatsubstantiatevaluethengenerally
factscanbeascertained.
•Apresumptioninlawmeansinferenceswhichareconcludedbythecourtwith
respecttotheexistenceofcertainfacts.Theinferencescaneitherbeaffirmativeor
negativedrawnfromcircumstancebyusingaprocessofbestprobablereasoningof
suchcircumstances.
•Thebasicruleofpresumptioniswhenonefactofthecaseorcircumstancesare
consideredasprimaryfactsandiftheyareprovingtheotherfactsrelatedtoit,then
thefactscanbepresumedasiftheyareproveduntildisproved.
•Section114ofIndianEvidenceActspecificallydealswiththeconceptthat‘the
courtmaypresumetheexistenceofanyfactwhichitthinkslikelytohave
happened,regardbeinghadtothecommoncourseof(a)naturalevents,(b)human
conduct,and(c)publicandprivatebusiness,intheirrelationtothefactsofthe
particularcase’.
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

105. Classification of Presumption
•PresumptionofFactorNaturalPresumption
•PresumptionoflaworArtificialPresumption
–Rebuttable
–IrrebuttableorConclusive
•MixedPresumptions(PresumptionofFactandlawboth)
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

106. Presumption of Fact or Natural Presumption :
•Sections86-88,90,,113Aand114laydowntheprovisionsrelatingto
PresumptionofFactorNaturalPresumptionsasstatedbelow.theseprinciplesare
generallyrebuttable.
•Section86.Presumptionastocertifiedcopiesofforeignjudicialrecords
•Section87.PresumptionastoBooks,MapsandCharts
•Section88.PresumptionastoTelegraphicMessages
•Section90.Presumptionastodocumentsthirtyyearsold
•Section113A.Presumptionastoabatementofsuicidebyamarriedwomen
•Section113B.Presumptionastodowrydeath
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

107. Presumption of law or Artificial Presumption
•Presumptionsoflaworartificialpresumptionsareinferencesorpropositions
establishedbylaw.
•Presumptionsoflawareoftwokinds:
a)Rebuttable
b)IrrebuttableorConclusive
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

108. Rebuttable Presumptions of law
•Thesekindsofpresumptionsarisewhenpresumptionsoflawarecertainlegalrules,
definingtheamountofevidencerequisitetoSupportaparticularallegation,which
factsbeingproved,maybeeitherexplainedawayorrebuttedbyevidencetothe
contrarybutareconclusiveinabsenceofsuchevidence.Forexample,Amanis
presumedinnocentuntilheisprovedguilty.Achildisborninalegalwedlockshall
bepresumedlegitimateandonewhoquestionshislegitimacymustdisproveit.
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

109. Examples of Rebuttable Presumption
•Section 107.Burden of proving death of person known to have been alive within
thirty years.
•Section 108.Burden of proving that person is alive who has not been heard of for
seven years.
•Section 102.On whom burden of proof lies.
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

110. Irrebuttable or Conclusive Presumption
•ThesePresumptionsarethoselegalruleswhicharenotoutcomeofanyevidence
thatthefactisotherwise.Section82ofIndianPenalCodeisthewell-known
instanceofanirrebuttablepresumptionoflawwhichprovidesthatnothingisan
offensewhichisdonebyachildunder7yearofage.Section115,116andSection
117oftheIndianEvidenceAct1872dealswiththeruleEstoppelwhicharethe
examplesofirrebuttablepresumptions.
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

111. Examples of Irrebuttable Presumption
•Section 115.Estoppel
•Section 116. Estoppel of tenant and of license of person in possession
•Section 117. Estoppel of acceptor of bill of exchange, bailee or licensee
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

112. Mixed Presumptions (Presumption of Fact and law both)
•MixedpresumptionsoflawandFactaremainlyconfinedtotheEnglishlawofreal
propertysoitisnotnecessarytopresumesubjecthere.TheIndianEvidenceActhas
madesomeprovisionsforthepresumptionsoffactandthepresumptionsoflaw.In
certainsectionsoftheEvidenceAct,ithasbeenprovidedthatthecourtmay
presumecertainfacts.Insomeothersections,Thecourtshallpresumeafacthas
beenused.Therearecertainsectionsinwhichitissaidthatacertainfactis
conclusiveproofofacertainanotherfact.Section4oftheEvidenceActcontrols
thesesectionsandgivesadirectiontocourtsastohowproceedunderthosesections
oftheevidenceact.
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

113. Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)
EXPERT EVIDENCE

114. Introduction
•Sec.45toSec.51underChapter-IIoftheIndianEvidenceActproviderelevancyof
opinionofthirdpersons,whichiscommonlycalledinourdaytodaypracticeas
expert’sopinion.Theseprovisionsareexceptionalinnaturetothegeneralrulethat
evidenceistobegivenofthefactsonlywhicharewithintheknowledgeofa
witness.Theexceptionisbasedontheprinciplethatthecourtcan’tformopinionon
thematters,whicharetechnicallycomplicatedandprofessionallysophisticated,
withoutassistanceofthepersonswhohaveacquiredspecialknowledgeandskillon
thosematters.Conditionsforadmittinganexpertopinionarefollowing:-
a)Thatthedisputecan’tberesolvedwithoutexpertopinionand
b)Thatthewitnessexpressingtheopinionisreallyanexpert.
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

115. Who Is An Expert?
The definition of an expert may be referred from the provision of Sec.45 of Indian
Evidence Act that an‘Expert’means a person who has special knowledge, skill or
experience in any of the following----
1)foreign law,
2)science
3)art
4)handwriting or
5)finger impression
and such knowledge has been gathered by him—
a)by practice,
b)observation or
c)proper studies.
For example, medical officer, chemical analyst, explosive expert, ballistic expert,
fingerprint expert etc.
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

116. Duties Of An Expert
•According to Sec.45, the definition of an expert is confined only to the five subjects
or fields as mentioned above. But practically there are some more subjects or fields
on which court may seek opinion an expert.
•Anexpertwitnessisonewhohasdevotedtimeandstudytoaspecialbranchof
learningandthusheisspeciallyskilledonthosepointsonwhichheisaskedto
statehisopinion.Hisevidenceonsuchpointsisadmissibletoenablethecourtto
cometoasatisfactoryconclusion.
•Duty of the expert:-
a)An expert is not a witness of fact.
b)His evidence is of advisory character.
c)An expert deposes and does not decide.
d)An expert witness is to furnish the judge necessary scientific criteria for testing
the accuracy of the conclusion so as to enable the judge to form his independent
judgment by application of the criteria to the facts proved by the evidence
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

117. Value of Expert Evidence
•TheExpertevidencehastwoaspects–
•a)Dataevidence(itcan’tberejectedifitisinconsistenttooralevidence)
•b)Opinionevidence[itisonlyaninferencedrawnfromthedataanditwouldnot
getprecedenceoverthedirecteye-witnesstestimonyunlesstheinconsistency
betweenthetwoissogreatastofalsifytheoralevidence-
Arshadv.StateofA.P.(1996CrLJ2893(para34)(AP))
•Expertevidenceisopinionevidenceanditcan’ttaketheplaceofsubstantive
evidence.Itisaruleofprocedurethatexpertevidencemustbecorroboratedeither
bycleardirectevidenceorbycircumstantialevidence.Itisnotsafetorelyuponthis
typeofevidencewithoutseekingindependentandreliablecorroboration-S.Gopal
Reddyv.StateofA.P.(AIR1996SC2184(Para27))
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

118. Difference Between Evidence Of An Expert And Evidence Of
An Ordinary Witness
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

119. Sec.45 -Relevancy of opinion of experts
•Provision
If the court has to form an opinion upon-
a)Foreign law,
b) Science,
c)Art,
d)Identity of handwriting or
e)Finger impression
the opinion of the persons who are specially skilled in the above subject or fields are
relevant.
The expert opinion is only corroborative evidence. It must not be the sole basis for
conclusive proof.
The expert witness must be subjected to cross-examination in the court. Mere
submission of opinion by an expert through any certificate or any other document is not
sufficient.
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

120. Sec.45 -Relevancy of opinion of experts
1)QuestionariseswhetherA,atthetimeofcommittingtheoffence,wasincapableto
knowthenatureofhisactorthathewasdoingwhatwaswrongorcontrarytolaw
becauseofunsoundnessofmind.Theopinionoftheexpertsuponthepointsare
relevant---
a)Whether the symptom exhibited by A commonly show unsoundness of mind and
b)Whether such unsoundness of mind usually renders the person incapable to know
the nature of his act or to know what he does is wrong or contrary to law.
2)ThequestioniswhetheracertaindocumentwaswrittenbyA.Anotherdocumentis
producedwhichisprovedoradmittedtohavebeenwrittenbyA.Opinionofexpertson
thequestionwhetherthetwodocumentswerewrittenbythesamepersonorby
differentpersons,arerelevant.
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

121. Relevant Expert Evidence
•Foreign law:-
Foreign law can be proved –
a)by the evidence of a person specially skilled in it and
b)by direct reference to the books printed or published under the authority of the
foreign government.
•Fingerprint expert:-
Expertopiniononfingerprintshasthesamevalueastheopinionofanyotherexpert.
Thecourtwillnottakeopinionoffingerprintexpertasconclusiveproofbutmust
examinehisevidenceinthelightofsurroundingcircumstancesinordertosatisfyitself
abouttheguiltoftheaccusedinacriminalcase.
•Ballistic expert:-
Aballisticexpertmaytraceabulletorcartridgetoaparticularweaponfromwhichit
wasdischarged.Forensicballisticsmayalsofurnishopinionaboutthedistancefrom
whichashotwasfiredandthetimewhentheweaponwaslastused.
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

122. Relevant Expert Evidence
Science or art:-
The Science or art includes all subjects on which a course of special study or
experience is necessary to the formation of an opinion. “Science” or “art” is not limited
to higher science or fine art, but it has its original sense of handicraft, trade, profession
and skill in work which has been carried beyond the sphere of the common pursuits of
life into that of the artistic and scientific action.
The following matters are included in the ‘science’ and art and the expert opinion of
these matters are relevant:-
Medical opinion:-
The value of Medical evidence is only corroborative. A doctor acquires special
knowledge of medicine and surgery and as such he is an expert. Opinions of a medical
officer, physician or surgeon may be admitted in evidence to show-
a)Physical condition of the a person,
b)Age of a person
c)Cause of death of a person
d)Nature and effect of the disease or injuries on body or mind
e)Manner or instrument by which such injuries was caused
f)Time at which the injury or wounds have been caused.
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

123. Relevant Expert Evidence
•ManiRamv.StateofU.P.1994Supp(2)SCC289,292;1994SCC(Cri)1242
Whenthereisaconflictbetweenthemedicalevidenceandocularevidence,oral
evidenceofaneyewitnesshastogetprimacyasmedicalevidenceisbasically
opinionative.Wherethedirectevidenceisnotsupportedbytheexpertevidence,the
evidenceiswantinginthemostmaterialpartoftheprosecutioncaseandtherefore,
itwouldbedifficulttoconvicttheaccusedonthebasisofsuchevidence.Ifthe
evidenceoftheprosecutionwitnessesistotallyinconsistentwithmedicalevidence,
itisthemostfundamentaldefectintheprosecutioncaseandunlessthis
inconsistencyisreasonablyexplained,itissufficienttodiscredittheevidenceas
wellastheentirecase–
•PiaraSinghv.StateofPunjabAIR1977SC2274-Wheretheopinionofone
medicalwitnessiscontradictedbyanotherandbothexpertsareequallycompetent
toformanopinion,thecourtwillaccepttheopinionofthatexpertwhichsupports
thedirectevidenceinthecase.
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

124. Relevant Expert Evidence
Handwriting:-
Likeotherexpertopinion,theopinionofhandwritingexpertisadvisoryinnature.The
expertcancomparedisputedhandwritingwiththeadmittedhandwritingandgivehis
opinionwhetheronepersonistheauthorofboththehandwriting.
Thecourtshallexercisegreatcareandcautionatthetimeofdeterminingthe
genuinenessofhandwriting.Ahandwritingexpertcancertifyonlyprobabilityand
100%certainty.Onthequestionofthehandwritingofaperson,theopinionofa
handwritingexpertisrelevant,butitisnotconclusiveandhandwritingofapersoncan
be proved by other means also.
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

125. Thefollowingarethedifferentmodesofprovinghandwriting:
i)Apersonwhowrotethedocumentcanproveit.(Sec.47)
ii)Apersonwhosawsomeonewritingorsigningadocumentcanproveit(Sec.47)
iii)Apersonwhoisacquaintedwiththehandwritingbyreceivingthedocuments
purportedtohavebeenwrittenbythepartyinreplytohiscommunicationorin
ordinarycourseofbusiness,canprovethedocuments(Sec.47)
iv)Thecourtcanformopinionbycomparingdisputedhandwritingwiththeadmitted
handwriting(S.73)
v)Thepersonagainstwhomthedocumentistenderedcanadmitthehandwriting.
(Sec.21)
vi)Theexpertcancomparedisputedhandwritingwithadmittedhandwritingand
therebyproveordisprovewhetherthedocumentswerewrittenbythesameordifferent
persons.(Sec.45)
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

126. Relevant Expert Evidence
Evidenceoftrackingdogs:-
Traineddogsareusedfordetectionofcrime.Thetraineroftrackingdogscangive
evidenceaboutthebehaviourofthedog.Theevidenceofthetrackerdogisalso
relevant under section 45.
InAbdulRazakV.StateofMaharashtra(AIR1970SC283)questionarisesbefore
theSupremeCourtwhethertheevidenceofdogtrackingisadmissibleinevidenceand
ifso,whetherthisevidencewillbetreatedatparwiththeevidenceofscientificexperts.
Inthiscase,PuneExpresswasderailednearMirajRailwayStationon10thOct.,1966.
Sabotagewassuspected.Theremovaloffishplateswasfoundtobethecauseof
derailmentandaccident.Thepolicedogwasbroughtintoservice,takentothesceneof
crime.Aftersmellingthearticlesneartheaffectedjoint,thedograntowards
embankmentwhereonefishplatewaslying,thenthedogsmeltitandwenttoanearby
shantyandpouncedupontheaccusedwhowasagangmanatMirajRailwaystation.
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

127. Relevant Expert Evidence
TheSupremeCourtheldthatevidenceofthetraineroftrackingdogisrelevantand
admissibleinevidence,buttheevidencecan’tbetreatedatparwiththeevidenceof
scientificexpertsanalysingbloodorchemicals.Thereactionsofbloodandchemicals
can’tbeequatedwiththebehaviourofdogwhichisanintelligentanimalwithmany
thoughtprocessessimilartothethoughtprocessesofhumanbeings.Wheneverthought
processisinvolvedthereisriskoferroranddeception.Thelawismadeclearbythe
SupremeCourtbyenunciatingtheprinciplethattheevidenceofdogtrackingis
admissible,butnotordinarilyofmuchweightandnotatparwiththeevidenceof
scientific experts.
Apartfromtheabovefields,therearechemicalanalyst,explosiveexperts,mechanical
experts,interpreter,patentexpert,hairexpertetc.whoseopinionisadmissiblein
evidence.
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

128. Relevant Expert Evidence
•Expert opinion becomes admissible only when the expert is examined as a witness
in the court. The report of an expert is not admissible unless the expert gives
reasons for forming the opinion and his evidence is tested by cross-examination by
the adverse party. But in order to curtail the delay and expenses involved in
securing assistance of experts, the law has dispensed with examination of some
scientific experts.
•For example, Sec.293 Cr.P.C. provides a list of some Govt. Scientific Experts as
following:-
a)Any Chemical Examiner / Asstt. Chemical examiner to the Govt.
b)The Chief Controller of explosives
c)The Director of Fingerprint Bureau
d)The Director of Haffkein Institute, Bombay
e)The Director, Dy. Director or Asstt. Director of Central and State Forensic
Science Laboratory.
f)The Serologist to the Govt.
g)Any other Govt. Scientific Experts specified by notification of the Central
Govt.
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

129. Section 45A –Opinion of Examiner of Electronic Evidence
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

130. Section 46 –Facts Bearing Upon The Opinion Of Experts
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

131. Section 47 –Relevancy Of Opinion As To Writing
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

132. Section 47A & 48
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

133. Section 49 –Relevancy Of Opinion As to Usages, Tenets, etc.
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

134. Section 50 –Relevancy Of Opinion As To Relationship
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

135. Section 51 –Relevancy Of Grounds Of Opinion
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

136. Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)
ORAL & DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE

137. Introduction
•ThetermevidencehascomefromtheLatinword“evident”whichmeans“toshow
clearly”ortoprove.Evidencecontainseverythingthatisusedtorevealthetruthor
facts.Inlawthepersononwhomtheburdenofprooflieshastoproducethe
evidencebeforethecourtoflaw.Itisalsoimportantthattheevidencewhichis
producedbeforethecourtshouldbetrue.
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

138. Types of Evidence
•Directevidence-Itreferstotheevidencedirectlyabouttherealpointintheissue.
Itisthedeclarationoftheobserverastokeycertaintytobedemonstrated.
Example-Theproofofanindividualwhosaysthathesawthecommissionofthe
demonstrationthatcomprisesofaffirmedwrongdoing.Theoriginaldocumentis
alsoincludedintheindirectevidence.Directevidenceisgenerallyclearand
convincing.Itissimplythehypotheticalverificationwhenthetruthofthematteris
demonstratedbydirectdeclarationorfacts.Directevidencealsomeansthatthe
personhasheard,seen,perceived,formopinionandafterthatrevealedthefacts.
•Circumstantialevidence-“Proofdoesnotmeanhardmathematicalformulasince
itisimpossible”.ItwastoldbyJusticeFletcherMoultoninregardto
circumstantialevent.Healsosaidthattheseproofsarestrongbutsometimesit
leavesagapthroughwhichtheaccusedescapes.ItwassaidbyJustice
Coleridge,thatcircumstantialevidenceislikeathread,lightandvisionarylikeair
thateasilyvanisheswithatouch.Ifawitnessgivesevidenceinacourtthathesaw
adefendantwhilefiringabullettoaapersonandthepersondies,thenthisisdirect
evidence.
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

139. Types of Evidence
•Realevidence-Realevidencemeansanytangibleobjectwhichispresentedbefore
thecourtasproof.Itmeanstheevidenceofanyclassorobjectwhichcanbetreated
asproof,personsarealsoincludedinthis.Realevidencemaybeaweaponfoundat
aplacewherecrimeiscommittedoranydisputearisinginacontract.Anyobject,
personormaterialthatisusedatthetimeofproceedinginacourttomakeother
partiesfeelguiltyortomakehimliableisrealevidence.
•Expertevidence-Thelawofevidenceisdraftedtomakesurethat,thecourtonly
considerstheproofthatallowsthemtoreachavalidconclusion.Whenanissue
arisessuchasamedicalissue,thenthecourtneedsexpertadvicetosettleit.The
logicalinquiriesincludedareassumednottobewithintheknowledgeofthecourt.
Thecasesinwhichscientistsandspecialistsareinvolved,theretheroleofexperts
cannotbeargued.
•Hearsayevidence-Thisevidenceisalsocalledasindirect,derivativeorsecond-
handevidence.Inthistypeofevidence,thewitnesstellsthecourtaboutwhathe
hadheardfromsomebodybuthasnotseenanything.Thusitcanbesaidthatthe
witnessdoesnottellaboutthecircumstanceswithhisknowledgebutwiththe
knowledgeofotherpersonandwhattheotherpersontoldhim.Thecourtdoesnot
takesuchtypeofproofseriously.
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

140. Types of Evidence
•Primaryoralevidence-Oralevidencemeansthatanyannouncementwhichis
madebyanobserverinthecourt,whohaspersonallyseentheact,hearditandwas
presentthere.Thisevidenceisalsocalleddirectevidencecontrarytohearsay.These
typesofevidencesaretakenseriouslybythecourt.
•Secondaryevidence-Theevidencewhichisgivenintheabsenceofprimaryproof
iscalledsecondaryevidence.Secondaryevidenceistheevidencewhichisextracted
fromtheoriginalonessuchasaphotocopyofanoriginaldocument.Atthepoint
whenthefirstarchivehasbeencrushedorlost,andwhenthepartyhasmadea
persistentscanforitanddepletedallsourcesandmeansaccessibleforits
generationthentheoptionalproofisallowable.
•Positiveandnegativeevidence-Bypositiveevidencetheexistenceofrealitycan
beprovedandbynegativeevidencenon-existenceofrealitycanbeproved.The
peopleandthecourtshouldkeepinmindthatnegativeevidencedoesnotactasa
goodevidence.
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

141. Types of Evidence
•SubstantiveandNon-substantiveevidence-Substantiveevidencearethose
evidencesonwhichthecourtisdependentforthedecisionofacase.Thenon-
substantiveproofiswhicheitherstrengthensorvalidatesthesubstantiveproofto
increaseitsworthinessofbelieforwhichdisprovessubstantiveevidenceinorderto
impairthecredibilityofaperson.
•Primafacieandconclusiveevidence-Primafacieevidenceisacceptedvalidata
firstinstanceanddemonstratesafactintheabsenceofcontradictoryevidence.
Conclusiveevidenceisthatevidencewhichisnotopposedbyanyotherevidence.It
isverystrongthatitcanbearanyotherevidence.Itisofsuchanaturethatit
compelsthepersonwhofindsthefacttocometoacertainconclusion.
•Pre-appointedandcasualevidence-Thelawprescribesthistypeofevidencein
advancewhichisnecessaryforthedemonstrationofcertainfactsorforthe
formationofcertaininstruments.Theevidencewhichisn’tpre-appointediscalled
casualevidence.Thecasualevidencegrowsnaturallywiththesurrounding
situations.
•Scientificevidence-Scientificproofisproofwhichservestoeithersupportor
countersalogicalhypothesisorspeculation.Suchproofisrequiredtobeexact
proofandtranslationasperlogicalstrategy.
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

142. Types of Evidence
•Digitalevidence-DigitalevidencewasrecognizedinCommissionerofCustoms,
NewDelhiv.M/s.C-NetCommunicationIndiaPvt.Ltd.,AIR2007SC(Supp)
957.Inthiscase,theSupremeCourtheldthat“digitalelectronic”wouldmeanthat
decoderismultipleoutputs,inputandlogicalcircuitsthatchangescodedinputinto
acodedoutput.Itwasadditionallyheldthatadecoderisagadgetwhichdoesthe
oppositeofanencoder,fixingtheencodingsothatthefirstdatacanberecovered.
•Electronicevidence-Thisproofcanlikewisebeaselectronicrecorddeliveredin
court.Theproof,evenincriminalissues,canlikewisebe,bymethodforelectronic
records.Thiswouldincorporateorcompriseofvideoconferencing.
•Taperecordevidence-Thetapeitselfactsasdirectevidence,whatthepersonhas
saidcanberecordedandcanbepresentedbeforethecourt.Anypreviousstatement
madebyapersoncanbetape-recordedandifintheend,thepersonchangeshis
statementbeforethecourtthenthetape-recordedstatementcanbepresentedbefore
thecourtinordertotesttheveracityofthewitness.Taperecordedevidenceismore
authenticthandocumentaryevidence.
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

143. Types of Evidence
•Oralevidence-Whentheproofisrestrictedtospokenwordsorbygesturesor
motionthenitistermedasoralevidence.Oralevidence,whenreliable,isadequate
withoutnarrationorwrittenprooftodemonstratearealityorfact.Whereareality
canbedemonstratedbyoralproof,itisn’tessentialthattheannouncementofthe
observeroughttobeoral.Accordingly,aspeechlessindividualmaygiveevidence
bysignsorbycomposing.Therealitycanlikewisebedemonstratedorshownby
oralproof.
•Documentaryevidence-Anyevidencewhichispresentasadocumentbeforethe
courtinordertodemonstrateorshowareality.Thecontentofdocumentary
evidencecanbeseparatedintothreesections:
–Howthesubjectmatterofdocumentcanbedemonstrated?
–Howtherecordistobeprovedtobeauthentic?and
–Howfarandinwhatinstanceoralevidenceisexcludedbydocumentary
evidence?
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

144. Difference between Oral and Documentary Evidence
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

145. Exclusion of Oral and Documentary Evidence
•Oneoftheessentialstandardsofthelawofproofisthatinallcasesthebestproof
oughttobegiven.Wherethedemonstrationisexemplifiedinarecord,therecordis
thebestproofofthereality.Themaximoflawis“whateverisrecordedasahard
copymustbedemonstratedintheformofhardcopyonly“.
•Section91oftheEvidenceAct-Evidenceintheformofcontracts,grantsandother
dispositionsofpropertyshouldbeintheformofadocument.ThisSectionapplies
similarlytocasesinwhichtheagreement,stipendsordispositionofproperty
alludedarecontainedinonedocumentorhasonerecord,andcasesinwhichthey
arecontainedinagreaternumberofreportsthatone.
•Iftherearemorethanoneoriginaldocuments,thenonlyoneoriginalneedstobe
proved.Thestatementinanydocumentofwhateverfactsarementionedunderthis
Section,shallnotpreventtheadmissionoforalevidenceastothesamefact
mentioned.
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

146. Exceptions
Therearetwoexceptionsmentionedunderthisrule:
•Thegeneralguidelinesarethatwhensomecontentofadocumentistobeprovedin
writing,thewritingitselfmustbeproducedbeforethecourtandifitisnot
producedthensecondaryevidenceshouldbegiven.Exception-whenanypublic
officerisappointedforwritinganditisseenthataparticularpersonhasactedlike
suchanofficertheninsuchsituations,thewritingbywhichhehasbeenappointed
neednotbeproved.Example-Sureshappearsasawitnessbeforethecourt,to
provethatheisacivilsurgeonthereisnoneedtoshowtheappointmentorder.The
surgeononlyneedstoshowthatheisworkingasacivilsurgeon.
•Tothegeneralguidelinesofcontentofwritingthereisonemoreexception
mentionedunderthis-Atthepointwhenaprobate(thecopyofwillwhichis
requiredtobecertifiedbythecourt)hasgotbasedonawillandsubsequently
questionemergesaboutthepresenceofthatwill,themerepresenceoftheprobate
willdemonstratethepresenceofthewillandtheoriginalwillrequirenottobe
produced.
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

147. Section 92-Exclusion of evidence of an oral agreement.
•Ifanycontract,grantsordispositionofpropertywhichisrequiredbylawtobein
writinginformofdocumentandifithasbeenprovedaccordingtoSection91,then
forthepurposeofvaryingit,contradictingitorsubtractingitpartiesortheir
representativeisnotrequiredtogiveoralevidenceanditisnotadmissible.Two
pointsareprovedfromthisSection:
•1-Ifanythirdpartygivesthenitisadmissible.
•2-Ifanyoralevidenceisgivenwhichdonotcontradictthecontractthenitis
admissible.
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

148. Exceptions
•Validityofdocument
Ifanycontractorgrantismadebetweenthepartiesandfraudisdonebyotherpartyor
thereisamistakeoffact,ormistakeoflaw,orthepartyisnotcompetenttocontract
theninsuchcircumstancesoralevidencecanbegivenanditisadmissible.
•Mattersonwhichdocumentissilent
Oralevidencecanbegivenwhenthedocumentsaresilentbutsubjecttothesetwo
conditionsarethere:
1-Theoralevidenceshouldnotcontradictthedocument.Illustration–Asellshishorse
toBandtoldaboutthepricebutthesoundnessofhorseisnottoldbutoralevidence
canbegiventhathorseisofsoundmindbecausethedocumentissilenthere.
2-Inallowingtheproofoforalunderstandingthecourtistohaverespectthelevelof
thecustomoftherecord.Ontheoffchancethatthereportisformal,proofoforal
understandingwillnotbepermittedevenonissuesonwhichtherecordissilent.
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

149. Exceptions
•Separateoralagreementasconditionprecedent
•Inthissituation,itisprovidedthatifthereisanyconditionprecedentisconstituted
totheexistingseparateoralagreementtoattachingofanyobligationsunder
adocument,thenitneedstobeproved.
•Recessionormodification
•Thisprovisionpermitstheproofoforalagreementbywhichthedocumentwas
eitherrevokedoraltered.Whendocumentsareexecutedthenpartiesorallyagreeto
treatitascancelledoraltersomeofitsterms,suchoralagreementisadmissible.
•Usagesorcustoms
•Ifthereistheexistenceofanyparticularusageorcustomsbywhichincidentsare
attachedtoacontractthenitcanbeproved.
•Relationoflanguagetofacts
•Ifanydocumentiswrittenthenoralevidencecanbegivenofsuchadocumentthat
whatismentionedinandinwhatcircumstancesitwasmentionedandhowto
interpretitbutitshouldnotexclusivelycontradictthedocument.
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

150. Relevant Sections
•Section93-Exclusionofevidencetoexplainoramendanambiguous
document.Ifthelanguageusedinthedocumentisdefectiveorambiguous,
evidencecannotbegivenoffactswhichwouldshowit’smeaning.Illustration-A
agreestosellhiscowtoBinwritingforRs.1500orRs.2000.Evidencecannotbe
giventoshowwhichpricewasttobegiven.
•Section94-Exclusionofevidenceagainsttheapplicationofdocumentto
existingfacts.Whenthelanguageusedinthedocumentiscorrectandwhenit
appliescorrectlytothefactsmentioned,evidencecannotbegiventhatitistobe
provedthatitwasnotmeanttoapplyonsuchfacts.
•Section95-Evidenceastothedocumentunmeaninginreferencetoexisting
facts.Whenlanguageusedinadocumentisplaininitself,however,isunmeaning
inreferencetoexistingfacts,realityorsituations,proofmightbegivento
demonstratethatitwasusedinanunusualordifferentway.
•Section96-Evidenceastotheapplicationofthelanguagewhichcanapplyto
oneofseveralpersons.Atthepointwhenthefactsarewiththeendgoalthatthe
languageutilizedmayhavebeenintendedtoapplytoanyone,andcouldn’thave
beenintendedtoapplytomultiple,ofafewpeopleorthings,proofmightbegiven
ofcertaintieswhichshowsthepeopleorthings,itwasplannedtoapplyto.
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

151. Relevant Sections
•Section97-Evidenceastotheapplicationoflanguagetooneoftwosetsof
facts,toneitherofwhichthewholecorrectlyapplies.Whenthelanguageusedis
appliedpartiallytootherexistingfactsandpartiallytootherexistingfactsbutthe
wholedoesnotapplytoeitherofthefactsmentioned.Evidencecanbegivento
showthatwhichofthetwoitwasmeanttoapply.
•Section98-Evidenceastothemeaningofillegiblecharacters,etc.Proofmight
begiventodemonstratethesignificanceofobscuredornotordinarilyclear
characters,ofremote,outofdate,specialized,andprovincialexpressions,of
abbreviationsandofwordsutilizedinanexceptionalsense.
•Canadian-GeneralElectricW.v.FatdaRadioLtdheldthatfortheexplanationof
artisticwordsandsymbolsusedintherecordoralevidenceisadmissibleandcanbe
usedforthatpurpose.
•Section99-Whomaygiveevidenceofanagreementvaryingtermofthe
document?Thepersonwhoisnotapartytoacontractortheirrepresentativemay
giveevidenceofanyfactwhichdonotcontradictwiththedocuments.
•
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

152. Conclusion
Thevalueofdocumentaryevidenceismorethanoralevidence.Thecourtmainly
acceptsdocumentaryevidencebuttakesoralevidenceintoconsideration.Briefly,we
cansaythattherearetwotypesofdocuments-oralanddocumentaryevidence.In
court,documentaryevidencehasmorevalue.Courtwantsbestevidenceand
documentaryevidenceisthebestevidenceanditconsistsoftwopartsprimary
evidenceandsecondaryevidence.Primaryevidenceisthebestevidencerecognizedby
thecourt.Intheabsenceofprimaryevidence,secondaryevidenceisgiventotheCourt.
Ontheotherhand,oralevidenceisevidencegivenbywordsandgesturesandarenot
permanentitcanbechanged.HenceSection91and92excludeoralevidenceby
documentaryevidence.Proofintheformofadocumentcanbesubmittedinsteadof
givingorally.
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

153. Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)
BURDEN OF PROOF

154. Introduction
•TheLawofEvidenceisacriticalpieceoflegislaturewhichsupplementsCourt’s
proceedings.Evidenceisthematerialthatestablishesaclaimoranassertionand
enablestheCourttocometoajustdecision.Oralordocumentaryevidenceshould
beproducedbeforetheCourttoproveordisapproverespectivecontentionsofboth
parties.Theruleofevidencerequirestherespectivepartiestoplacethebest
evidenceinhandtoestablishtheirassertionbeyondthereasonabledoubt.TheLaw
ofevidenceissaidtobethelawoftheforumortheLexfori.
•TheconceptofburdenofproofisdefinedunderSection101oftheLawof
EvidenceAct,statesthatwhenapersonisboundtoprovetheexistenceofafact,
theburdentoprovideevidenceforthesameliesuponhim.ChapterVIIoftheAct
dealswithprovisionsunderburdenofproof.Theterm“burdenofproof”isn’t
definedintheAct,howeveritistherudimentaryprincipleofcriminalthat,thatthe
presumptionofinnocencelieswiththeaccusedunlessprovenotherwise.
•Illustration:AwantstheCourttoconvictBoftheft.Sincetheassertionoftheft
wasmadebyA,theonustoprovideevidencetosupportsuchassertionliesupon
him.
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

155. Principles of Burden of Proof
•TheprincipleofBurdenofproofisbasedontheconceptofonusprobandi(burden
ofproof)andfactumprobans(provingafact).Whiletheburdenofproofremains
constant,theonusforthesameshiftsfromonepartytoanother.Thefactsthatare
requiredtobeprovedarethosewhicharenotself-evidentinnature.Inthecase
ofJarnailSenv.StateofPunjab(AIR1996SC755)thatin,iftheprosecutionfails
toadducethesatisfactoryevidencetodischargetheburden,theycannotdepend
uponevidenceadducedbytheaccusedpersoninsupportoftheirdefence.
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

156. Initial Burden of Proof
•Incriminalcases,theprincipleremainsconstantthattheinitialburdenisonthe
prosecutiontoestablishthattheaccusedhascommittedacrime.Iftheprosecution
failstoestablishbeyondreasonabledoubtthattheaccusedisguilty,theaccusedis
entitledtoanacquittal.
•Ifburdenofproofisputontheshouldersofthewrongparty,theSupremeCourt
statesthatthiswouldvitiatetheentirejudicialsystem.
•Wherein,alandlordseeksevictionofthetenantsonthegroundsofbonafide
personalneed,theonustoestablishthesameisonhim.
•InthecaseofBanwariLalv.RoadA.I.R1989Pat.303transport,wheregoodwere
lostbythecarrier,theburdenliesuponhimtoestablishthattherewasno
negligenceonhispart.
•Thedefenceversionmayevenbefalse;nevertheless,theprosecutioncannotderive
anyadvantagefromthefalsityorotherinfirmitiesofthedefenceversion,solongas
itdoesnotdischargeitsinitialburdenofprovingthecasebeyondailreasonable
doubt.
•Inmatrimonialcases,theprincipleofburdenofproofrelatingtocivilcasesis
applicable.Apartyseekingdivorcewillhavetoprovethegroundsfordivorcesuch
asdesertion,crueltyorinfidelity.
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

157. Relevant Sections
•Section102
–Thissectionattemptstolocatetheparty,uponwhomtheburdenofprooflays,
theburdenofproofliesuponthepartywhosestancewillfailifnoevidenceis
producedbyeitheroftheparties.Theburdenofproofliesonthepartywho
affirmsafactratherthanthepartywhodeniesit.Inthecaseofinsanityor
unsoundnessofmind,thelawpresumessanityuntilprovenotherwise.Inthe
caseofRamRajaRamv.DhrubaCharanJenaA.I.R1982Orissa264,the
partyclaimingnoconsiderationunderSection118ofNegotiableInstruments
Actmustprovideproofforthesame.
–Illustration:AsuesBforpossessionoffamilyheirloom,whichAassertswas
leftbyhisfamilyinthewill,ifnoevidenceisprovidedbyeitherside,Bwill
retainthefamilyheirloom.
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

158. Relevant Sections
•Section103
–Thesectionimposestheresponsibilityofburdenofproofuponthepartythat
wishestheCourttobelieveandactupontheexistenceofafact.Thisprinciples
staysunaffectedbythefactthataparticularfactbeingassertedisnegativeor
affirmative.
–Illustration:AstoleB’scar.Bsubsequentlyadmittedthesametosee.Forthe
Courttobelievethesame,Awillhavetoprovideevidencethatproves
admissionoftheftofcarcommittedbyB.
•Section 104
–This section states that when admissibility of one fact depend upon the
existence and admissibility of another fact, the party which wants to prove it
will depend upon the fact that makes the subsequent fact admissible.
–Illustration: A wants to prove dying declaration of B, A must prove B is dead.
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

159. Relevant Sections
•Section105
–Thissectionreferstotheexceptionsprovidedtotheaccusedthatwillserveas
benefitof‘thegeneralexceptionsoftheIndianPenalCodeorofanyofthe
speciallaws’.ThegeneralprinciplerequirestheCourttopresumeinnocenceof
theaccuseduntilprovenotherwiseanditisupontheprosecutiontoestablish
theguiltoftheaccused.Oncetheguiltisestablished,theonusthenshiftstothe
accusedwhocantakethedefenseofgeneralexceptionsinI.P.C.
–InPratapvStareofU.P.1991AIR1394wheretheprobabilitythattheaccused
hadcauseddeathinself-defensewasheldtobesufficienteventhoughhehad
nottakenhisdefenseinthecommittalproceedings.AgaintheSupremeCourt
heldthattheburdenofprovingthatthecasecomeswithinanyofthegeneral
exceptionscanbedischargedbyshowingapreponderanceofprobability.
Undersection105oftheEvidenceActtheburdenofproofisontheaccused,
whosetsupthepleaofself-defence,andintheabsenceofproof,itisnot
possibleforthecourttopresumethetruthofthepleaofselfdefense.
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

160. Relevant Sections
•Section106
–Underthesaidprovision,anypersonwhoissaidtobeawareofaparticularfact
hastheonusofprovingsuchafactisuponhim.Thesectionusestheterm
“Speciallywithinknowledge”denotingthatthepossessionofsuchknowledge
alsoshiftstheburdenofproofuponthepossessor.
–AnexamplewouldbethecaseofEshwaraiv.KarnatakaSCC19944wherein
amanandawomanwerefoundinthebedroomofpersonwhohadbeenkilled
duetoextensiveinjuries,theburdentoprovetherationaleoftheirpresence
wasuponthem.Itwasassumedthatsincetheyarepresentatthesceneofthe
crime,theywouldspeciallyhaveknowledgeregardingthecircumstancesunder
whichthedeathofthepersonwascaused.
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

161. Burden Upon Affirmation:
•AgeneraltrendthattheIndianEvidenceactfollowsisthatofshiftingtheburdenof
proofontoapersonwhoaffirmsafactorassertion.Thesameisvisibleinvarious
provisionsoftheact.Therationalebehindthesameisthatifapersonasserts
something,hemayalsoprovethesame.Suchinstancescanbefoundinsections
107to110.Section107statesthatifapersonwhowasalivewithinthelast30years
issaidtobedeadbyanotherperson,thepersonaffirmingthesamemustprovethe
death.Similarly,undersection108,personwhohasn’tbeenheardfromin7years
andisthereforepresumeddead,theburdenofprovingthatthepersonison
whomsoeveraffirmsit.Thesituationissimilarundersection109whichtalksabout
establishingrelationshipsbetweenpartners,landlords–tenants&principal–agents
andundersection110regardingassertionsofownership.Whoeveraffirmsit,must
proveit.
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

162. Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)
ESTOPPEL

163. Introduction
•ThedoctrineofEstoppelisbasedontheprincipleofequity.S.115,S.116andS.117
ofIndianevidenceActdealswiththeprovisiondoctrineEstoppel.Itwouldbemost
inequitableandunjustifonepersonisallowedtospeakcontrarytohisearlier
statement.Asitwouldcauselossandinjurytothepersonwhohasactedonsuch
statement.
•"Estoppedmeansstopped,whichmeansapersonisnotallowedorpermittedto
speakcontrarytohisearlierstatement."
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

164. Meaning & Definition
Section115
•"Whenonepersonhasbyhisdeclaration,actoromission,intentionallycausedor
permittedanotherpersontobelieveathingtobetrueandtoactuponsuchbelief,
neitherhenorhisrepresentativeshallbeallowed,inanysuitorproceedingbetween
himselfandsuchpersonorhisrepresentative,todenythetruthofthatthing.”
•Illustration:'A'intentionallyandfalselyleads'B'tobelievethatcertainland
belongstoA,andtherebyinducesBtobuyandpayforit.Thelandafterwards
becomesthepropertyofA,andAseekstosetasidethesaleonthegroundthat,at
thetimeofthesale,hehadnotitle.Hemustnotbeallowedtoprovehiswantof
title
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

165. Conditions for Application of Doctrine ofEstoppel
1)Theremustbearepresentationmadebyonepersontoanotherperson.
2)Therepresentationmusthavebeenmadeastofactandnotastolaw.
3)Therepresentationmustbeastoanexistingfact.
4)Therepresentationmustbeintendedtocauseabeliefinanother.
5)Thepersontowhomtherepresentationismademusthaveacteduponthatbeliefand
musthavesufferedaloss.
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

166. Provisions in Indian Evidence
ActAs toEstoppel
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

167. S.116 -EstoppelOf Tenant And Of License Of Person In
Possession
•Notenantofimmovablepropertyofpersonclaimingthroughsuchtenantshall,
duringthecontinuanceofthetenancy,bepermittedtodenythatthelandlordof
suchtenanthad,atthebeginningofthetenancy,atitletosuchimmovableproperty;
andnotpersonwhocameuponanyimmovablepropertybythelicenseofthe
personinpossessionthereof,shallbepermittedtodenythatsuchpersonhasatitle
tosuchpossessionatthetimewhensuchlicensewasgiven.
•S.116preventsanddisablesthetenantfromdenyingthetitleofthelandlordatthe
beginning.Notenantinpossessionshallbepermittedtochallengeorquestionthe
titleoflandlordatthetimeofcommencementofTenancy.Andnopersonwho
cameuponanyimmovablepropertybythelicenceofthepersoninpossession
thereof,shallbepermittedtodenythatsuchpersonhadatitleatthetimewhenthe
licencewasgiven.Thusnolicenceeshallbepermittedtoquestionorchallengethe
grantorlicenceatthetimeofgrantingthelicence.
•InKuldeepSinghvsShrimatiBalwantKaur,AIR1991P&H.291,whenthe
tenantbecomewealthyofthepropertyportionofwhichwasletouttohim,under
thesaledeedregisteredpriortooneregisteredinfavourofother.deniedbyhimof
relationshipoftenantandlandlordbetweenhimandsubsequentvendor.Itwasheld
thattenancyrightisnotextinguished.
•
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

168. S.117 -EstoppelOf Acceptor Of Bill Of Exchange,BaileeOr
Licensee
•Noacceptorofabillofexchangeshallbepermittedtodenythatthedrawerhad
authorityofdrawsuchbillortoendorseit;norshallanybaileeorlicenseebe
permittedtodenythathisbailororlicensorhad,atthetimewhenthebailmentor
licensecommenced,authoritytomakesuchbailmentorgrantsuchlicense.
•Explanation(1)
Theacceptorofabillofexchangemaydenythatthebillwasreallydrawnbythe
personbywhomitpurportstohavebeendrawn.
•Explanation(2)
Ifabaileedeliversthegoodsbailedtoapersonotherthanthebailor,hemayprovethat
suchpersonhadarighttothemasagainstthebailor
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

169. Case Laws
•RajeshWadhwavsDr.(Mrs)SushmaGoyalAIR1989Delhi144.
Inthiscase,theleasedeedexecutedbylandlady'sfatheronbehalfofthelandlady.
Evictionpetitionbyfatherunderpowerofattorneyofthelandlady.Thetenantwas
estoppedfromtakingthepleathatthelandlady'sfatherwasnotdulyconstituted
attorneytofiletheevictionpetition.
•AmbikaPrasadMohantyVsOrissaEngineeringCollegeandothersAIR1989
Orissa173.
Inthiscase,thepleawasagainstcancellationofadmissionofstudentadmittedin
privateEngineeringCollegeaftertheselection.Thecancellationofhisadmissionwas
onthegroundthathehadsecuredminimummarksinthequalifyingexaminationas
prescribedincollegeprospectus.Theuniversityregulationdoesnotprescribeany
minimummarksforeligibilityforadmissiontotheengineeringcollegeestoppedfrom
cancelingtheadmission.
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

170. Conclusion
•Theprincipleofestoppelisarulewhichpreventsapersonfromtakingupthe
inconsistentpositionfromwhathehaspleadedorassertedearlier.Theprinciple
Estoppelisbasedonequityandgoodconsciencetheobjectofthisprincipleisto
preventforandtomanifestgoodfaithamongsttheparties.onlypartiesandno
strangercantakeadvantageofit.Estoppelisonlyaruleoflaw.Itdoesnotgiverise
toacauseofaction.
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

171. Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)
ESTOPPEL

172. Introduction
•Theprivilegeofawitnessmeanstherightofawitnesstowithholdevidenceto
disclosecertainmatters.Therearecertaincircumstancesinwhichcertainpersons
arenotcompelledtotestify(togiveevidence).Therightisbasedonthe
convenienceandpublicpolicy.Section122toSection132ofIndianEvidenceAct
1872provideforprivilegedCommunications.
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

173. Various Privileges of Witnesses under the Indian Evidence
Act
•JudgesandMagistrates:
AccordingtoSection121ofIndianEvidenceAct1872,NoJudgeorMagistrateshall,
exceptuponthespecialorderofsomeCourtofwhichheissubordinate,becompelledto
answeranyquestionsastohisownconductinCourtassuchJudgeorMagistrate,oras
toanythingwhichcametohisknowledgeinCourtassuchJudgeorMagistratebuthe
maybeexaminedastoothermatterswhichoccurredinhispresencewhilsthewas
so acting.
•Examples
(a)A,onhistrailbeforetheCourtofSession,saysthatadepositionwasimproperly
takenbyB,theMagistrate.Bcannotbecompelledtoanswerquestionastothis,
exceptupontheespecialorderofasuperiorCourt.
(b)AisaccusedbeforetheCourtofSessionofhavinggivenfalseevidencebeforeB,a
Magistrate.B,cannotbeaskedwhatAsaid,exceptuponthespecialorderofthesuperior
Court.
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

174. Various Privileges of Witnesses under the Indian Evidence
Act
•CommunicationsduringMarriage
AccordingtoSection122ofthesaidAct,Nopersonwhoisorhasbeenmarried,shall
becompelledtodiscloseanycommunicationmadetohimduringmarriagebyany
persontowhomheisorhasbeenmarried;norshallhebepermittedtodiscloseany
suchcommunication,unlessthepersonwhomadeit,orhisrepresentativeininterest,
consents,exceptinsuitsbetweenmarriedpersons,orproceedingsinwhichonemarried
personisprosecutedforanycrimecommittedagainsttheother.
•Evidencesastoaffairsofthestate
Section123ofIndianEvidenceActsaysthat"Nooneshallbepermittedtogiveany
evidencederivedfromunpublishedofficialrecordsrelatingtoanyaffairsofState,
exceptwiththepermissionoftheofficerattheheadofthedepartmentconcerned,who
shallgiveorwithholdsuchpermissionashethinksfit".
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

175. Various Privileges of Witnesses under the Indian Evidence
Act
•Informationastothecommissionofanoffence
Section125ofIndianEvidenceActsaysthat"NoMagistrateorPoliceofficershallbe
compelledtosaywhencehegotanyinformationastothecommissionofanyoffence,
andnoRevenueofficershallbecompelledtosaywhencehegotanyinformationasto
thecommissionofanyoffenceagainstthepublicrevenue.Explanation“Revenue
officer”inthissectionmeansanofficeremployedinoraboutthebusinessofany
branchofthepublicrevenue".
•OfficialCommunications
AccordingtoSection124ofthesaidAct,Nopublicofficershallbecompelledto
disclosecommunicationsmadetohiminofficialconfidence,whenheconsidersthat
thepublicinterestswouldsufferbythedisclosure.
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

