CONTENTS 9. Veera Ihraiiim v.

Slale of iVlailarashlra, AI R 1976 SC 1167

10. Aghnoo Nagesia v. State of Bihar, AIR 1966 SC 119
LB - 201 - Evidence Law 11. puiukuri Kotlaya v. Emperor AIR 1947 PC 67
i 2 Bodhraj v. State of J. & K. (2002) 8 SCC 45
TOPIC 1
13. Khushal Rao v. State of Bombay, AIR 1958 SC 22
I. GENERAL ISSUES RELATING TO LAW OF EVIDENCE
14. Sudhakar v. State of Maharashtra (2000) 6 SCC 671
(a) Important sections of Indian Evidence Act.
(b) Understanding the concepts such as : 'Facts', 'Facts in issue',
15. Patel Hiralal Joitaram v State of Gujrat (2002) 1 SCC 22
'Relevant Fact', 'Evidence-Oral and Documentary', 'Proved', Hi. Laxman v. State of Maharashtra (2002) 6 SCC 710
'Disproved' and 'Not Proved' and 'Court'. 17. Ram Narain v. State of U. P., AI R 1973 SC 2200 : (1973) 2
(c) Relationship between law of Evidence and substantive laws SCC86
(Criminal and Civil laws) and procedural laws (Code of Criminal
Procedure and Civil Procedure Code).
III. ON PROOF
(a) (i) Facts which need not be proved - sections 56-58
II. RELEVANCY AND ADMISSIBILITY OF FACTS (ii) Facts which the parties are prohibited from proving - Doctrine
(a) (i) Logically relevant facts - sections 5-9, 11 of Estoppel- sections 115-117
(ii) Special class of relevant facts relating to Conspiracy - section (iii) Privileged communications - sections '122-129
10 ( b) (i) Oral and documentary evidence - sections 59-78
(b) Stated relevant facts (ii) Exclusion of oral by documentary evidence - sections 91-
(i) Admissions - sections 17-23 92
(ii) Confessions - sections 24-30 18. R. S. Maddanappa v. Chandramma (1965) 3 SCR 283
(iii) Dying Declarations - section 32(1) 19. Madhuri Patel v. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development,
(c) Opinion of Third Person when relevant - sections 45-51 AIR 1995 SC 94
1. State of Maharashtra v. Prafulla B. Desai (Dr.) (2003) 4 20. Sanatan Gauda v. Berhampur University, AIR 1990 SC
SCC 601 1075
2. R. M. Malkani v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1973 SC 157 21. M.C. Vergheese v. T.J. Ponnan, AIR 1970 SC 1876
3. Mirza Akbarv. Emperor, AIR 1940 PC 176 22. State of u.P. v. Raj Narain, AIR 1975 SC 865
4. Badri Rai v. State of Bihar, AIR 1958 SC 953
5. Mohd. Khalid v. State of WB. (2002) 7 SCC 334 IV. ACCOMPLICE EVIDENCE - section 133 read with section 114 (b)
6. Jayantibhai Bhenkerbhai v. State of Gujarat (2002) 8 SCC 23. Bhuboni Sahu v. The King, AI R 1949 PC 257
165 24. Haroon Haji Abdulla v. State of Maharastra, AIR 1975 SC
7. Bishwanath Prasad v. Dwarka Prasad, AIR 1974 SC 117 856
25. Ravinder Singh v. State of Haryana, AIR 1975 SC 856
8. Central Bureau of Investigation v. V. C. Shukla, AI R 1998
SC 1406

iv Scanned by AdobeScanner
v
V. WITNESSES; COMPETENCE AND EXAMINATIONS
REFERENCES
(a) (i) Child Witness - section 118
(ii) Dumb Witness - section 119
(iii) Hostile Witness - section 154 Legislation:
(b) Examination, cross-examination and re-examination- sections
137-139, 1. The Indian Evidence Act, 1872

26. State of Bihar v. La/oo Prasad (2002) 9 SCC 626

Other Sources
1. Cases and Materials on Law of Evidence: Faculty of Law,
VI. PRESUMPTIONS
University of Delhi, Delhi.
Sections 112: Birth during marriage, conclusive proof of
legitimacy 2. Question Papers Referred- Delhi University.

27. Goutam Kundu v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1993 SC 2295 3. Previous Years Questions of various state PCS (J)
28. Dipanwita Roy v. Ronobroto Roy, AIR 2015 SC 418 4. https:llindiankanoon.org/

vi vii Scanned by AdobeScanner

 DETAI D CONTENTS 4. Mohd, KhalicJ v, Stale of W.8, (2002) 7 SCC 334 26
5, ..Iayantibhai Bhenl<:erbhai v, State of Gujarat (2002) 8
1. General Issues Relating to Law of Evidence SCC 165 28
1=7
Important sections of Indian Evidence Act 6. Bishwanath Prasacf v, Dwarka PrasacJ, AIR 1974 SC
1
Fact 117 29
3
Facts in issue 3 7. Central Bureau of Investigation v, V, C, Shukla, AI R
Relevant Fact 4 1998 SC 1406 31
Evidence-Oral and Documentary 5 8. Veera Ibrahim v, State of Maharashtra, AIR 1976 SC
Proved 5 1167 32
Disproved 5 9. Aghnoo Nagesia v. State of Bihar, AIR 1966 SC 119 34
Not Proved 6 10. pulukuri Kottaya v, Emperor, AIR 1947 PC 67 35
Court 6 11. BocJhraj v, State of J. & K. (2002) 8 SCC 45 36
Difference between Law of Evidence, Procedural Law & 12. Khushal Rao v, State of Bombay, AIR 1958 SC 22 37
Substantive Law 6 39
13. Sudhakar v, State of Maharashtra (2000) 6 SCC 671
14. Patel Hiralal Joitaram v, State of Gujrat (2002) 1 SCC
2. Relevancy and Admissibility of Facts 8=43
22 40
Logically relevant facts- Section 7 9
15. Laxman v, State of Maharashtra (2002) 6 SCC 710 41
Relevancy of Conspiracy- Section 10 10
Concept of Alibi- Section 11 16. Ram Narain v. State of UP., AIR 1973 SC 2200
11
Admission- Section 17 (1973) 2 SCC 86 42
12
Confession to police officer- Section 25 13
3. ON PROOF 44-54
Confession in police custody- Section 26 14
Confession to police which led to discoveries - Section 27 Doctrine of Estoppel- Section 115 44
15
Dying Declaration- Section 32(1) Essential ingredients of Estoppel 45
16
Why dying declaration is admissible Exception to Doctrine of Estoppel 45
16
Promissory Estoppel 46
Who can record dying declaration 17
Essential of dying declaration Communication during Marriage (Privileged
17
Communication)- Section 122 46
Forms of dying declaration 17
Exception to Privileged Communication (Section 122) 47
Evidentiary value of dying declaration 18
Evidence as to affairs of state- Section 123 47
Opinions of Experts- Section 45 18
Opinion as to handwriting, when relevant- Section 47 19
Relevant Case Laws (All Cases are explained on
Relevant Case Laws (All Cases are explained on Youtube "Exam Pressure")
Youtube "Exam Pressure'') 17. R. S, Maddanappa v, Chandramma (1965) 3 SCR 283 48
1. State of Maharashtra v. Prafulla B. Desai (Dr.) (2003) 18. Madhuri Patel v, Addl. Commissioner, Tribal
Development, AIR 1995 SC 94 49
4 SCC 601 20
1. R. M. Malkani v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1973 SC 19. Sanatan Gauda v. Berhampur University, AIR 1990
SC 1075 50
157 21
20. M.C. Vergheese v. T.J. Ponnan, AIR 1970 SC 1876 52
2. Mirza Akbarv. Emperor, AIR 1940 PC 176 23
21. State of U. P. v. Raj Narain, AI R 1975 SC 865 53
3. Badri Rai v. State of Bihar, AIR 1958 SC 953 25

viii Scanned by AdobeScanner

ix
4. ACCOMPLICE EVIDENCE 55-61 Law of Evidence: DU Semester Exam PYQ with solution 72-79
55
7.
Meaning of Accomplice and approver Question Number 1
Exception to accomplice 55 Instructions for how to answer . .
Evidentiary value of accomplice statement 56 Answer with one case law by the Author (Aaslm Yezdanl)
Necessity of corroboration 56 Question number 2
Instructions for how to answer . '
Relevant Case Laws (All Cases are explained on Answer with two case laws by the Author (Aaslm Yezdanl)
Youtube "Exam Pressure'J
22. Bhuboni Sahu v. The King, AIR 1949 PC 257 57 MCQ on Law of Evidence for 'Judicial Service
8.
23. Haroon Haji Abdulla v. State of Maharastra, AIR 1975 Examination Previous Years Questions of various state
SC 856 59 pes (J) with answer 80-92
24. Ravinder Singh v. State of Haryana, AIR 1975 SC 856 60
Questions from Section 1 to 167 in systematic manner.
5. WITNESSES; COMPETENCE AND EXAMINATIONS 62-67
Child Witness- Section 118 62
Competency of Child witness 62
Corroboration of a child's testimony 62
Dumb Witness- Section 119 63
Importance of Section 119 64
Section- 137 64
Examination-in Chief with example 64
Cross-examination with example 64
Re-examination with example 64
Order of examination- Section 138 65
Hostile Witness- Section 154 65
When a witness is not said to be hostile 66

Relevant Case Laws (All Cases are explained on

Youtube "Exam Pressure")
25. State of Bihar v. Lalaa Prasad (2002) 9 SCC 626 67

6. PRESUMPTIONS 68-71
Legitimacy of Child- Section 112 68
Importance of Section 112 68

Relevant Case Laws (All Cases are explained on

Youtube "Exam Pressure'J
26. Goutam Kundu v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1993 SC
2295 69
27. Dipanwita Roy v. Ronobroto Roy, AIR 2015 SC 418 70

x xi Scanned by AdobeScanner
 LEGAL WARNING Topic 1:
No part of Aasim Yezdani literary work may be produced or transmitted or General Issues Relating to Law of Evidence
distributed or shared in any form (Physical or electronic) or by any means, or
stored in any system of any nature without the written prior permission of Aasim
Yezdani (Copyright Owner). Important sections of Indian Evidence Act
@ Reserved with Aasim Yezdani
©Reserved with Aasim Yezdani
preamble:- i.
Know the Legal provisions if you are not aware To consolidate, define & amend the law of eVidence
~ Came into force in :- 1 Sept 1872
Section 51 of Copyright Act 1957 Says ....
Copyright in a work shall be deemed to be infringed-- e Drafted by:- Sir James F. Stephen
(b) when any person-- • 167 Section & 1 i Chapter
(ii) distributes either for the purpose of trade or to such an extent as to affect
prejudicially the owner of the copyright Law of Evidence is Lex Fori & Procedural Law. .
• Evidence Act does not apply to Affidavit and proceeding before an
Section 63 of Copyright Act 1957 Says .... arbitrator.
Offences of infringement of copyright or other rights conferred by this Act
Important Sections of lEA, 1872 useful ~o~.Judiciary Exams
Any person who knowingly infringes or abets the infringement of--
a) the copyright in a work, or Section 3 Interpretation Clause (Definition)
b) any other right conferred by this Act 1. Court.
shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than 2. Fact.
six months but which may extend to three years and with fine which shall not 3. Relevant
be less than fifty thousand rupees but which may extend to two lakh rupees. 4. Fact in Issue.
5. Document
Section 52 of Indian Copyright Act, 1957 talks about fair use, which says ... 6. Evidence
(1) The following acts shall not constitute an infringement of copyright, namely-
7. Proved.
(a) a fair dealing with any work, not being a computer programme, for the
purpose of- 8. Disproved
(i) private or personal use, including research; 9. Not Proved.
(ii) criticism or review, whether of that work or of any other work; 10. India
(iii) the reporting of current events and current affairs, including the Section 5 Evidence may be given of facts in issue and relevant
reporting of a lecture delivered in public; facts
Hence, Fair dealing allows you to use copyrighted works only for personal use,
Section 6 Relevancy of facts forming part of same transaction
research, criticism, review, and reporting on current events or lectures.
(Rule of Res Gestae)
So, making pdf or word file or any other document of this book or sharing this Res Gestae:=: Same transaction
in any Whatspp Group or in any Telegram Group or in any other group or on
Facebook or Instagram or on any digital platform through any electronic Res Gestae::.: Exception of Hearsay Rule
means (including Google drive) in the name of Fair Use shall also amount to Section 7 Facts which are occasion, cause, or effect of fact in
infringement of copyright under Copyright Act 1957. If anyone does so, issue (Last Seen Theory)
he/she will be wholly responsible for legal consequences for his/her act.
Section 8 Motive, Preparation and previous or subsequent
Note: Case Jurisdiction may be Sitamarhi District & Session Court, Bihar under conduct
Section 62 of Copyright Act 1957. Section 9 Fact necessary to explain or introduce relevant Facts
(Test Identification Parade)