176. Various Privileges of Witnesses under the Indian Evidence
Act
•ProfessionalCommunications
AccordingtoSection126ofIndianEvidenceAct1872,Nobarrister,attorney,pleader
orvakilshallatanytimebepermitted,unlesswithhisclient’sexpressconsent,to
discloseanycommunicationmadetohiminthecourseandforthepurposeofhis
employmentassuchbarrister,pleader,attorneyorvakil,byoronbehalfofhisclient,or
tostatethecontentsorconditionofanydocumentwithwhichhehasbecome
acquaintedinthecourseandforthepurposeofhisprofessionalemployment,orto
discloseanyadvicegivenbyhimtohisclientinthecourseandforthepurposeofsuch
employment:
Provided:
(1)Anysuchcommunicationmadeinfurtheranceofanyillegalpurpose;
(2)Anyfactobservedbyanybarrister,pleader,attorneyorvakil,inthecourseofhis
employmentassuch,showingthatanycrimeorfraudhasbeencommittedsincethe
commencementofhisemployment.Itisimmaterialwhethertheattentionofsuch
barrister,pleader,attorneyorvakilwasorwasnotdirectedtosuchfactbyoron
behalfofhisclient.
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

177. Examples
•A,aclient,saystoB,anattorney—“Ihavecommittedforgery,andIwishyouto
defendme”.Asthedefenceofamanknowntobeguiltyisnotacriminalpurpose,
thiscommunicationisprotectedfromdisclosure.
•A,aclient,saystoB,anattorney—“Iwishtoobtainpossessionofpropertybythe
useofaforgeddeedonwhichIrequestyoutosue”.Thiscommunication,being
madeinfurtheranceofacriminalpurpose,isnotprotectedfromdisclosure.
•A,beingchargedwithembezzlement,retainsB,anattorney,todefendhim.Inthe
courseoftheproceedings,BobservesthatanentryhasbeenmadeinA’saccount-
book,chargingAwiththesumsaidtohavebeenembezzled,whichentrywasnotin
thebookatthecommencementofhisemployment.ThisbeingafactobservedbyB
inthecourseofhisemployment,showingthatafraudhasbeencommittedsincethe
commencementoftheproceedings,itisnotprotectedfromdisclosure.
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

178. Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)
Evidence by Accomplice

179. Meaning
•InthebasicsenseAccompliceWitnessmeanawitnesstoacrimewho,eitheras
principal,Accomplice,orAccessory,wasconnectedwiththecrimebyunlawfulact
oromissiononhisorherpart,transpiringeitherbefore,attimeof,orafter
commissionoftheoffense,andwhetherornotheorshewaspresentand
participatedinthecrime.Theword‘accomplice’hasnotbeendefinedbytheIndian
EvidenceAct,1872.Anaccompliceisoneoftheguiltyassociatesorpartnersinthe
commissionofacrimeorwhoinsomewayortheotherisconnectedwiththe
commissionofcrimeorwhoadmitsthathehasaconscioushandinthecommission
ofcrime.
•Tothelayman,accompliceevidencemightseemuntrustworthyasaccomplicesare
usuallyalwaysinterestedandinfamouswitnessesbuttheirevidenceisadmitted
owingtonecessityasitisoftenimpossiblewithouthavingrecoursetosuch
evidencetobringtheprincipaloffenderstojustice.Thusaccompliceevidence
mightseemunreliablebutitisoftenaveryusefulandeveninvaluabletoolincrime
detection,crimesolvinganddeliveringjusticeandconsequentlyaveryimportant
partoftheLawofEvidence
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

180. Meaning
•Section133oftheIndianEvidenceAct,1872dealswiththeAccompliceWitness.It
saysthatanaccompliceshallbeacompetentwitnessagainstanaccusedperson;
andaconvictionisnotillegalmerelybecauseitproceedsupontheuncorroborated
testimonyofanaccomplice.
•Usuallymostofthecrimesarecommittedatsecludedplaceswheretherewillnot
beanyeye–witnesstotestifyregardtotheseoffences,anditwouldnotbepossible
forthepolicetogetsufficientevidencetoprovetheguiltoftheaccused.Insuch
caseswhatpolicedoesisthatitpicksuponeofthesuspectsarrestedwhoisusually
leastguiltyandofferstohimanassurancethatifheisinclinedtodivulgeall
informationrelatingtothecommissionofthecrimeandgiveevidenceagainsthis
owncolleagues,hewillbepardoned.Soanysuchpersonwhoispickeduporwho
istakenbythepoliceforthepurposeofgivingevidenceagainsthisowncolleagues
isknownasanaccompliceoranapprover.
•Anaccompliceisacompetentwitnessprovidedheisnotacoaccusedundertrialin
thesamecase.Butsuchcompetencywhichhasbeenconferredonhimbyaprocess
oflawdoesnotdivesthimofthecharacterofanaccused.Anaccompliceby
acceptingapardonunderSection306CrPC(CodeofCriminalprocedure,1973)
becomesacompetentwitnessandmayasanyotherwitnessesbeexaminedonoath.
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

181. Definition
•InthebasicsenseAccompliceWitnessmeanawitnesstoacrimewho,eitheras
principal,Accomplice,orAccessory,wasconnectedwiththecrimebyunlawfulact
oromissiononhisorherpart,transpiringeitherbefore,attimeof,orafter
commissionoftheoffense,andwhetherornotheorshewaspresentand
participatedinthecrime.Theword‘accomplice’hasnotbeendefinedbytheIndian
EvidenceAct,1872.Anaccompliceisoneoftheguiltyassociatesorpartnersinthe
commissionofacrimeorwhoinsomewayortheotherisconnectedwiththe
commissionofcrimeorwhoadmitsthathehasaconscioushandinthecommission
ofcrime.
•Anaccompliceisoneconcernedwithanotherorothersinthecommissionofa
crimeoronewhoknowinglyorvoluntarilycooperateswithandhelpsothersinthe
commissionofcrime.ItwasheldinR.KDalmiav.DelhiAdministrationthat“an
accompliceisapersonwhoparticipatesinthecommissionoftheactualcrime
chargedagainstanaccused.
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

182. Categories Of Accomplice
•PrincipaloffenderofFirstDegreeandSecondDegree:
Theprincipaloffenderoffirstdegreeisapersonwhoactuallycommitsthecrime.The
principaloffenderoftheseconddegreeisapersonwhoeitherabetsoraidsthe
commissionofthecrime.
•Accessoriesbeforethefact:
Theyarethepersonwhoabet,incite,procure,orcounselforthecommissionofacrime
andtheydonotthemselvesparticipateinthecommissionofthecrime.
•Accessoriesafterthefact:
Theyarethepersonswhoreceiveorcomfortorprotectpersonswhohavecommitted
thecrimeknowingthattheyhavecommittedthecrime.Iftheyhelptheaccusedin
escapingfrompunishmentsorhelphimfromnotbeingarrested,suchpersonareknown
asharbourers.Thesepersonscanbeaccomplicesbecauseallofthemarethe
participantsinthecommissionofthecrimeinsomewayortheother.Thereforeanyone
ofthemcanbeanaccomplice.
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

183. Competency Of Accomplice As Witness
•Anaccompliceisacompetentwitnessprovidedheisnotacoaccusedundertrialin
thesamecase.Butsuchcompetencywhichhasbeenconferredonhimbyaprocess
oflawdoesnotdivesthimofthecharacterofanaccused.Anaccompliceby
acceptingapardonunderSection306CrPCbecomesacompetentwitnessandmay
asanyotherwitnessesbeexaminedonoath;theprosecutionmustbewithdrawn
andtheaccusedformallydischargedunderSection321CrPCbeforehecanbecome
acompetentwitness.Evenifthereisanomissiontorecorddischargeanaccused
becomesacompetentwitnessonwithdrawalofprosecution.UnderArticle20(3)of
theConstitutionofIndia,1950noaccusedshallbecompelledtobeawitness
againsthimself.Butasanaccompliceacceptsapardonofhisfreewilloncondition
ofatruedisclosure,inhisowninterestandisnotcompelledtogiveself-
incriminatingevidencethelawinSections306and308,CodeofCriminal
Procedureisnotaffected.Soapardonedaccusedisboundtomakeafulldisclosure
andonhisfailuretodosohemaybetriedoftheoffenceoriginallychargedandhis
statementmaybeusedagainsthimunderSection308.
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

184. When Accomplice Becomes A Witness
•Section118oftheIndianEvidenceActsaysaboutcompetencyofwitness.
Competencyisaconditionprecedentforexaminingapersonaswitnessandthesole
testofcompetencylaiddownisthatthewitnessshouldnotbepreventedfrom
understandingthequestionsposedtohimorfromgivingrationalanswersexpected
outofhimbyhisage,hismentalandphysicalstateordisease.Atthesametime
Section133describesaboutcompetencyofaccomplices.Incaseofaccomplice
witnesses,heshouldnotbeaco-accusedundertrialinthesamecaseandmaybe
examinedonoath.
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

185. Propositions Made By The Court
•First,courtshaveopinedthatsuchcompetency,whichhasbeenconferredonhim
byaprocessoflaw,doesnotdivesthimofthecharacterofanaccusedandhe
remainsaparticipescriminisandthisremainsthegenesisofthemajorproblem
surroundingthecredibilityofsuchevidence.
•Secondly,anaccomplicebyacceptingapardonunderSection306CrPCbecomesa
competentwitnessandmayasanyotherwitnessbeexaminedonoath,the
prosecutionmustbewithdrawnandtheaccusedformallydischargedunderSection
321oftheCriminalCodebeforehewouldbeacompetentwitness18butevenif
thereisomissiontorecorddischarge,anaccusedisvestedwithcompetencyassoon
astheprosecutioniswithdrawn.
•Thirdly,Article20(3)oftheIndianConstitutionsaysthatnoaccusedshallbe
compelledtobeawitnessagainsthimself.Butasaco-accusedacceptsapardonof
hisfreewillonconditionofatruedisclosure,inhisowninterest,andisnot
compelledtogiveself-incriminatingevidence,thelawinSection306and308of
CrPCisnotaffectedandapardonedaccusedisboundtomakeafulldisclosureand
onhisfailuretodosohemaybetriedoftheoffenceoriginallychargedandhis
statementmaybeusedagainsthimunderSection308.Thissuggeststhata
participescriminiscontinuestobethesameandifsothendespitethefactthathis
involvementhasbeenpardonedbyajudicialactcanbeusedforself-incrimination
andtoexpecta“trueandfulldisclosure”isunreal.
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

186. Propositions Made By The Court
•Inordertobeanaccompliceapersonmustparticipateinthecommissionofthe
samecrimeastheaccusedandthishemaydoinvariousways.InIndiaall
accessoriesbeforethefactiftheparticipateinthepreparationforthecrimeare
accomplicesbutiftheirparticipationislimitedtotheknowledgethatcrimeistobe
committedtheyarenotaccomplices.Howeveropinionisdividedastowhether
accessoriesafterthefactareaccomplicesornot.Insomecasesithasbeenheldthat
inIndiathereisnosuchthingasanaccessoryafterthefactwhereasinsomecases
accessoriesafterthefacthavebeenheldtobeaccomplices.Threeconditionsmust
unitetorenderoneanaccessoryafterthefact:
–Thefelonymustbecomplete
–Theaccessorymusthaveknowledgethattheprincipalcommittedthefelony
–Theaccessorymustharbourorassisttheprincipalfelon.
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

187. Importance of Section 114 & 133
•Thesearethetwoprovisionsdealingwiththesamesubject.Section114ofthe
IndianEvidenceActsaysthatthecourtmaypresumethatanaccompliceis
unworthyofanycreditunlesscorroboratedinmaterialparticulars.
•Section133oftheIndianEvidenceActsaysthatanaccompliceshallbea
competentwitnessasagainsttheaccusedpersonandaconvictiontheaccusedbased
onthetestimonyofanaccompliceisvalideventhoughitisnotcorroboratedin
materialparticulars.
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

188. Necessity Of Corroboration
•ReadingSection133oftheEvidenceActalongwithSection114(b)itisclearthat
themostimportantissuewithrespecttoaccompliceevidenceisthatof
corroboration.Thegeneralruleregardingcorroborationthathasemergedisnota
ruleoflawbutmerelyaruleofpracticewhichhasacquiredtheforceofruleoflaw
inbothIndiaandEngland.Therulestatesthat:Aconvictionbasedonthe
uncorroboratedtestimonyofanaccompliceisnotillegalbutaccordingtoprudence
itisnotsafetorelyuponuncorroboratedevidenceofanaccompliceandthusjudges
andjuriesmustexerciseextremecautionandcarewhileconsideringuncorroborated
accompliceevidence.
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

189. Necessity Of Corroboration
•Anapproveronhisownadmissionisacriminalandamanoftheverylowest
characterwhohasthrowntothewolveshiserstwhileassociatesandfriendsinorder
tosavehisownskin.Hisevidence,thereforemustbereceivedwiththegreatest
cautionifnotsuspicion.Accompliceevidenceishelduntrustworthyandtherefore
shouldbecorroboratedforthefollowingreasons:
–Anaccompliceislikelytoswearfalselyinordertoshifttheguiltfromhimself.
–Anaccompliceisaparticipatorincrimeandthusanimmoralperson.
–Anaccomplicegiveshisevidenceunderapromiseofpardonorinthe
expectationofanimpliedpardon,ifhedisclosesallheknowsagainstthose
withwhomheactedcriminally,andthishopewouldleadhimtofavourthe
prosecution.
•LiketheSupremeCourthaslaiddownwhatisknownastheoryof“doubletest”in
thecaseofSarwanSinghv.StateofPunjab(1957AIR637).InthiscaseSarwan
Singhwhowasthethirdaccused,wastriedalongwithtwoothers,i.e.Gurdayal
SinghandHarbansSingh,underSection302forthemurderofoneGurdevSingh
whowasthebrotherofthefirstaccused,HarbansSingh.ThecasewasthatSarwan
SinghalongwithGurdayalSinghandBantaSingh,whobecameanapproverlater
on,causedthedeathofGurdevSinghandalltheaccusedwereconvictedonthe
basisoftheevidenceofBantaSingh.SotheevidenceofAccompliceissubjectto
corroboration.
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

190. Nature Of Corroboration
•Generallyspeakingcorroborationisoftwokinds.Firstlythecourthastosatisfy
itselfthatthestatementoftheapproveriscredibleinitselfandthereisevidence
otherthanthestatementoftheapproverthattheapproverhimselfhadtakenpartin
thecrime.Secondlythecourtseekscorroborationoftheapprover’sevidencewith
respecttothepartofotheraccusedpersonsinthecrimeandthisevidencehastobe
ofsuchanatureastoconnecttheotheraccusedwiththecrime.Thecorroboration
neednotbedirectevidenceofthecommissionoftheoffencebytheaccused.Ifitis
merelycircumstantialevidenceofhisconnectionwiththecrimeitwillbe
sufficient.Thecorroborationneednotconsistofevidencewhich,standingalone
wouldbesufficienttojustifytheconvictionoftheaccused.Ifthatwerethelawit
wouldbeunnecessarytoexamineanapprover.Allthatseemstoberequiredisthat
thecorroborationshouldbesufficienttoaffordsomesortofindependentevidence
toshowthattheapproverisspeakingthetruthwithregardtotheaccusedperson
whomheseekstoimplicate.
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

191. Detectives, Decoys & Trap Witnesses
•Detectives,decoysandtrapwitnesscannotbeputonaparwiththeaccomplice.
Thesearethepersonswhoactfortheadvancementofpublicjusticeandtheiraimis
tobringtheculpritstobook.Althoughtheypretendtocollaboratewiththeculprits
inthecommissionofcrimetheydonotsharetheelementofMensrea.These
personsthereforecannotbeconsideredasaccomplicesandtheirevidencerequires
nocorroboration.
•Whereaservantoftheaccusedwasamutespectatortothecrimebeingcommitted
bytheaccused,hecannotberegardedasanaccomplicewitnessashecannotsetto
haveparticipatedincrimewiththerequisitemensrea.
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

192. Case Laws
•InC.R.Mehtav.StateofMaharashtra(1993(3)BomCR)theaccusedactingin
consortofferedasumofRs.3LacstotheHomeMinisterofStateGovernmentfor
cancellationofadetentionorder.TheMinistergivinganimpressionthathewould
considertheofferfiledacomplaintwithAnti–CorruptionBureauandatrapwas
laid.WhilehandingoverthebribemoneytotheMinistertheaccusedalongwithhis
threeotherco–accusedwerearrested.ItwasheldthatthecomplainantMinister
cannotbeequatedwithpositionofanaccompliceandasawitnessthequalityofhis
evidenceasalsohisgeneralintegritybeingofhighorderconvictionoftheaccused
canbebasedevenonhisuncorroboratedevidence.
•InJanendranathGhosev.StateofWestBengal(1959AIR1199)theaccusedwas
triedfortheoffenceofmurderandthejuryfoundhimguiltyontheevidenceofthe
approvercorroboratedinmaterialparticulars.Itwascontendedthattherewasa
misdirectionbecausethejurywerenottoldofthedoubletestinrelationtothe
approver’sevidencelaiddowninSarwanSinghcase.
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

193. Case Laws
•InRaghubirSinghv.StateofHaryana((1974)4SCC560)itwasobserved:
“Tocondemnroundlyeverypublicofficialormanofthepeopleasanaccomplice
orquasi–accompliceforparticipatinginaraidistoharmthepubliccause.Maybe
ajudicialofficershouldhesitatetogetinvolvedinpolicetrapswhenthepolice
providesinducementsandinstrumentstocommitcrimes,becausethatwouldsuffer
theimageoftheindependenceofthejudiciary.”InthepresentcasetheMagistrate
wasnotafull–bloodedjudicialofficer,nodenovotemptationorbribemoneywas
offeredbythepoliceandnogroundtodiscredittheveracityoftheMagistratehad
beenelicited.
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

194. Case Laws
•InLachiRamv.StateofPunjab(AIR1967SC792)-theaccusedwaschargedwith
murderandwasconvictedontheevidenceofanapprovercorroboratedinmaterial
particulars.Onthequestionwhetherpropertestswereappliedinappliedin
appreciatingtheapprover’sevidencetheSupremeCourtheld:
“ItwasheldbythisCourtinSarwanSinghcasethatanapprover’sevidencetobe
acceptedmustsatisfytwotests”.
Thefirstcasetobeappliedisthathisevidencemustshowthatheisareliablewitness,
andthatisatestwhichiscommontoallwitness.ThefactthatHighCourtdidnot
accepttheevidenceoftheapproverononepartofthestorydoesnotmeanthatthehigh
Courtheldthattheapproverwasanunreliableoruntruthfulwitness.Thetestobviously
meansthattheCourtshouldfindthatthereisnothinginherentorimprobableinthe
evidencegivenbytheapproverandthereisnofindingthattheapproverhasgivenfalse
evidence.
Thesecondcasewhichthereafterstillremainstobeappliedinthecaseofanapprover
andwhichisnotalwaysnecessarywhenjudgingtheevidenceofthewitness,isthathis
evidencemustreceivesufficientcorroboration.Inthepresentcasetheevidenceofthe
approverwasreliableandwascorroboratedonmaterialparticularsbygoodprosecution
witnesswhohavebeenbelivedbythelowercourts.”
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

195. Conclusion
•TheCourtsinthiscountryhavebyharmoniouslyreadingSection114(b)and
Section133togetherlaiddowntheguidingprinciplewithrespecttoaccomplice
evidencewhichclearlylaysdownthelawwithoutanyambiguity.Thisprinciple
whichthecourtshaveevolvedisthatthoughaconvictionbaseduponthe
uncorroboratedtestimonyofanaccompliceisnotillegalorunlawfulbuttheruleof
prudencesaysthatitisunsafetoactupontheevidenceofanaccompliceunlessitis
corroboratedwithrespecttomaterialaspectssoastoimplicatetheaccused.This
guidingprinciplethoughveryclearisoftenfacedwithdifficultieswithrespecttoits
implementation.Whileimplementingthisprincipledifferentjudgesmighthave
differentlevelsofcorroborationforaccompliceevidenceandthuswithnohardand
fastrulesrelatingtotheextentandnatureofcorroborationanelementof
subjectivitycreepsinwhichcanresultininjustice.
•Accomplicewitnesscanbeacompetentwitnessbyfulfillingcertaincondition.One
necessaryconditionforbeingAccompliceWitnessisthathemustbeinvolvedin
thecrime.So,theAccompliceEvidencecanbetakenasastrongevidencewhenit
issubjecttocorroboration.
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

196. Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)
Definition of Witness & Witness Protection Scheme

197. WITNESS
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

198. Introduction
•Awitnessisapersonwhohaspersonallyseenaneventhappen.Theeventcouldbe
acrimeoranaccidentoranything.Sections118–134oftheIndianEvidenceAct,
1872talksaboutwhocantestifyasawitness,howcanonetestify,whatstatements
willbeconsideredastestimony,andsoon.
•AwitnesswhoneedstotestifybeforetheCourtmustatleasthavethecapacityto
understandthequestionsthatareposedtohimandanswersuchquestionswith
rationality.Sections118,121and133oftheActtalksaboutthecapacityofa
witness.
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

199. Who May Tesitify?
•Any person who has witnessed the event is competent to testify, unless –the Court
considers that they are unable to understand the questions posed to them, or unable
to give rational answers as prescribed in Section 118.
•Rational answers should not be expected from those of tender age, extreme old age,
or a person with a mental disability.
•The section says that generally, a lunatic does not have the capacity to testify unless
his lunacy does not prevent him from understanding the question and give a rational
answer.
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

200. Can A Child Testify?
•Asmallchildofeven6or7yearsofagecantestifyiftheCourtissatisfiedthat
theyarecapableofgivingarationaltestimony.
•InthecaseofRajuDevendraChoubeyv.StateofChhatisgarh(CriminalAppeal
822of2012)thesoleeyewitnessofmurderwasachildof13yearsold,who
workedasahouseservantwheretheincidenttookplace.Heidentifiedtheaccused
personsintheCourt.However,theaccusedpersonshadnoprioranimositywiththe
deceasedandwereacquittedasthecasecouldnotbeprovedagainstthembeyond
reasonabledoubts.TheSupremeCourtonthismatterheldthat–thechildhadno
reasontofalselyimplicatetheaccused,astheaccusedraisedhimandprovidedhim
withfood,shelter,clothing,andeducation.Therefore,thetestimonyofachild
cannotbediscardedasuntrue.
•InDhanraj&orsv.theStateofMaharashtra(Appeal(crl.)663of2001)achildof
classVIIIwasawitnesstotheevent.TheApexCourtobservedthatastudentof8th
standardthesedaysissmarter,andhasenoughintelligencetoperceiveafactand
narratethesame.TheCourtheldthatthestatementofachildwhoisnotverysmall
isagoodtestimonyforthesamereason.Therefore,achildcantestifyprovidedthat
heisnotatoddler.
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

201. Witness Unable To Communicate Verbally
•Section119oftheActsaysthatapersonwhoisnotabletocommunicateverbally
cantestifybywayofwritingorsigns.
•Apersonwhohastakenavowofsilenceandisunabletospeakasaresultofthat
vowwillfallunderthiscategoryforthepurposeofthisSection.
•InthecaseofChanderSinghv.State(CRL.A.751/2014)theHighCourtofDelhi
observedthatthevocabularyofadeafanddumbwitnessmaybeverylimitedand
duecaremustbetakenwhensuchwitnessisundercross-examination.
•Suchwitnessesmaynotbeabletoexplaineverylittledetailandanswerevery
questionindetailusingthesignlanguage,butthislimitationofvocabularydoesnot
inanywaymeanthatthepersonisanylesscompetenttobeawitness.Alackof
vocabularydoesnotaffecthercompetenceorcredibilityinanyway.
•Ifadumbpersoncanreadandwrite,thestatementsofsuchpersonsmustbetaken
inwriting.ThesamewasheldbytheSupremeCourtinStateofRajasthanv.
DarshanSingh(CriminalAppealNo.870.of2007)
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

202. Can Judges Testify?
•Ajudgeoramagistrateisnotcompelledtoansweranyquestionregardinghisown
conductintheCourt,oranythingthatcametohisknowledgeintheCourt–except
whenaskedviaspecialorderbyaSuperiorCourtasstatedinSection121.
•Hemay,however,besubjecttoexaminationregardingothermattersthathappened
inhispresencewhilehewasactingasajudgeoramagistrate.Forabetter
understandingofthisprovision,readtheexample:
•HarryisbeingtriedbeforetheCourtofSession.Hesaysthatdepositionwas
improperlytakenbyMagistrateDraco.Dracoisnotobligatedtoanswerunless
thereisspecialorderbyaSuperiorCourt.Hermoineisaccusedofhavinggiven
falseevidencebeforetheCourtofMagistrateDraco.Hecannotbeaskedwhat
HermoinesaidunlessthereisaspecialorderbyaSuperiorCourt.Ronisaccusedof
attemptingtomurderawitnessduringhistrialintheCourtofMagistrateDraco.
Dracomaybeexaminedregardingtheincident.
•Thissectiongivesajudgeoramagistratetheprivilegeofawitnessandifhewishes
togiveitaway,noonecanraiseanyobjection.So,ifamagistratehasbeen
summonedtotestifyregardinghisconductintheCourt,noonecanraiseany
objectionifheiswillingtodoso.Amagistrateorajudgeisacompetentwitness
andtheycantestifyiftheywanttobuttheyarenotcompelledtoanswerany
questionregardingtheirconductintheCourt.
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

203. Can A Judge Testify In A Case Being Tried By Him?
•Wehavealreadyseenthatajudgecanbeacompetentwitnessifhewants,butwhat
ifthecaseisbeingtriedbyhimself?
•InthecaseofEmpressvDonnelly((1877)IRL2Cal405)theHighCourtof
CalcuttastatedthataJudgebeforewhomacaseisbeingtriedmustconcealanyfact
thatheknowsregardingthecaseunlessheisthesolejudgeandcannotdeposeasa
witness.
•Itwasheldthatsuchajudgecannotbeimpartialondecidingtheadmissibilityofhis
owntestimony.Hewillnotbecapableofcomparinghisowntestimonyagainstthat
ofothers.
•Ifhehastotestify,thenhemustleavethebenchandgiveawayhisprivilegesin
ordertoactasawitnessinthecase.
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

204. How Many Witnesses Can Be There?
•Thereisnoprescribednumberforminimumormaximumwitnessestobeinacase
inanyprovision.Section134laysdownthesame.Itsaysthatthereisno
requirementofaparticularnumberofwitnessestoproveanyfact.
•Inthecasewheretherearemultiplewitnessesthathaveseenthesameevent,notall
ofthemarerequiredtobeexaminedforprovingafact,examiningtwoorthreeof
themwouldbeenoughtoestablishthecase.
•ThesamewasheldinthecaseofAmarSinghv.BalwinderSingh(Appeal(crl.)
1671of1995)whereintheSupremeCourtsaidthatifoutofallthewitnesses,only
twoorthreehavebeenexamined,itwillnotmeanthattheprosecutionwas
incorrect.
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

205. Credibility Of Single Witness
•It is a general rule that goes unsaid that the Court must act on the testimony of a
witness even if he is the only one and his statements are uncorroborated.
•In the case ofRamesh Krishna v. the State of Maharashtra (Appeal (crl.) 12 of
2008)there were multiple witnesses who could not stand with their statements
given during the investigation. On the other hand, one of them stood firmly with his
statement who was deemed to be a credible witness. The Court, in this case, held
that –the testimony of one credible witness will outweigh the same given by other
questionable witnesses. A witness is considered to be credible if he stands by his
statements and the same can be proved later on. Witnesses may also need to identify
the accused person, and there is no minimum number of witnesses required to
identify an accused in order to get him sentenced.
•InBinay Kumar v. the State of Bihar ((1997) 1 SCC 283)the Supreme Court said
the same; it held that there is no rule of evidence that conviction can not happen
unless there is a particular number of witnesses to identify the accused.
•Any conviction is not influenced by the quantity of the witnesses but by the quality
and credibility of witness testimonies.
•
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

206. Witness Protection Scheme, 2018
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

207. Background
•TheSupremeCourt(SC)hasapprovedIndia'sFirstWitnessProtection
SchemedraftedbytheuniongovernmentandhasaskedtheCentre,statesand
UnionTerritoriestoenforce”itinletterandspirit.
•TheSchemewasdrawnupbytheCentrein2018withinputsfromstates/Union
Territories,NationalLegalServicesAuthorities,civilsociety,HighCourtsand
policepersonnel.
•Theaimandobjectiveoftheschemearetoensurethattheinvestigation,
prosecution,andtrialofcriminaloffensesisnotprejudicedbecausewitnessesare
intimidatedorfrightenedtogiveevidencewithoutprotectionfromviolentorother
criminalrecrimination.
•TheSCinStateofGujratv.AnirudhSingh(1997)heldthatitisthesalutarydutyof
everywitnesswhohastheknowledgeofthecommissionofthecrime,toassistthe
Stateingivingevidence.
•FirsteverreferencetoWitnessProtectioninIndiacamein14thLawCommission
Reportin1958.Afterthat154th,178thand198thLawCommissionReportalso
recommendedputtinginplaceawitnessprotectionscheme.
•MalimathCommitteeReportalsobattedforastrongwitnessprotection
mechanismandsaidthatthecourtsshouldbereadytostepinifthewitnessis
harassedduringcross-examination.
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

208. Reasons For Witness Turning Hostile
Thecourthasnotedthefollowingreasonsforwitnessturninghostileduringthetrial:
•Threat/Intimidation.
•Inducementbyvariousmeans.
•Useofmuscleandmoneypowerbytheaccused.
•Useofstockwitnesses(afewallegedwitnesses,whodeposefalselyinfavourofthe
prosecutionasandwhencalled).
•Protractedtrials.
•Hasslesfacedbythewitnessesduringinvestigationandtrial.
•Thenon-existenceofanyclear-cutlegislationtocheckhostilityofwitness
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

209. Supreme Court Judgments
•SCheldthattheRightofwitnessestotestifyfreelyincourtsispartofArticle21
(RighttoLife).
•ThecourtsaidthattheschemewillbethelawunderArticle141/142ofthe
Constitution,untiltheenactmentofsuitableParliamentaryand/orStateLegislations
onthesubject.
•ThebenchhasalsoaskedallstatesandUnionTerritoriestosetupvulnerable
witnessdepositioncomplexes,asrequiredbytheScheme,bytheendof2019.
Theseroomswillbeequippedwithfacilitiestopreventtheaccusedandwitness
comingfacetoface.
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

210. Introduction To Scheme
The programme identifiesthree categories of witnessesas per threat perception:
•CategoryA: Those cases where threat extends to the life of witness or family
members during the investigation, trial or even thereafter.
•CategoryB: Those cases where the threat extends to safety, reputation or property
of the witness or family members during the investigation or trial.
•CategoryC: Cases where the threat is moderate and extends to harassment or
intimidation of the witness or his family members, reputation or property during the
investigation, trial or thereafter.
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

211. Witness Protection Fund
•TheexpensesfortheprogrammewillbemetfromaWitnessProtectionFundtobe
establishedbyStatesandUnionTerritories.
•Thestateswillmakeannualbudgetaryallocationforthefund.
•Fundwillalsobefreetoacceptdonationsfromnationalandinternational
philanthropicorganizationsandamountscontributedaspartofCorporateSocial
Responsibility.
•ThesaidFundwillbeoperatedbytheDepartment/MinistryofHomeunderthe
State/UTGovernment.
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

212. Threat Analysis Report (TAR)
•TheWitnessProtectionScheme,2018callsforpreparationofa‘ThreatAnalysis
Report’ofthewitnessbytheCommissioner/SSP,whenwitnessappliesfor
protection.
•TARwillcategorizeonthelevelofthreatperceptionandwillsubmitsuggestions.
•TheWitnessProtectionOrderpassedbytheCompetentAuthoritywill
beimplementedbytheWitnessProtectionCelloftheState/UT.
•Itprovidesforprotectivemeasureslikeensuringthatthewitnessandaccuseddo
notcomefacetofaceduringtheprobe,protectionofidentity,changeofidentity,
relocationofwitnesses,witnessestobeapprisedofthescheme,confidentiality,and
preservationofrecords,recoveryofexpensesetc.
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

213. Change Of Identity
•Inappropriatecases,wherethereisarequestfromthewitnessforthechangeof
identityandbasedonthethreatperceptionbytheCommissionerofPolicein
Commissionerate/SSPinDistrictPoliceinvestigatingthecase,adecisioncanbe
takenforconferringanewidentitytothewitnessbytheCompetentAuthority.
•Conferringnewidentitiesincludesnewname/profession/parentageandproviding
supportingdocumentsacceptablebytheGovernmentAgencies.
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

214. Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)
Examination of Witness, Cross Examination, Leading
Questions & Hostile Witness, Refreshing Memory