xii Scanned by AdobeScanner

Law of Evidence Topic 1: General Issues Relating to Law of Evidence

Section 10 Things said or done by conspirator in reference to Understanding the concept such as fact, fact in issue,
common design (Conspiracy & Theory of Agency)
relevant facts, proved, disproved not proved,
Section 11 When facts not otherwise relevant become relevant
(Plea of Alibi)
Court and evidence
Section 17 Admission defined
Section 25 Confession to police officer not to be proved Fact (Section 3: Interpretation clause)
Section 26 Confession by accused while in custody of police According to Law of Evidence "Fact" me~rs and includes:- .
not to be proved against him Anything capable of being perceived (to understand or t~l~k of
Section 27 How much of information received from Accused something in a particular way) by the sense an~any) mental condition of
may be proved which any person is conscious (aware of somet Ing .
Section 32(1) (Dying Declaration Theory) In simple way we can say, Fact includes ...
Section 45 Opinions of Experts a) State of things
Section 47 Opinion as to handwriting, when relevant b) Relation of things
Section 60 Oral evidence must be direct c) Mental condition .
It is important to note that fact can be physical as well as psychological
Section 62 Primary Evidence
Section 63 Secondary Evidence facts.
Admissibility of Electronic records Some examples:-
Section 65B
1) Aasim heard or s.aw som~thing is a fact.
Section 74 Public Documents
2) Aasim said certain. words Is.a f~ct.
Section 75 Private documents 3) Aasim has a certain reputation IS a fact.
Section 101 Burden of proof
Section 103 Burden of proof as to particular fact Fact in issue (Section 3: Interpretation clause)
Section 112 Birth during marriage, conclusive proof of legitimacy According to Law of Evidence "Fact in issue" means and inc~udes:­
(Legitimacy of child) facts, existence, or non-existence of which is disputed by the parties.
Section 115 Estoppel
Section 118 Who may testify (Child Witness) Illustrations (from Bare Act)
Section 119 Witness unable to communicatt; verbally A is accused of the murder of B.
(Dumb Witness)
At his trial, the following facts may be in issue.
Section 122 Communication During Marriage (Privileged
That A caused B's death.
Communication)
That A intended to cause B's death.
Section 133 Accomplice (Partner in crime)
Section 137 Examination-in-chief
Example:-
Section 138 Order of Examination
In a matrimonial dispute, Aasim (husband) submitted in court of law
Section 141 Leading Questions
that:-
Section 154 Question by party to his own witness (Hostile witness)
1) He owns a house in Bihar.
2) He owns a car.

2 Scanned by AdobeScanner
3
 Law of Evidence
Topic 1: Genera! Issues Relating to Law of Evidence
3) He has a YouTube channel named 'Exam Pressure'.
4)
at the scene of the cl'ime or not and can be used as evidence to prove
He has done his law from NLU, Delhi.
or disprove Ilis involvement in the theft.
In court of
law, Zaara (wife)
agreed upon I have done Law HO is
This Is
Evidence (Section 3: Interpretation Clause)
lying
above three Evidence means and includes (Bare Act language):-
statements but
opposed the (1) All statements which the Court permits or requires to b~ m~de
fourth statement before it by witnesses, in relation to m.atters of fact under Inquiry;
and contended such statements are called oral evidence;
that my husband (2) All documents including electronic records produced for the
has not done law inspection of the Court; such documents are called documentary
from NLU, Delhi. Wife evidence.
He has done his In simple terms Evidence means and includes:-
law from Law Faculty, Delhi University. 1) Oral Evidence (statement of witness).
2) All Documents including electronic records.
In this case, the statement of Aasim (husband) that he has done his Tape recording, Dog-tracking, Narco analysis test (with the consent of
law from NLU, Delhi will be 'fact in issue' because this is a disputed the accused) are some important examples of evidence but illfidavitJ§
statement since his wife opposed this statement. nQ! considfllil~_~

Relevant Fact (Section 3: Interpretation Clause) Proved (Section 3: Interpretation Clause)

One fact is said to be relevant to another when the one is .6. fact is ~id to be I?rov&.d when, after considering the matters
connected with the, other in any of the ways referred to in the provisions befor~Court; either believes it to exist or considers its existence
of this Act relating to the relevancy of facts (from Section 5 to Section so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the
55 of Indian Evidence Act 1872).(Bare Act language) particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists. (Bare Act
In simple words we can say Relevant facts are' those facts that are language)
connected to the fact in issue and can be used to, prove or disprove In simple terms, a fact is considered ~ when a court after
fact in issue. examining the alLa~ believes it to b.e true or consid§!:s its
Example of a relevant fact: existence highly like~ that it would be reasonable for cautious person to
In a court case, act as int we~e tr0§, given the specific circumstances of the case.
where Aasim is accused
of stealing a valuable
item from a jewellery Disproved (Section 3: Interpretation Clause)
Relevant Fact
store. A relevant fact in A fact is said to be QisQroved when, after considering the matters
this case could be the before it the Court either believes that it does not exist, or considers its
surveillance footage non-exis'tence so probable thai a.Ql1l2en~ught, under the
(CCTV) from the circumstances of the particular case to act uponthe supposition that it
jewellery store that shows the people entering and leaving the premises does not exist. (Bare Act language)
around the time of the alleged theft. This fact is relevant because it ~~i~PI; terms, ~ is considered disproved when a court, after
directly connects to the issue of whether Aasim (accused) was present examining the available evidence, believes that it does ~ or

4 Scanned by AdobeScanner
5
Law of Evidence Topic ./: General Issues Relating to Law of Evidence

considers its non-existence highly likely that it would be reasonable for procedural Law: It governs how legal cases are conducted and the
a cautious person to act as if it were not true', given the specific process followed in court.
circumstances of the case.
procedural Law:
1. It focuses on the12rocess andJ2focedure of legaLQr~s.
Not Proved (Section 3: Interpretation Clause) 2. It guides how cases are handled, including rules and steps~
A fact is said Qot to be proveJj. when it is ~~r 3. It ensures fairness and efficiency in the le~~I. ~ystem:~_- . .
disproved. (Bare Act language) 4. It determines the rights and respon~lbllltles of parties dunng
litigation.
Court (Section 3: Interpretation Clause) 5. It applies universally across different areas of law. Code, 1973 are
6. Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Criminal Procedure
According to Law of Evidence, Court includes: some examples.
1) All Judges,/
2) All Magistrates './ substantive L"ill:Y: It defines the Li9.h1.§, ciu1ias, and ~t
3) All Persons
l~cLto ta~e. But court dQ~clude
--
individuals and provides the content of the law.

arbitrator _____ substantive Law:

1. It establishes legal rights and responsibilities of individuals.
2. It deals with the substance and content of the law.
Difference between Law of Evidence, Procedural Law 3. It applies to specific areas of law, such as criminal or co.ntr~~t law.
and Substantive Law 4. It determines the legal rights and remedies available to Individuals.
5. Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Contract Act, 1872 are some
examples.
Law of Evidence: It is set of rules and principles that govern the
admissibility, presentation, and evaluation of evidence in legal
proceedings. The Indian Evidence Act, 1872, is the primary legislation
that governs the law of evidence in India. It establishes guidelines for
the collection, examination, and presentation of evidence to establish
facts in a case.

Law of Evidence
1. It defines what types of ej[id~nce are gQc§ptable in court/"
2. It sets out the rules for burden of .J2(QQf, i.e., who has the
responsibility tQ.JJrove his~cas~.~
3. It outlines the standards for assessing the c;redibilit~ .an,g
COUlpetenC)! of witnesses ..,..,..-
4. It provides guidelines for the examination and cross-examination of
witnesses~
5. It ensures a fair and just process by establishing standards for the
admission and evaluation of evidence in Court of law/

6 7 Scanned by AdobeScanner
 Topic 2: Relevancy and Admissibility of Facts
Topic 2: 3) The document can be in various forms, such as wrlitelLiill1.eL§,
Relevancy and Admissibility of Facts Q1Lmb,SHS, sYJltl;lgls, diagrams, or a combination of these.~.._
4) It encompasses both physical documents, like h.ao~s or
printed papers, and electronic documents, such as t:DEiilas, Word
Section 3: Interpretation clause related with Evidence documents or scanned copies of paper documents.V""'_-
© Reserved with Aasim Yezdani 5) The definition of a document is broad and includes any substance
Case Involved that carries a recorded~r, regardless of its material or form//
• State of Maharashtra V. Praful B. Desai (Dr.) (2003) 4 sec 601 6) This definition allows for the i~~e of records
and materials as a~~ in legaIQJ:Qi!,eedinlls. "'.-
~

SectioQ .3. of the Indian Evidence Act allows for evidence to be

presented in different forms.
1) It recognizes that evidence can be oral meaoiog, it can be provided section 7: Facts which are occasion, cause or effect
through spoken testimony~ of facts in issue
2) Evidence can also be documeQt~, which includes ~ © Reserved with Aasim Yezdani
documents such as contracts, letters, or reports. Case involved
3) ~Iectronic recorg,s, such as emails, text messages, or computer R. M. Malkani v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1973 SC 157
files can also be produced as evidence.
4) The Act acknowledges that evidence can take various formats and Section 7 of the Indian Evidence Act states that facts which ~
allows for their admissibility in legal proceedings~ as the occasion, c.§!d§.e, or el!ili2LillJl:lQ fac~ ir:Ljss~ are considered
5) This provision ensures tQat differeOl..1)L~~~§l'2.d relevant.
to sUl2l2ort or estab~~. - 1) Facts in issue refer to the Ol.ain facts that arejLtJ:l,l..,La~~
6) By accepting oral, documentary, and electronic evidence" the Act being disputed in a case:/~
al~s to e.nable a_.QQ~ro~n!?[y1L-qD_(Lt~.§'§Jrl~OLQLJb.e 2) Occasion: Facts that are connected to the circumstances or
e~. events surrounding the facts in issue are relevant. These facts
help to establish the context or background of the main facts.
3) Cause: Facts that directly or indirectly lead to the occurrence of
Section 3: Interpretation clause related with Documents
the facts in iSi2u~ are r~ They establish the S~
© Reserved with Aasim Yezdani
relationship between the c~~'§_~__ClD.9.~f!~ct
Case involved
4) Effect: Facts that result from or are a consegu~~Qf the facts
R. M. Malkani v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 197.3 SC 157 L~ are ~vant. These facts provide insight into the impact
or outcome of the main facts~.,../~
Section ~ of the Indian Evidence Act defines a document as any 5) This section recognizes the imQQrtance of understaQding tt:lg
~atter that IS el\~ssed~ or described on a substaQQfLJ.@!l9.J.§llill,s, ~, circum~, c;~, and effects that are associated
flgur~s, marks, or a combination ot these amendments Elements. with the facts in issue.
1) The purpose of the document is tQ.LlliillLd thaU2£lr!I.s:,~r. 6) By conSidering these related .~ as rE3le~ the section
2) The substance ?an include ~.I2SU, p~ent, s!2!:l§., wO~lal, or enables a comQrehensive evaluation of the case and helps
any other matenal capable of being written or inscribed upon~ establish a ~Iearer pictureott~E;verltS~aJ;'d~the"ir underlying
factors.