215. Introduction Of Examination Of Witness
•Examinationofwitnessplaysakeyroleinthepresentationoftheevidenceina
courtoflawregardlessofthecharacterofthecasei.e.civilorcriminal.
Admissibilityofevidenceisalsoacrucialaspectwhichisdecidedbythejudicial
officersonly.Thetestimonyofawitnessisrecordedintheformofquestionand
answer.Witnessisnotpermittedtodeliveraspeechtothecourtbutismeantonlyto
answerthequestion.Thetestimonyofthewitnessisonlyconfinedtothefacts
relevanttotheissue.Suchprocessofrecordingtheevidenceistermedthe
examinationofawitness.
•Section135oftheIndianEvidenceActdealswiththeexaminationofwitnesses
present.
•S.111ofCrPC&OrderXVIIIRule4to16ofCPCdealwithExaminationof
Witness.
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

216. Section 135 -Order of production and examination of
witnesses
•Theorderinwhichwitnessesareproducedandexaminedshallberegulatedbythe
lawandpracticeforthetimebeingrelatingtocivilandcriminalprocedure
respectively,and,intheabsenceofanysuchlaw,bythediscretionoftheCourt.
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

217. Section 137 –Examination-In-Chief
•First,thepartythatcalledthewitnessexamineshim,thisprocessis
calledexamination-in-chiefasmentionedunderSection137oftheIndian
EvidenceAct.
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

218. Section 137 -Cross Examination
•Afterthecompletionoftheexamination-in-chief,iftheoppositepartywantsto,
theycantakeoverthewitnessandcross-questionhimabouthispreviousanswers.
Theoppositepartymayaskhimanyquestionregardingalltherelevantfactsand
notmerelythefactsdiscussedduringtheexamination-in-chief.Thisprocesshas
beendescribedinSection137oftheactascross-examination.
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

219. Section 137 –Re-Examination
•Ifthepartythatcalledthewitnessseestheneedtoexaminethewitnessagainafter
cross-examination,theymayexaminethewitnessonemoretime.Thishasbeenlaid
downasre-examinationinSection137oftheIndianEvidenceAct,1872.
•Section138statesthatthere-examinationmustbedirectedbytheCourtfor
explainingmattersreferredtoincross-examination.Thesectionfurtherstatesthatif
anynewfactorissuearisesduringre-examination,theoppositepartycanfurther
cross-examinethewitnessonthatfactorissue.
•InthecaseofGhulamRasoolKhanv.WaliKhan(AIR1983JK54)itwasheldby
theHighCourtofJammuandKashmirthat-cross-examinationmightnotbe
necessaryifthewitnesstestimonyisprimafacieunacceptable.
•So,ifnorelevantfactsareansweredbythewitnessorthereisnocredibilitytohis
statements,histestimonycanberejectedandthereisnoneedforcross-examination
inthatcase.
•Theexaminationofawitnessmustbedonespecificallyinthesequencementioned
underSection138.InthecaseofSharadammav.Renchamma(AIR2007Kant
17)itwasheldthatexamination-in-chiefmustbedonebeforethecross-
examination.Theoppositeisneitherpossiblenorpermissible.
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

220. Leading Questions
•Whileexamining,cross-examining,orre-examiningawitness,thepartiesmust
refrainfromaskingleadingquestions.Leadingquestionshavebeendescribed
inSection141oftheActas-anyquestionthatsuggeststheanswerwhichthe
personquestioningexpectstoreceive.
•Onepartymustobjectiftheotherpartyasksaleadingquestiontothewitness.
•Aleadingquestionsuggeststhewitnesstheanswer,forexample:
“YousawHarrywearingablackrobe,didn’tyou?”Thisquestionbyitselfsuggeststhat
Harrywaswearingablackrobe,thisquestionisleadingthewitnesstoreplywithwhat
thequestionerwants.“WhatwasHarrywearing?”Theanswertothisquestioncouldbe
thesameasthepreviousone,however,therearenosuggestionsinthequestion.Itisa
simplequestionandnotleadinginanyway.Thesetypesofquestionsarepermitted.
Thisisbecausethewitnessmustanswereveryquestionbyhimselfasheistheonewho
haswitnessedthefact.Ifthereisasuggestioninthequestion,thequestionerwouldbe
feedingresponsestothewitness.
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

221. Can A Leading Question Be Asked To A Witness?
•EventhoughaskingleadingquestionsisprohibitedbySection141asitfeedsthe
witnesswithresponsesandmustbeobjectedbytheoppositepartywhenaskedtoa
witness.However,Section142saysthatleadingquestionscanbeaskedinan
examination-in-chief,orinare-examinationiftheCourtpermits.
•ThesectionfurtherstatesthatleadingquestionscanbepermittedbytheCourtin
caseswherethefactsareintroductoryorundisputedorthoseintheopinionofthe
Courthavealreadybeensufficientlyproved.
•ThesamewassupportedbytheHighCourtofKerelainthecaseofVarkeyJoseph
v.theStateofKerela(AIR1960Ker301).
•Section142doesnotmentionaskingleadingquestionsduringcross-examination.
But,Section143statesthatleadingquestionscanbeaskedevenincross-
examination.
•Leadingquestionscannotbeaskedinexamination-in-chief,cross-examination,or
re-examinationonlyifobjectedbytheotherparty.Suchquestionsmaybeaskedif
theotherpartydoesnotobject.
•Evenwhenaleadingquestionhasbeenobjected,itisatthediscretionoftheCourt
whethertoallowitornotandthediscretionwillnotbeinterferedbytheCourtof
appealorrevisionexceptinextremecases.
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

222. Hostile Witness
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

223. Meaning
•Nowherehostiletermisusednorisdescribedinrespectofhostility.Hostilemeans
adverse,unfavourableoralien.ThesewordshavebeenborrowedfromtheBritish
Law.Inacriminaltrialwhenaprosecutionwitnessissummonedtoproduceevidence
heappearsbeforethecourtbutdoesnotconfirmhispreviousevidence/statement
recordedorcollectedbytheinvestigativeagency.Heiscalledadversewitnessora
hostilewitness.
•InthecaseofSatPalvDelhiAdministration(AIR1976SC294)SupremeCourt
describedhostilewitnessesandlaidthattosteerclearcontroversyoverthemeaningof
hostilewitnesseswhichhadgivenrisetodifficultyandconflictofopinions.
•SupremecourtinGuraSinghvStateofRajasthan(AIR2001SC330)triedtodefine
hostilewitnessandlaiddownthatunderthecommonlawthehostilewitnessis
describedasonewhoisnotdesirousoftellingthetruthattheinstanceofoneparty
callinghimandanunfavourablewitnessisonecalledbyapartytoproveaparticular
factinissueorrelevanttotheissuewhofailstoprovesuchfactsorprovesthe
oppositetest.
•InIndiarighttocrossexaminethewitnessbythepartycallinghimisgovernedbythe
provisionsoftheIndianEvidenceAct.Sec.142requiresthatleadingquestionscannot
beputtothewitnessinexaminationinchiefinre-examinationexceptwiththe
permissionofthecourt.
•Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

224. S. 154 -Analysis
•tistobetakenintoaccountthatcourtsareunderalegalobligationtoexercisethe
discretionvestedintheminajudiciousmannerbyproperapplicationofmindand
keepinginviewtheattendingcircumstances.Furthermorethepermissionofcross
examinationundersection154oftheEvidenceActcannotandshouldnotbe
grantedatmerepartycallingthewitness.
•AclosescrutinyofSec154willbringfollowingpointsintopicture:
1.Theprovision(Sec154oftheact)onlytalksaboutpermittingsuchquestionsas
maybeaskedinthecrossexamination.
2.Thelawnowherementionstheneedtodeclarethewitnessas"hostile"beforethe
provisioncanbeevoked.
3.Thejudicialconsiderationisonlytobeinvokedwhenthecourtfeelsthat"the
attitudedisclosedbythewitnessisdestructiveofhisdutytospeakthetruth.
NowweconcludethatwhereastheCommonLawseekstocategorizewitnessesas"
hostile"or"adverse"forthepurposeofcrossexamining,theIndianLawendeavours
nottomakesuchadistinction.Allthatthelawseekstoelicithiddenfactsforthesole
purposeofdeterminingtruth.
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

225. Evidentiary Value Of Statements Given By Hostile Witness
•Supremecourtsinitsvariousjudgmentshasheldthatdeclarationofawitnesstobe
hostiledoesnotipsofactorejecttheevidenceanditisnowwellsettledthatthe
portionofevidencebeingadvantageoustoboththepartiesmaybetakenadvantage
of-butthecourtbeforewhomsucharelianceisplacedshallhavetobeextremely
cautiousinsuchacceptance.ThedecisionmadebytheapexcourtinStateofU.P.v
RameshPrasadMisra(AIR1996SC2766).That"itisequallysettledlawthatthe
evidenceofahostilewitnesswouldnotbetotallyrejectedifspokeninfavourofthe
prosecutionortheaccusedbutitcanbesubjectedtoclosedscrutinyandthat
portionoftheevidencewhichisconsistentwiththecaseoftheprosecutionor
defencemaybeaccepted.
•Ifthejudgefindsthatintheprocessthecreditofthewitnesshasnotbeen
completelyshaken,hemayafterreadingandconsideringtheevidenceofthe
witnessasawholewithduecautionandcare,acceptinthelightofotherevidence
ontherecord,thatpartofhistestimonywhichhefindstobecreditworthyandact
uponit.AswasdecidedinthecaseK.AnbazaghanvsuperintendentofPolice(AIR
2004SC524).
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

226. Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh Vs State of
Gujarat ( Crl.A. No. 450-452 of 2004)
•BestBakerycaseisabouta19yearoldgirlwhowassittingwithherfamilyinBest
BakeryononefollowingtheGujaratriots.BestBakerywasasmallBreadMaking
unitin'Vadodara'slum.Asperreportsfollowingtheriotsamobshoutinganti
Muslimslogansgatheredaroundthebakeryonthesamethattimetherewere25,
peopleinsidethebakery,whohadnooptionbuttoruntheterrace.Forthosewho
wouldnotmakeittotheterracelocketthemselvesinaroomonthefirstfloorwhat
happenedafterthatbecausetheBestBakerycaseleavingZahiraShekhastheprime
witnessoftheincident.Anincidentwhere14peopleburntfromZahira'sfamily.
ZahiraSheikhonbeingbroughttothecourtmanyatimesretractedfromher
statements.Everytimeshechangedherstand,shebroughtthecaseundercloud.
BestBakerytrialistheglaringexampleofmiscarriageofjusticewherethe
witnessesturnedhostileduetoexternalpressuresbytherichandpowerfulaccused.
Beforethenewlyinstitutedcourt,thewitnessrefusedtoidentifyanyoftheaccused
andwascontrarytoherpreviousstatementbeforethepoliceandtheNational
HumanRightsCommission.Thecourtrecordedaverdictthattheprosecutionhad
failedtoprovethecharges.LaterMs.Sheikhassertedthatshehadliedtothecourt
underthreatandfearforherlife.Result:Sessionscourtacquitted7andconvicted
10peopleoutof21accused.
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

227. Refreshing Memory
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

228. Introduction
•Wehumans,sometimestendtoforgetthingsanditisextremelyimportanttokeep
rememberingtheentiretyofthefactsifwehavebeencalledasawitness.
Someone’slifecouldbeatthelineandourstatementsmayhelptheCourtserve
justicetosomeone.Awitnessmaybeunderalotofpressureandduetoallthe
stresshemightneedtorefreshhismemory.
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

229. Section 159 -Refreshing Memory, When Witness May Use
Copy Of Document To Refresh Memory
•ThatiswhySection159oftheEvidenceActsaysthatawitnesscanrefreshhis
memorywhileunderexamination.
•Hemaydosobyreferringtoanywritingmadebyhimselfatthetimeoftheevent
takingplaceregardingwhichhehasbeenquestioned,orawhilelateraslongasthe
Courtconsidersittobefreshinhismemory.
•Thewitnesscanalsorefertosomeoneelse’snotespreparedwithinthe
aforementionedtimeframe,anddecidewhetheritiscorrectornot.
•Thesectionfurthersaysthatthewitnessmayuseacopyorphotocopyofa
documentwiththepermissionoftheCourtinordertorefreshhismemory.
•Theword‘writing’forthesakeofthissectionincludesprintedmatter.Awitness
whoheardaspeechmayrefertohismemorybyreferringtoanewspaperaccountof
itifhereaditsoonafterwards,andif,atthetimehereadit,heknewittobecorrect.
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

230. Section 160 -Testimony To Facts Stated In Document
Mentioned In Section 159
•Thissectionstatesthatawitnessmusttestifytothefactsthatwerementionedin
anysuchdocumentasmentionedinSection159.Itisirrelevantwhetherhe
remembersallthefactsthatwererecordedwitheverylittledetailaslongasheis
certainthatthefactshavebeenrecordedcorrectlybyhim.
•Tobetterunderstandthissection,weneedtolookintotheillustrationprovidedin
thesection,whichsays:
•Abook-keeperwillneedtotestifythefactshehasrecordedinthebooksregularly
keptduringthecourseofhisbusiness.
•Hemightnotbeabletoremembereverydetailabouthisentry,butaslongashe
knowsthatthefactsenteredwerecorrectandthebookwaskeptcorrectly,heis
goodtogo.
•ThefundamentaldifferencebetweenSection159andSection160isthat:
•Theformertalksabouttherecollectionofmemoryofthewitnessandnotthe
document.
•Whereas,inthelatter,thedocumentitselfbecomesevidenceofthefactsmentioned
therein.
•Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

231. Section 161 -Right Of Adverse Party As To Writing Used To
Refresh Memory
•Thissectionstatesthatanywritingordocumentmentionedinthelasttwosections
abovemustbeproducedandprovidedtotheoppositepartyiftheyrequireit.
•Theoppositepartymaycross-examinethewitnessoverthedocumentiftheneed
be.
•WhenadocumentisproducedunderSection161,itbecomessubjecttoageneral
inspectionandcross-examinationbytheoppositeparty.
•Butthecross-examinationontheportionreferredtobythewitnessdoesnotmake
thedocumentevidenceagainstthecross-examiner.
•IthasbeenmadeclearinthecaseofPranDuttv.StateofUttarPradesh(Cr.A.No.
2713of1977)thatastatementofrecordbytheinvestigatingofficersuchaspolice
reports,underSection161isnotusableforcontradictingawitness.
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

232. Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)
Impact of Forensic Science (DNA Test & Narco-Analysis)
Impact of Social Media on Law of Evidence

233. Meaning Of Forensic Science
•Forensicscienceistheuseofscienceintheserviceofthelaw.Sciencesusedin
forensicsincludeanydisciplinethatcanaidinthecollection,preservationand
analysisofevidencesuchaschemistry(fortheidentificationofexplosives),
engineering(forexaminationofstructuraldesign)orbiology(forDNA
identificationormatching).Aforensicscientistisexpertinanytechnicalfieldand
canprovideananalysisoftheevidence,witnesstestimonyonexaminationresults,
technicalsupportandeventraininginhisorherspecializedarea.
•Analysisofforensicevidenceisusedintheinvestigationandprosecutionofcivil
andcriminalproceedings.Often,itcanhelptoestablishtheguiltorinnocenceof
possiblesuspects.Forensicevidenceisalsousedtolinkcrimesthatarethoughtto
berelatedtooneanother.Forexample,DNAevidencecanlinkoneoffenderto
severaldifferentcrimesorcrimescenes(orexoneratetheaccused).Linkingcrimes
helplawenforcementauthoritiestonarrowtherangeofpossiblesuspectsandto
establishpatternsofforcrimes,whichareusefulinidentifyingandprosecuting
suspects.Forensicscientistsalsoworkondevelopingnewtechniquesand
proceduresforthecollectionandanalysisofevidence.Inthismanner,new
technologycanbeusedandrefinednotonlytokeepforensicscientistonthecutting
edgeofscience,buttomaintainthehigheststandardsofqualityandaccuracy.
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

234. Meaning Of Forensic Science
•Forensicanalysisisusuallycarriedoutbyexpertsworkingindividuallyorinteams.
Advancedtechniquesoftenrequirelaboratorieswheretheinvestigativeconditions
canbecarefullycontrolledandmonitored.Privatelaboratoriesandgovernment
agenciessupportsmallandlargeforensiclabs.Analysisofforensicevidenceisused
intheinvestigationandprosecutionofcivilandcriminalproceedings.Often,itcan
helptoestablishtheguiltorinnocenceofpossiblesuspects.Forensicevidenceis
alsousedtolinkcrimesthatarethoughttoberelatedtooneanother.Forexample,
DNAevidencecanlinkoneoffendertoseveraldifferentcrimesorcrimescenes(or
exoneratetheaccused).Linkingcrimeshelpslawenforcementauthoritiestonarrow
therangeofpossiblesuspectsandtoestablishpatternsofforcrimes,whichare
usefulinidentifyingandprosecutingsuspects.
•Forensicscientistsalsoworkondevelopingnewtechniquesandproceduresforthe
collectionandanalysisofevidence.Inthismanner,newtechnologycanbeused
andrefinednotonlytokeepforensicscientistonthecuttingedgeofscience,butto
maintainthehigheststandardsofqualityandaccuracy.Theindepthanalysisof
forensicevidencebringsustothemaincourseofourtopic.Thedifferenttypesof
methodsthatcanbeusedinforensicscienceandtheiracceptabilityinthelegal
system.Thusforbetterunderstandingwetakeintoperviewacommonlyapplied
methodofforensicevidence:
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

235. DNA Testing
•DNAisanabbreviationofDeoxyriboNucleicAcid.Itisanorganicsubstance,
whichisfoundineverylivingcellandgivesanindividualapersonalgeneticblue
print.Itcanbeextractedfromawholevarietyofdifferentmaterialslike,.Blood,
saliva,semen,hair,urine,bodyfluids,bones,bodyorgansetc.DNAwasdiscovered
in1869byaSwissscientistFrederickMicscher.SirAlec.J.Jeffereysdiscovered
theuseofDNAforforensicanalysisin1984.ItwasfirstusedinEnglandbythe
policeinthefamousEnderbycaseinvolvingtwogirlswhohadbeenrapedand
murdered.
•DNAtestsarehighlyeffectivebecauseeveryperson’sDNAisuniqueexcept
identicaltwins.ThegreatestassetofDNAisthatitissospecifictoeveryindividual
thatitcannotbetampered.DNAtestscanbeusedtoestablishparentageofachild,
detectcrimes,andidentifymutilateddeadcorpses.Theyareofimmensehelpin
criminaljusticeadministrationandinsomecivildisputeslikesuccession,
inheritanceetc.
•DNAtestinghasbecomeanestablishedpartofcriminaljusticeprocedure,andthe
admissibilityofthetestresultsincourthasbecomeroutine.AlthoughDNAtesting
hasaccomplishedagreatdealinopeningupnewsourcesofforensicevidence,its
fullpotentialtoidentifyperpetratorsandexoneratepeoplefalselyconvictedhasyet
toberealized.Forthistobedonerequiresfurtheradvancesintestingtechnology
andinsystemstocollectandprocesstheevidence.Theseadvancesarenowunder
way.Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

236. DNA Testing
•ThedevelopmentofforensicDNAtestinghasexpandedthetypesofuseful
biologicalevidence.Inadditiontosemenandblood,suchsubstancesassaliva,
teeth,andbonescanbesourcesofDNA.Thesesourcesareexpandingstillfurther,
asresearchersexplorethepotentialofotherbiologicalsubstances,suchashair,skin
cells,andfingerprints.
•Eventhoughthesourcesaremultiplying,theuseofDNAevidenceiscurrently
limitedbecausemuchofwhatcouldbetestedremainsunrecoveredandunanalysed.
Thenumbersareincreasing,butofallsexualassaultconvictionsforwhichDNA
collectionislegislativelymandated,sampleswereobtainedfromlessthanhalfof
theindividuals,andofthecumulativenumberofDNAsamplesobtained,only20
percenthavebeenprocessed.
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

237. DNA Testing
•Thereasonsforthelaginevidencerecoveryandprocessingarescarcityoflaw
enforcementresources,labbacklogscausedbyinsufficientfunding,andtime-
consumingandcostlytestingmethods.Giventhedeadlinesimposedbythecourts,
itisnotpossibletoanalyseallthepotentialevidentiaryspecimenssubmitted.
•MorerapidprocessingofDNAevidenceshouldmakeitpossibletoovercomethese
obstacleswithinthenextfewyearsasaresultofimprovementsintechnology.The
turnaroundtimeofRFLP(RestrictionFragmentLengthPolymorphism)Analysis
hasrecentlybeenreduced.MorepromisingistheanticipatedreplacementofRFLP
byPCR(PolymeraseChainReaction)basedtechnology,whichtakesonlydaysto
perform.Initialcollectionofevidenceisimprovingasaresultoftheestablishment
inmanyjurisdictionsofmorestructuredcrime-sceneteamsandmoreformalized
evidencecollectionprocedures.Inthepastfewyearsalone,majortechnological
advanceshavebeenmadeinfingerprinting,thedevelopmentofcomputerized
fingerprintdatabasesandareperhapsmostfamiliarbecauseofrecentsensational
criminalcasesrelatedtoDNAtesting.
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

238. Indian Scenario On DNA
•AsperSection45ofIndianevidenceAct1872-WhentheCourthastoformand
opinionuponapointofforeignlaworofscienceorart,orastoidentityof
handwritingorfingerimpressions,theopinionsuponthatpointofpersonsspecially
skilledinsuchforeignlaw,scienceorart,orinquestionsastoidentityof
handwritingorfingerimpressionsarerelevantfacts.Suchpersonsarecalled
experts.
•FurtherasperSection46ofIndianevidenceAct1872-itisstatedthatfacts,not
otherwiserelevant,arerelevantiftheysupportorareinconsistentwiththeopinions
ofexperts,whensuchopinionsarerelevant.
•Thustheingredientsofsection45andsection46arehighlightsthat:
1)Thecourtwhennecessarywillplaceitsfaithonskillsofpersonswhohave
technicalknowledgeofthefactsconcerned.
2)Thecourtwillrelythebonafidestatementofproofgivenbytheexpertconcluded
onthebasisofscientifictechniques.
3)Theevidenceconsideredirrelevantwouldbegivenrelevanceineyesoflawifthey
areconsistentwiththeopinionofexperts.
•Thusweseethatexpertevidencehelpsthecourtstodrawlogicalconclusionsfrom
thefactspresentedbyexperts,whicharebasedontheiropinionsderivedbytheir
specializedskillsacquiredbystudyandexperience.Hence,expertsareroutinely
involvedintheadministrationofjusticeparticularlyincriminalcourts.
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

239. Medical Experts
•InIndia,wehaveadversarialsystemofjusticeadministrationandordinarily
medicalevidenceisadmittedonlywhentheexpertgivesanoralevidenceunder
oathinthecourtsoflawexpectunderspecialcircumstanceslike:
a)Whenevidencehasalreadybeenadmittedinalowercourt;
b)Expertopinionsexpressedinatreatise;
c)Evidencegiveninapreviousjudicialproceeding;
d)Expertcannotbecalledaswitness;
e)Hospitalrecordslikeadmission/dischargeregister,birth/deathcertificatesetc.
•In,India,itisacommonperceptionthatlotoftimeandeffortisrequiredtorecord
evidenceandthereforebyenlargemembersofthemedicalprofessiondoesnotlike
toinvolveinmedicolegalcases.Someofthepossiblereasonsputforwardforthis
perceptionare:
a)Unduetimeconsumption;
b)Repeatedadjournments;
c)Lackofworkcultureinthecourts
•Hardly,anyscientificdataisavailabletosupportorrefutethisperceptionin
relationtomedicalevidence.Therefore,itwasplannedtoundertakeapilotstudyto
analyzethequantumoftimeandeffortputinbymedicalexpertstogettheevidence
recordedincriminalcourtsandotherissuesrelatedtoit.
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

240. Determination Of Parentage
•Indiancourtshavetimeandagainheldthattheevidenceforprovingnon-access
mustbestrong,distinct,satisfactoryandconclusive.DNAtestscanbestrong
evidenceastheyarecorrectupto99%ifpositiveand100%ifnegative.
•IncaseofVasuv.Santha(AIR1975Ker)thecourthaslaiddowncertainguidelines
regardingDNAtestsandtheiradmissibilitytoproveparentage.
(1)ThatcourtsinIndiacannotorderbloodtestasamatterofcourse;
(2)Whereverapplicationsaremadeforsuchprayersinordertohaverovinginquiry,
theprayerforbloodtestcannotbeentertained.
(3)Theremustbeastrongprimafaciecaseinthatthehusbandmustestablishnon-
accessinordertodispelthepresumptionarisingunderSection112oftheEvidence
Act.
(4)Thecourtmustcarefullyexamineastowhatwouldbetheconsequenceofordering
thebloodtest;whetheritwillhavetheeffectofbrandingachildasabastardand
themotherasanunchastewoman.
(5)(5)Noonecanbecompelledtogivesampleofbloodforanalysis.
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

241. Crime Detection & DNA Technology
•ThoughthereisnospecificDNAlegislationenactedinIndia,Sec.53andSec.54of
theCriminalProcedureCode,1973providesforDNAtestsimpliedlyandtheyare
extensivelyusedindeterminingcomplexcriminalproblems.
•Sec.53dealswithexaminationoftheaccusedbymedicalpractitionerattherequest
ofpoliceofficeriftherearereasonablegroundstobelievethatanexaminationof
hispersonwillaffordevidenceastothecommissionoftheoffence.
•Sec.54oftheCriminalProcedureCode,1973furtherprovidesfortheexamination
ofthearrestedpersonbytheregisteredmedicalpractitionerattherequestofthe
arrestedperson.ThelawcommissionofIndiainits37threportstatedthatto
facilitateeffectiveinvestigation,provisionhasbeenmadeauthorizingan
examinationofarrestedpersonbyamedicalpractitioner,iffromthenatureofthe
allegedoffenceorthecircumstancesunderwhichitisallegedtohavebeen
committed,therearereasonablegroundsforbelievingthatanexaminationofthe
personwillaffordevidence.
•Sec.27(1)ofPreventionofTerrorismAct,2002sayswhenainvestigatingofficer
requestthecourtofCJMorthecourtofCMMinwritingforobtainingsampleof
handwriting,fingerprints,footprints,photographs,blood,saliva,semen,hair,
voiceofanyaccusedperson,reasonablesuspecttobeinvolvedinthecommission
ofanoffenceunderthisact.
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

242. Conclusion
•Thereisaunanimitythatmedicalandforensicevidenceplaysacrucialrolein
helpingthecourtsoflawtoarriveatlogicalconclusions.Therefore,theexpert
medicalprofessionalsshouldbeencouragedtoundertakemedicolegalworkand
simultaneouslytheatmosphereincourtsshouldbecongenialtothemedical
witness.Thisattainsutmostimportancelookingattheoutcomeofthecase,sinceif
goodexpertsavoidcourtattendance,lessobjectiveprofessionalwillfillthegap,
ultimatelyaffectingthejustice.Theneedtoinvolvemoreandmoreprofessionalsin
experttestimonyhasbeenfeltbydifferentorganizations.TheAmericanCollegeof
physician'sguidelinesforthephysicianexpertwitnessemphasizesonbroad
physicianparticipationinprovidingthismuch-neededassistancetothelegal
system.Thecollegebelievesthatmoredoctorsshouldserveasexpertsasa
componentoftheirprofessionalactivitiesinordertomeettheneedformedical
testimony.
•Thisobjectiveofgreaterexpertparticipationcanonlybeachievedbyaddressingto
theapprehensionsthatponderthemindofmedicalprofessionals.Inthelightofnew
developmentsintheforensicscience,thehomeministry,Govt.ofIndiaconstituted
acommitteeunderthechairmanshipofDr.JusticeV.SMalimathtosuggestreforms
inthecriminaljusticesystem.Thiscommitteesuggestedcomprehensiveuseof
forensicscienceincrimeinvestigation.AccordingtothecommitteeDNAexperts
shouldbeincludedinthelistofexpertsgiveninsection293(4)ofCr.P.C,1973.
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

243. Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)
Narco-Analysis Test

244. Introduction
•NarcoTestreferstothepracticeofadministeringbarbituratesorcertainother
chemicalsubstances,mostoftenPentothalSodium,tolowerasubject'sinhibitions,
inthehopethatthesubjectwillmorefreelyshareinformationandfeelings.A
personisabletoliebyusinghisimagination.InthenarcoAnalysisTest,the
subject'sinhibitionsareloweredbyinterferingwithhisnervoussystematthe
molecularlevel.Inthisstate,itbecomesdifficultthoughnotimpossibleforhimto
lie.Insuchsleep-likestateeffortsaremadetoobtain"probativetruth"aboutthe
crime.
•Wrongdosecansendthesubjectintocomaorevenresultindeath.Therateof
administrationiscontrolledtodrivetheaccusedslowlyintoahypnotictrance.The
effectofthebio-moleculesonthebio-activityofanindividualisevidentasthedrug
depressesthecentralnervoussystem,lowersbloodpressureandslowstheheart
rate,puttingthesubjectintoahypnotictranceresultinginalackofinhibition.The
subjectistheninterrogatedbytheinvestigatingagenciesinthepresenceofthe
doctors.Therevelationsmadeduringthisstagearerecordedbothinvideoand
audiocassettes.Thereportpreparedbytheexpertsiswhatisusedintheprocessof
collectingevidence.Thisprocedureisconductedingovernmenthospitalsaftera
courtorderispassedinstructingthedoctorsorhospitalauthoritiestoconductthe
test.Personalconsentofthesubjectisalsorequired.
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

245. Narco-Analysis In India
•Afewdemocraticcountries,Indiamostnotably,stillcontinuetousenarcoanalysis.
Thishascomeunderincreasingcriticismfromthepublicandthemediainthat
country.Narcoanalysisisnotopenlypermittedforinvestigativepurposesinmost
developedand/ordemocraticcountries.InIndia,thenarcoanalysistestisdonebya
teamcomprisingofananaesthesiologist,apsychiatrist,aclinical/forensic
psychologist,anaudio-videographer,andsupportingnursingstaff.Theforensic
psychologistwillpreparethereportabouttherevelations,whichwillbe
accompaniedbyacompactdiscofaudio-videorecordings.Thestrengthofthe
revelations,ifnecessary,isfurtherverifiedbysubjectingthepersontopolygraph
andbrainmappingtests.
•Narcoanalysisissteadilybeingmainstreamedintoinvestigations,courthearings,
andlaboratoriesinIndia.However,itraisesseriousscientific,legal,andethical
questions.Theseneedtobeaddressedurgentlybeforethepracticespreadsfurther.
Narcoanalysishasbecomeanincreasingly,perhapsalarmingly,commontermin
India.Itreferstotheprocessofpsychotherapyconductedonasubjectbyinducinga
sleep-likestatewiththeaidofbarbituratesorotherdrugs.Inaspateofhighprofile
cases,suchasthoseoftheNitharikillersandtheMumbaitrainblasts,suspectshave
beenwhiskedawaytoundergoaninterviewdruggedwiththebarbituratesodium
pentothal.
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

246. Narco-Analysis From Constitutional & Legal Standpoint
•ThemainprovisionregardingcrimeinvestigationandtrialintheIndian
ConstitutionisArt.20(3).Itdealswiththeprivilegeagainstself-incrimination.It
hasitsequivalentsintheMagnaCarta,theTalmud,andthelawofalmostevery
civilizedcountry.Theprivilegeagainst`selfincriminationisafundamentalcanon
ofCommonlawcriminaljurisprudence.
•Thecharacteristicfeaturesofthisprincipleare-
–Theaccusedispresumedtobeinnocent,
–Thatitisfortheprosecutiontoestablishhisguilt,and
–Thattheaccusedneednotmakeanystatementagainsthiswill.
–Thesepropositionsemanatefromanapprehensionthatifcompulsory
examinationofanaccusedweretobepermittedthenforceandtorturemaybe
usedagainsthimtoentraphimintofatalcontradictions.Theprivilegeagainst
self-incriminationthusenablesthemaintenanceofhumanprivacyand
observanceofcivilizedstandardsintheenforcementofcriminaljustice.
•Art.20(3)whichembodythisprivilegereads,Nopersonaccusedofanyoffence
shallbecompelledtobeawitnessagainsthimself.
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