8 Scanned by AdobeScanner
9
Law of Evidence
Topic 2: Relevancy [)nd Admissibility of Facts
Section 10: Relevancy of Conspiracy Le. Commit an act which is not legal by illegal means: The
(2)
Things said or done by conspirator in reference to agreement involves planning to achieve an act that, in itself, may
common design not be illegal but the means used to accomplish it are illegal.
© Reserved with Aasim Yezdani The agreement between the individuals is the key element of a
Case involved riminal conspiracy. It is not necessary for the agreement to be formal
~r in writing; it can be oral or implied from the conduct of the parties.
Mirza Akbar v. Emperor, AIR 1940 PC 176 The agreement must have. a common inte~ti?n ?r understanding to
Badri Rai v. State of Bihar, AIR 1958 SC 953 commit the illegal act or achieve the unlawful obJective.
Mohd. Khalid v. State of W.B. (2002) 7 sec 334
Central Bureau of Investigation v. V.C. Shukla, AIR 1998 SC 1406
Section 11 : When Facts not otherwise relevant become
~ of the Indian Evidence Act states that things said or
V relevant (Concept of Alibi)
done by a conseira.!Qr in reference to the common desi9:D"are © Reserved with Aasim Yezdani
considered .cele\,(goL if they were said or dooe in further~G£Z~ Case involved
conspiracy~ Jayantibhai Bhenkerbhai V. State of Gujarat (2002) 8 SCC 165
1) It applies to statements or actions made by any member of a
conspiracy, not just the accused person .. The alibi defense is a defense strategy used by the accused to
2) The common design refers to the shared objective or plan agreed claim that he was not present at the location where the offense took
upon by the conspirators. place during the relevant tim~. Section 11 of the Indian Evidence Act
3) To be admissible as evidence, the statement or action must be (lEA) 1872 is relevant to the alibi defense.
made or done in furtherance of the conspiracy. This means that it 1) According to this section, facts inconsistent with the accused's alibi
must be related to promoting or advancing the unlawful object of become relevant.
the conspiracy. If the prosecution can present facts that contradict the alibi, those
4) Even if the statement or action was made or done before the contradictory facts are considered relevant under Section 11.
formation of the conspiracy, it can still be considered relevant if it The prosecution may introduce evidence such as eyewitness
shows the intention to join or promote the conspiracy. testimonies, surveiilance footage, or other reliable evidence to
5) This section allows for the admission of evidence that reveals the challenge the accuracy or credibility of the alibi.
statements or actions of a conspirator, as long as he is in The court will consider these inconsistent facts to assess the
furtherance of the conspiracy. veracity of the alibi defense and determine whether the accused's
6) By considering such evidence as relevant, this section helps to claim of being elsewhere at the time of the offense is credible or
establish the existence of a conspiracy· and supports the not.
prosecution in proving the involvement of the conspirators in The prosecution has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable
pursuing their unlawful objectives. doubt that the accused's alibi is inconsistent or false.
It is to be noted that Section 120A of the Indian Penal Code (lPC) By allowing the consideration of inconsistent facts, Section 11
1860 defines the offense of criminal conspiracy. a fair examination of the alibi defense and allows the court
A criminal conspiracy occurs when two or more individuals agree to: make an informed decision based on the available evidence.
(1) Commit an illegal act: The agreement involves planning to y, the court will evaluate the strength of the alibi defense
carry out an act that is inherently illegal and prohibited by law. the contradictory evidence to arrive at a verdict.

10 Scanned by AdobeScanner
11
Law of Evidence
Topic 2: Relevancy and Admissibility of Facts
Section i 03 of lEA 1872 says that the burden of proof as to any made by a person involved in a legal proceeding, whether
particular fact lies on that person who wishes the Court to believe in its statemen t . ' t t
k written or In electrOnic form. The statemen sugges s an
existence, unless it is provided by any law that the proof of that fact ~po en, e about 'a fact in issue or a relevant fact. It can be made by any
shall lie on any particular person. Jnferent~ the proceedings or their authorized repres.entative, under
Illustrations p~rty tances where they have special knowledge or likely knowledge
clrcums " d b t
about the fact. 6<:lJDissiQQ"9 are conslderedL~.l.E:l7'L?rltS?\.!IS?n,ce u arenc
t
(a) Aasim prosecutes Zaara for theft, and wishes the Court to believe
that Zaara admitted the theft to Bittu. Aasim must prove the conclusive proof, and. their credi.bility and weight are assessed by the
admission. court in conjunction With other eVidence.
(b) Zaara wishes the Court to believe that, at the time in question, she
was elsewhere. She must prove it. Section 25: Confession to police officer
not to be proved \"...~.'~~"
Section 17: Admission defined @ Reserved with Aasim Yezdani
© Reserved with Aasim Yezdani Case involved
Case involved Aghnoo Nagesia v. State of Bihar, AIR 1966 SC 119
• Bishwanath Prasad v. Dwarka Prasad, AIR 1974 SC 117 pulukuri Kottaya v. Emperor. AIR 1947 PC 67
Bodhraj v. State of ,J. &K. (2002) 8 SCC 45
According to Bare Act, an admission is a statement, oral or
documentary or contained in electronic form, which suggests any According to Bare Act, no confession made to a police-officer, shall
inference as to any fact in issue or relevant fact, and which is made be proved as against a person accused of any offence.
by any of the persons and under the circumstances, hereinafter In Simple way... ~
mentioned.
1) Section 25 of the iEA states
Explanation of Section 17 of the Indian Evidence Act (lEA) 1872, that confessions made to a
including definitions: police officer c§IJILQLge,u$S?d
1) An admission: It refers to a statement made by a person involved as evid~nce§lgClir1?t ....a.n
in a legal proceeding. accused persol~//'-
2) Statement: It can be in oral, documentary, or electronic form. 2) Confessions refer to
3) Suggests any inference: The admission implies or indicates statements where a person
something about a fact in issue or a relevant fact. admits guilt or inyolvement in
4) Fact in issue: It refers to a fact that is directly in dispute in the a criminal offense. Confession to police officer not to
case. 3) The prohibition applies be proved
specifically to confessions . .
5) Relevant fact: It pertains to a fact that is connected to the fact in ma.de to police officers and includes anLofflcer of the police or
issue and helps to establish the truth of the case. person in charge of a police station,. __-'
6) Made by any of the persons: The admission can be made by any
4) The section aims to protect the ac~sed from potential coercion or
party to the proceedings or their authorized representative. improper influence during the process of ob~§lrllnjLa,gQllt!;)SSJ.Qn.
7) Under the circumstances: The admission is made in situations 5) Confessions made to police officers are considered ullreliable due
where the person making the statement has special knowledge of to the possibility of unduepr~_S_~LJL~)j[l!jm,i99tiQn,or coercion.
the fact or is likely to have knowledge about it.
6) This provision ensures fairnessi~_!~_~_~~.Q_~_Erocessby preventing
In summary, Section 17 of the lEA defines an admission as a

12 Scanned by AdobeScanner
13
 Law of Evidence
,
Topic 2: Relevancy and Admissibility of Facts
the use of potentially ljnreliable or coerced c..ollie.ssloDS",againsLthe
accused. used by the police,
7) How~~er, confessions mad.sLb_etOJ1L"a~JnQ.gj§lIatelJ~d.er, certain 6) The presence of a Magistrate ens.ures an indepeOdent and n.eutral
conditions flli:lY beadmissible as evidence. " authority overseeing the confession process, promoting fairness
8) Section 25 highlights the importance of preserl,liDg-ti:lELrigb.ts_oUhe and preventing potential abuse,
ac~~ ~nd promoting a fair trial by excluding confessions 7) Confessions made before a Magistrate, in their immediate
obtained In a manner that may compromise their reliability or presence, are considered more credible and reliable and may be
legality. admitted as eVidence. .
8) SectiQI1?9 underscores the irnportanceof ensuring the integrity of
conTessions and protecting the rights of the accused during police
Section 26 C~nfession by accused while in custody of custody.
pollee notto be proved against him , 9) it aims to prevent the lJ.~e of potentially coerced, or unreliable
© Reserved with Aasim Yezdani confessions as evidence in legal proceeding~:
Case involved
Bodhraj v. State of J. & K. (2002) 8 SCC 45
Section 27: How much of information received from
accused may be piOved
According to Bare
Act, no, confession made
by an}7~person whil~£heis
~;l\'J
'<
@ Reserved with Aasim Yezdani
Case involved
in the custody of a police: / J ' / J'ighnoo Nagesia v. State of Bihar, AIR 1966 SC 119
officer, unless it be made
in the immediate
(I '". ...- Pulukuri KottaYR Ii. Emperor, AIR 1947 PC 67
• ,80dhraj v. State of J. &K. (2002) 8 SCC 45
presence of a M'8.gTsTrat~: ,--/