247. Narco-Analysis From Constitutional & Legal Standpoint
•Onanalysis,thisprovisionwillbefoundtocontainthefollowingcomponents:
–Itisarightavailabletoapersonaccusedofanoffence;
–Itisaprotectionagainstsuchcompulsiontobeawitness;
Itisaprotectionagainstsuchcompulsionresultinginhisgivingevidence
againsthimself.
•AllthethreeingredientsmustnecessarilycoexistbeforetheprotectionofArt20(3)
canbeclaimed.Ifanyoftheseingredientsismissing,Art.20(3)cannotbeinvoked.
•Theapplicationofnarcoanalysistestinvolvesthefundamentalquestionpertaining
tojudicialmattersandalsotoHumanRights.Thelegalpositionofapplyingthis
techniqueasaninvestigativeaidraisesgenuineissueslikeencroachmentofan
individual'srights,libertiesandfreedom.Subjectingtheaccusedtoundergothe
test,ashasbeendonebytheinvestigativeagenciesinIndia,isconsideredbymany
asablatantviolationofArt.20(3)ofConstitution.
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

248. Notable Case Laws
A)Ina2006judgmentDineshDalmiavState(2006CriLJ2401)theMadrasHigh
Courtheldthatsubjectinganaccusedtonarcoanalysisisnottantamounttotestimony
bycompulsion.Thecourtsaidabouttheaccused:"hemaybetakentothelaboratory
forsuchtestsagainsthiswill,buttherevelationduringsuchtestsisquitevoluntary."
Therearetwofallaciesinthisreasoning.First,ifnarcoanalysisisallthatitismadeout
tobebytheBangaloreFSL,theaccusedwillinvoluntarilyanswerquestionsposedto
himduringtheinterview.Thesecondfallacyisthatitisincorrecttosaythatthe
accusedismerelytakentothelabagainsthiswill.Heistheninjectedwithsubstances.
Thebreakingofone'ssilence,atthetimeitisbroken,isalwaystechnically`voluntary.'
Similarly,itcanbearguedthatafterbeingsubjecttoelectricshocks,asubject`quite
voluntarily'divulgesinformation.Buttheactorthreatofviolenceiswheretheelement
ofcoercionishoused.Innarcoanalysis,thedrugcontainedinthesyringeisthe
elementofcompulsion.Therestistechnicallyvoluntary.
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

249. Notable Case Laws
B)In2004,theBombayHighCourtruledinthemulti-crore-rupeefakestamppaper
casethatsubjectinganaccusedtocertaintestslikenarcoanalysisdoesnotviolatethe
fundamentalrightagainstself-incrimination.Article20(3)oftheConstitution
guaranteesthis:"Nopersonaccusedofanyoffenceshallbecompelledtobeawitness
againsthimself."Statementsmadeundernarcoanalysisarenotadmissibleinevidence.
However,recoveriesresultingfromsuchdruggedinterviewsareadmissibleas
corroborativeevidence.Thisis,arguably,aroundaboutwaytosubvertingtherightto
silence—acquiringtheinformationonwheretofindtheweaponfromthesubject
when,inhisrightsenses,hewouldnotturnwitnessagainsthimself.Argumentshave
beenmadethatnarcoanalysisconstitutesmentaltorture.Itworksbyinhibitingthe
nervoussystemandthusloweringthesubject'sinhibitions.Itisnotdifficulttointerpret
thisasaphysicalviolationofanindividual'smind-space.TheStatepolicedepartments
areresponsibleforgeneratingdemandfortheprocess.Thedecisiontoconductnarco
analysisisusuallymadebytheSuperintendentofPoliceortheDeputyInspector
Generalhandlingacase.
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

250. Notable Case Laws
C)InJanuary24th,2008,abenchofChiefJusticeK.G.Balakrishnanreservedits
rulingafterhearingargumentsforthreedaysfromvariousparties,includingSolicitor
GeneralGoolamE.VahanvatiandsenioradvocateDushyantDave,appointedbythe
benchasamicuscuriaetoassistthecourtinthecase.Thebench,whichalsoincluded
JusticeR.V.RaveendranandJusticeJ.M.Panchal,heardtheargumentsbycounselof
variouspeople,includingSantokhbenJadejafromGujarat,popularlyknownas
'Godmother',andsomeaccomplicesoffakestamppapercaseaccusedAbdulKarim
Telgi.Telgiandhisaccomplicesarefacingprobebyvariousstates'policeandother
investigativeagenciesfortheirallegedcriminalacts.
Theseaccusedpeoplehavechallengedthelegalityoftheusepolygraph,brainmapping
andnarco-analysisbytheinvestigativeagenciestoprobethecrime.
Duringthearguments,Vahanvatijustifiedtheuseofthesethreetests,sayingtheyhave
thelegalmandateunderSection53oftheCriminalProcedureCode(CrPC),whichlists
ahostofvariousmoderntechniqueslikeDNAfingerprintingandcollectionofblood
samplesasperfectlylegaltoolstoprobeacrime.Hesaidtheterm'suchothertests'
occurringintheexplanatorynoteoftheSection53includesthesethreeteststoo.
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

251. Notable Case Laws
'Ifthesetestsareproperlyconsideredtobestepsintheaidofinvestigationandnotfor
obtainingincriminationstatements,thereisnoconstitutionalinfirmitywhatsoever,'said
Vahanvati.'Thesetestsarescientificmethodsinfurtheranceofinvestigation.Allthese
testsareconsideredtobethepartoftheprocessofcollectionofsomesubsequent
evidence.
'Thesetestsmayprovidesomecluestotheinvestigativeagencytocollectsome
evidencebutthestatementsgivenbytheaccusedagainstthemselvesduringthesetests
arenotofanyevidentiaryvalue,'clarifiedthelawofficer.
ButDaveduringhisarguments,contendedthatparliamentneverintendedtoinclude
thesetestsastoolsforprobeasSection53waslastamendedin2005,whenalistof
variousmodernscientifictechniqueswasincludedinitaslegaltoolsforinvestigation.
Davealsocontendedthattheuseofthesethreetestsastoolsofinvestigationisnot
validatedbyArticle20(3)oftheconstitution,whichsays:'Nopersonaccusedofany
offenceshallbecompelledtobeawitnessagainsthimself.'
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

252. Notable Case Laws
D)InShashimurdercase,Courtallowsnarco-analysis.VijaysenYadav,themain
accusedinthedisappearanceandmurdercaseofFaizabadlawstudentShashi,hasgone
throughpolygraphandnarco-analysistestfromJanuary12to26.FaizabadChief
JudicialMagistrateShaileshTiwaripermittedthepoliceonFridaytoconductthetests
attheCentralForensicLaboratoryinBangalore.
Inhisorder,theCJMsaidthetestsonVijaysenwillbeconductedinjudicialcustody
andprohibitedinvestigatingOfficerSharatChandraPandeyfrominterveninginany
matterduringtheprocessoftests.ThecourtalsoaskedhimnottoaccompanyVijaysen
toBangalore
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

253. Notable Case Laws
E)TheBombayHighCourtrecentlyinasignificantverdictinacaseupheldthe
legalityoftheuseofP300orBrainfinger-printing,lie-detectortestandtheuseoftruth
serumornarcoanalysis.Thecourtupheldaspecialcourtordergivenbythespecial
courtinPuneasmentionedabove,allowingtheSITtoconductscientifictestsonthe
accusedinthefakestamppaperscamincludingthemainaccused,AbdulKarimTelgi.
Theverdictalsosaidthattheevidenceprocuredundertheeffectoftruthserumisalso
admissible.Inthecourseofthejudgment,adistinctionwasdrawnbetweenstatement
(madebeforeapoliceofficer)andtestimony(madeunderoathincourt).TheJudges,
JusticePalshikarandJusticeKakade,saidthatthelie-detectorandthebrainmapping
testsdidnotinvolveanystatementbeingmadeandthestatementmadeundernarco
analysiswasnotadmissibleinevidenceduringtrial.Thejudgmentalsoheldthatthese
testsinvolveminimalbodilyharm.
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

254. Conclusion
Lawisalivingprocess,whichchangesaccordingtothechangesinsociety,science,
ethicsandsoon.TheLegalSystemshouldimbibedevelopmentsandadvancesthat
takeplaceinscienceaslongastheydonotviolatefundamentallegalprinciplesandare
forthegoodofthesociety.Thecriminaljusticesystemshouldbebasedonjustand
equitableprinciples.Theissueofusingnarcoanalysistestasatoolofinterrogationin
Indiahasbeenwidelydebated.Theextenttowhichitisacceptedinourlegalsystem
andoursocietyissomething,whichwillbeclearerinthenearfuture.Inasituation
wherenarcoanalysisisgainingjudicialacceptancesandsupportsdespitebeingan
unreliable&doubtfulscience,wehavetoseroiuslyrethinkaboutitslegaland
constitutionalvalidityfromhumanrightsperspective.
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

255. Impact Of Social Media In The Law
Of Evidence
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

256. Introduction
•Development with technology is the way forward for the coming generation. In this
fast-moving world, every citizen is involved in using social media platforms, like
WhatsApp, YouTube, Instagram or Facebook, some of its uses are virtuous while
some are corrupt. Social media can be defined as interactive computer-mediated
technologies via virtual communities and social networking websites that simplify
the creation and sharing of ideas, information, opinions, career interests and other
types of expression.
•With the increase in the technology there has been an inclination in crime rates and
the crimes committed through this technology. Popularly known as Cybercrimes.
Cybercrimes were not always recognized or believed to be existing but it is now
studied as a branch of studies and proficiency. For the purpose of cybercrimes,
communication has to be presented before the accused, but can communication that
takes place through this medium, shared on a social media platform be used as
evidence under the law of evidence in a court of law? Can social media posts be
considered as admissible evidence, as many people disapprove of its accuracy.
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

257. Introduction
•However,itisnotjustcybercrimewheree-communicationhastobepresented
beforethecourttoprovetheexistenceofthecrime.E-communication,like
commentsandpostsarealsorequiredincourtwhereseriousnessofcertaincrimes
istobeproved,exampledefamation.Seriousnessofsocialmediaevidencecanbe
dulyrealisedwhenwereceivesomethingassimpleasaweddinginvitationthrough
themeansofsocialmedia.
•InvestigatingagenciesinIndiawhoarealsocalledintelligenceagenciesandpolice
forces,haverecentlystartedproducingmessagespostedbyindividualsonTwitter,
Facebookandothersocialmediaplatforms.TheydothatundertheambitofIndian
EvidenceAct.Recently,duringapressmeetintheyear2016,theUnionHome
MinisterRajnathSinghhasrecentlyacceptedthatthegovernmenthasdevelopeda
blueprintonsocialmediastrategyagainsttheISforthepurposeofeffective
monitoringoftheundiscoveredsideoftheweb,liketheDarkWeb.Anymediumof
communicationthatintendstoconnecttheworldthroughnetworkandelectronic
devicesarecalledcyberspace
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

258. Admissibility Of E-Evidence In Indian Courts
•TheIndianEvidenceActstandsamendednow,especiallytoprovideforthe
admissibilityofelectronicevidence(record)supplementedwithpaper-based
documentsasevidenceinIndianCourts.Significantamendmentscontaingranting
thestatusofdocumentsforthepurposeofadducingevidencetoelectronic
records.Moreover,thedefinitionof‘admission’waschangedandamendedto
containinelectronicform,therebysuggestingthatanyinterferenceastoanyfactin
issueoranyotherrelevantfact.Section22A,ontheotherhand,wasaddedto
providefortherelevancyoforalevidence.Inordertoprovidefortherelevancyof
oraladmissionsastothecontentsofelectronicrecordsarenotrelevant,unlessthe
genuinenessoftheelectronicrecordsthatareproducedisinquestion.
•Conceivably,oneofthemostimportantamendmenttotheEvidenceActisthe
introductionofSection65Aand65BunderthesecondscheduleoftheInformation
TechnologyAct.Thisprovidesforaprocedure,thatisdifferentandspecialin
natureforadducingevidenceinrelationtoelectronicrecords.Section65Bstates
thatanyinformationcontainedinanelectronicrecordisdeemedtobeadocument
andisadmissibleinevidencewithoutfurtherproofoftheproductionofthe
original.Italsosetsoutconditionsfortheadmissibilityofevidenceandallaretobe
satisfied
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

259. Admissibility Of E-Evidence In Indian Courts
•Atthetimeofcreationoftheelectronicrecord,thecomputeroutputcontainingthe
relevantinformationwasproducedfromacomputerthatwasusedthereused
regularlytostoreand/orprocessinformationforthepurposeofanyactivitiesthat
areregularlycarriedonoverthatperiodbythatpersonlawfullycontrollingtheuse
ofthecomputer.
•Thetypeofinformationthatiscontainedintheelectronicrecordwasregularlyfed
intothecomputerintheregularcourseofactivities.
•Theinformationthatiscontainedbytheelectronicrecordsisthereproductionof
theoriginalelectronicrecord.
•Duringthematerialpartoftheperiod,thecomputerwasoperatingproperlyor,if
not,thecomputerwasoutofoperationforsomeperiod,butwasnotsuchtothe
affecttheelectronicrecord.
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

260. Evidentiary Value Of Social Media Posts
•CriminalProcedureJurisprudenceexplainstheevidentiaryvaluethatsocialmedia
postscarry.Certainly,thereareadvantagesandgoodpolicyreasonsforaccessing
socialmediaevidenceusedincriminalproceedings.Forexample,photoscanbe
uploadedquicklyandsharedwithinseconds;thisalertsauthoritiesregardingcrimes
inprogressoreventhosealreadycommissioned.Accessingtheinformationina
permissiblemanneristhekeywhenitcomestotheadmissibilityofsocialmedia
evidence.Moreoften,alawyerinvestigatingacaseneedstoaccessthepublic
portionsofanindividual’ssocialmediaaccountandtrytorecognizeifanyoftheir
socialmediaprofilesmayhaveevidencerelevanttoacase.AsperCommonLaw,
onemustconsidertheapplicablerulesofethicsforconductinginvestigationprior
tothelitigation.Forinstance,itisunethicalandinappropriatetobypasssettingsor
addsomeoneasyourfriendinanefforttogainaccesstoprivateornon-public
segmentsofthesubject’saccount.Furthermore,thiskindofconductonsocial
mediacaneliminatetheadmissibilityofsocialmediaevidenceincourt.
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

261. Evidentiary Value Of Social Media Posts
•Since2000,inIndia,wehaveformedaseparatedivisionofcyberspacecrime
investigationalongwithaseparatelegislationwhichiscalledtheInformation
TechnologyAct,2000.Thisissubstitutedbyothersupplementarycyberlawsto
dealwithsuchoffences.Hardlyanytime,suchcasesarebroughttothenoticeofa
specialcourt.Thescreeningprocessinvolvedintheadmissionofallonlinearticles,
messagesandpostsforitsadmissibilityremainsthesameasdetailedinSection
22AoftheIndianEvidenceAct.
•Inmanycases,includingseriouscrimeslikerape,suchevidenceisoftendisplayed
intheMagistrate’sCourtbeforewhomthereliesapendingcaseandneedstobe
justified.TheEnglishlawprincipleof“party’sparoleadmissionsreceivableto
provethecontentsofadocumentwithoutnoticetoproveorwithoutaccordingtothe
absenceoforiginal”.However,thisisnotacceptableandapplicableunderIndian
law.
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

262. Conclusion
•Theproblemisthatthesocialmediacompaniesarelessthancooperativeincourt
matters.Manyatimes,peoplepostingonFacebookorotherplatformsaredoingthe
postingthemselves,soit’sinfrequentthat’swhatcausestheproblem.Theproblem
liesingettingthecompanytoprovideaccesstotheuserdatasoyoucanprove
that’stheperson.FacebookisnotanIndiancompany,sogettingaFacebook
representativetoturnoverinformationiswherethedifficultyarises.
•Socialmediapoststhatserveasevidencecanpositivelybeofgraveimportanceas
whenwethinkofthepurposeasocialmediapostmayservetoaciviloracriminal
case.Socialmediapostingshavebeenpreviouslyusedaswesawaboveandcan
meetaperson’sclaimincourt,thatmayhavebeenotherwisedifficulttoprove.The
difficultywithsocialmediaevidenceisensuringthatthereisenoughevidence
presentedtovalidateandupholdthepostingtobewhatitclaimstobeasthe
Fundamentalruleofadmissibilityofanyevidenceisitsrelevancetoagivencase
andifthisprincipleisappliedtoacasewheresocialmediaisinquestion,thenthe
admissibilitywillnolongerbeaprobleminacourtoflaw.
Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)

263. Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi –110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)
THANK YOU!