shall be provea~asag-aTnst
such person. According to Bare Act Section 27 says how much of information
received from accused may be proved ...
Confession by accused while in custody:
1) Information refers to any statement or disclosure made by the
of police not be proved against him
accused during the course OUIl-'lf3"stig§tioil or interrogation.
In Simple words ....
2) According to this section, if an accused person leads to th.e
1) This provision applies specifically to confessions made by discovery of a fact or produces any material evidence, such
in~ividuals while they are under the control or custody of a police information can be used as evidence against him..
officer. .
"'~, ' 3) However, only the specific information that directly relates to the
2) ~()f1J.§.~"siOrl ~efers to. a statement where a person admits guilt or discovery of the fact or the production of material evidence can be
Involvement In a criminal offense" .../"/ proved in court:
3) To bE?_§drTlissiple, t~_ecQnfessionf}1ust be made in the immediate 4) This means that any other self-incriminating statements or
presence Of § M§gj§tratEL/" disclosures made by the accused during the same process cannot
4) The ~urpose of this provi;i;~ is to protect individuals from potential be used as evidence against him:
coercion, threat, or Improper influenc~ while in police custod}!.,// 5) This section provides protection to the accused by preventing the
5) Conf~ssions made in the absence of a Magistrate are co~sidered use of unrelated or extraneous statements against him.
unreliable due to the possibility of intimidation or improper tactics 6) The intention behind Section 27 is to encourage the accused to
cooperate with the investigation by providing valuable information
14
Scanned by AdobeScanner
15
Law of Evidence
Topic 2: Relevancy and Admissibility of Facts
that c:tl(:t~jnthedi&co.I.IGry of facts o.r the pro.ductio.n_9fe,{igf2D<.::e.
Truth sits upo.n the lips o.f a dying man'
7) It ensures that the pro.secutio.n fo.cuses o.n the specific info.rmatio.n
3) Here the person (victim) is the only eye-witness to the crime, and
~h:r~li!t~I~~!t~~~n~~.~Cl.~_~_§md avo.ids unfair o.r p[elWdicLaLusR_QI exclusion o.f his statement wo.uld tend to defeat the end o.f justice.
~ ~~ - " \,
4) Dying declaratio.n is Cl.9I'1}iE).§ible because it is a statement o.f th.at
8) Sectio.n 27. strikes a balance between ttLe_i,rlJeLe~t~_.QJjlJ.91tce and person VYbo.is.-dead o.r who cannot be fo.ung.
_tQEJ.J2ro.te.c;!i2!'Lo.f the accused's rights during the. investigatio.n and
trial pro.cess. ...... .. .,-
Who can record Dying Declaration?
88C-32(1) o.f Indian Evidence Act do.es no.t say anything abo.ut "who. can
Section 32(1): Dying Declaration record Dying Declaration.
© Reserved with Aasim Yezdani
~
Magistrate?
ease involved
police?
• Khushal Rao v. State of Bombay, AIR 1958 se 22
• Docto.r?
• Sudhakar v. State of Maharashtra (2000) 6 see 671
• Patel Hiralal Joitaram v. State Gujrat (2002) 1see 22 • Any Person?
• Laxman v. State of Maharashtra (2002) 6 see 710
Who can record Dying Declaration ?
For Judicial &
~. ~f ~ \".
'~tExam'
Exam Pressure
I!J ~£.~ itJIl!J
~~~;~~~Gtf"1 .'
/ / Magistrate
j{
Polloe
1
/Dootor
t¥WilM
t/Any Person
~:'J:' .. :.r:-
~:;7-:t=~~~
_':1,1";,,,:: - :!I ",~..,e;~~ti.G.J;l but evidentiary value decreases from

[!] t-:"iI:l:f. . ~ Magistrate to Any Perso.n.

Scan this for explanation

Essentia! of Dying Declaration:-
1) It relates to cause of death~ /
AcCO:di~~ to. Section-32(1) of Indian Evidence Act, Word "Dying
Declaration means a statement written o.r verbal of relevant facts 2) Cause o.f death o.f deceased must be in questio.n,,/ ./
madeb,Y.a.perso.n, who. is dead. It is the statement of a perso.n who had 3) Expectancy of death is not necessary In Indian Law. \ __ r

d,@5:Le.~Qlgjnlng.Jbe circumstances o.f his death. A dying declaratio.n is

co.~sideredcredibie and trustwo.rthy evidenCe based upo.n the general
belief that most people who know that they are abo.ut to die, do not lie.,....._ Forms of Dying Declaration:-
1) Question-answer form:
Why Dying Declaration is admissible as evidence? A dying declaratio.n can be in the fo.rm o.f questions asked by
another person (such as a police officer or doctor) and the
1) Word Dying Declaration" is based on the maxim nemo mariturus
corresponding answers given by thecj§,gla,r:g,DJwhQ.JS.on the verge o.f
pr,e~~rTl,unt~rrnentri.' i.e. a man will not meet his maker'wTfFl'lIe'on
death. '
his mouth. ~,,~-

2) Indian law recognizes this fact that 'a dying man seldom lies o.r

16 Scanned by AdobeScanner
17
Law of Evidence
Topic 2. Relevancy anel Admissibility of Facts
2) Narrative:
needs to form an opinion QH a point ot foreign .law, science, art, or the
A dying declaration can be given by the declarant in a narrative
identity oj handwriting or finger impressions.,
form, where he provides a detailed account of the incident or events
leading to his impending death. 1) In such cases, the opinions of persons who possess specialized
knowledge and expertise in the specific field are considered
relevant facts.",
3) Gestures & Signs:
2) These individuals, known as experts~/are recognized for their
In certain cases, a dying person may not be able to speak or prgHQJ§:,UQ'L aneJ understanding in foreig9 law, science, art, or the
communicate verbally but can use gestures, signs, or non-verbal cues identification of handwriting or finger impressions.:
to convey his statement. Such gestures and signs can be considered a 3) The opinions of these experts canaid thecourtin ungEJr~tanding
form of dying declaration if they are understood and recorded
and intEJJPIeJing .... cQmple)(~s0j2j~Qii~thar··~reqCii;:e specialized
accurately.
knolJVl~clg.ebeyond the scoE~2Li3:rl.t:lr~~rlar'{ e~rs()t)...././.~·····
4) This section acknowledges the importance of expert opinions in
4) FIR (First Information Report): The information contained in the assisting the court in reaching a well-informed decision on matters
FIR can be treated as a dying declaration if it relates to the cause of that require technical or specialized expertise.
death or the circumstances leading to the person's death. 5) Expert opinions are given weight and considered relevant facts as
they contribute to the court's understanding of the subject matter at
Evidentiary Value:- hand;:,..,.'
It can be the ~Ql!LJ:J~~l~~Ql c.onvJc.tion, if court is satisfied or 6) The court may consider the opinions of these experts alongside
convinced that declaration is true. other evidence presented in the case to arrive at a just and
informed decision.
7) It highlights the role of experts in providing insights and analysis
Section 45: Opinions of Experts that aid the court in resolving complex issues that require
© Reserved with Aasim Yezdani specialized knowledge.
Case involved Apart from this, Section 47 of Indian Evidence Act says that
• Ram Narain V. State of U. P., AIR 1973 SC 2200 (1973) 2 SCC 86 When the court needs to determine who wrote or signed a document,
th e opi n ion of .§.QilleQD.r;LtamiLia~wftJ.:l..th atper,SQP'$.. b.andwrltin,g..b.ac.Qmes
Jrnportant. If a person who knows the handwriting of the su~posed
According to Bare Act, Section 45 author or signer of the document states that it was or was not written or
says that When the Court has to form signed by that person, their opinionisGonsidered relevant evidence for
an opinion upon a point of IQ[EJignlillJV or the court to consider.
of science, or art, or as to identity of
harld""IiHQg, or finger impressions, the
opinions upon that point of persons
specially skilled in such foreign law,
scier:1ce or art, or in questions as to
identity of handwriting. or finger
impressions are relevant fact:;;,. Such
persons are called experts.
In simple words Section 45 of the Opinions of Experts
lEA deals with situations where..,.,the
.. ..
,,_.",
court
~"" ~,., "" .'

18 Scanned by AdobeScanner
19
Law of Evidence
Topic 2: F?elevancy and Admissibility of Facts
State of Maharashtra V. Praful B. Desai (Dr.),
supreme Court Observation and Decision:-
(2003) 4 see 601 Supreme Court observed thaL. .
© Reserved with Aasim Yezdani
1) Sec-273, CrPC - Evidence must be recordeci in the presence of
(Section involved:- Section 273, CrPC 1973 and Section 3, lEA 1872)
accused.
supreme Court said Physical presence is not necessary.
2) Sec-3, lEA - Evidence can be both oral & documentary & electronic
records can be produced as evidence. /
Supreme Court said video-conferencing is an electronic evidence
so, Supreme Court allowed video conferencing & .said t~e Evidence will
be recorded in studio or in Court & a judicial officer Will be present at
that time.
:: Video-conferencing is thus Allowed ::
Scan this for explanation
R. M. Malkani v. State of Maharashtra,
Fact:- AIR 1973 SC 157
In this case, the complainant's wife had terminal cancer. © Reserved with Aasim Yezdani
Complainant and his wife consulted two doctors. Dr. Greenberg from (Section involved - Section 3 & 7, lEA 1872, and Section 25. The Indian
the USA said surgery wasn't possible and medication was the only Telegraph Act, 1885)
option. However, respondent, a consulting surgeon with 40 years of
experience, suggested surgery despite knowing about Dr. Greenberg's
opinion. The surgery to remove the uterus was performed, causing the
complainant's wife immense physical pain and mental suffering until her
death. The Maharashtra Medical Council found respondent doctor guilty
after an inquiry. The prosecution requested to examine Dr. Greenberg
via video- conferencing as Dr. Greenberg wanted to give evidence but
refused to come to India for that purpose.

Issue:- Scan this for explanation

Whether in a criminal trial, evidence can be recorded by "video
conferencing. "
Fact:-
In this case, Hle prosecution's evidence against the appellant relied
Trial Court and High Court Observation:- solely on a tape recorded conversation that clearly proved the
The Trial Court allowed video conferencing, however High Court appellant's intention to receive a bribe. However, the appellant argued
held that as per sec- 273 of CrPC, the evidence must be recorded in the that the conversation should not be considered as evidence under the
presence of the accused. So video conferencing will not be allowed. So Indian Evidence Act, 1872 because it was obtained unlawfully.
matter came before Supreme Court.

20 Scanned by AdobeScanner
21
Law of Eviclence
Topic 2: F(elevancy anci Acimissibility of Facts
Issue:-
Mirza Akbar V. Emperor, AIR 1940 PC 176
1) Whether Tape recorded conversation is admissible as evidence in
the court of law even if it is obtained through unlawful means? @ Reserved with Aasim Yazdani
(Section involved - Section 120A, 1208 and 302 IPe 1860, and Section 10, lEA
2) Whether police officer violated Section 25 of Telegraph Act as tape
1872)
recording was illegally obtained?

Supreme Court Observation and Decision:-

On first issue Supreme Court held that- ~~~I""[!]
~.:: ~t.r~1 J
~ +~~{..
1) Tape recorded conversations can be admitted as evidence if they H.
. ." ":H
are relevant to the matter in question.
..i-:-~ "':~
[!];i~....~~
.Ir-
2) The voice in the recording should be identifiable, and there should
be no possibility of tampering or erasing parts of the tape.
Scan this for explanation
3) Tape recordings are considered admissible under Section 3 and
Section 7 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
4) However, the court treats tape recordings with caution and Fact:-
considers them genuine and accurate. In this case, the prosecution alleges that Mehr Teja, the wife of Ali
5) Even if the tape recording was obtained unlawfully, it can still be Askar, and h.er paramour, Mirza Akbar, conspired to murder Ali Askar,
admitted as evidence, as long as it falls under the scope of Mehr Teja's husband. It is further claimed that they hired a sharpshooter
"detection by deception" as a form of police procedure. named Umer Sher to carry out the murder. Umer Sher was caught in
the act of murdering Ali Askar. Mirza Akbar arrived at the scene and
On second issue Supreme Court held that there was no violation of
pleaded for Umer Sher's innocence, citing the absence of a motive.
Section 25 of the Telegraph Act in this case. The police officer did not
Mehr Teja, Mirza Akbar. and Umer Sher all were prosecuted for the
intercept or tamper with any messages or machinery. Instead, they
charges of murder and conspiracy to murder.
recorded the conversation using a tape recorder with the consent of one
of the participants. The offense under Section 25 involves damaging, Sec- 120B, IPC Punishment for criminal conspiracy
removing, tampering, or touching machinery or intercepting messages Sec- 302, IPC Punishment for Murder
without permission. Since the conversation was willingly recorded by Sec- 10, lEA Things said or done by Conspirator in
one of the participants, it did not constitute a violation of the Act. reference to common design
Tape Recording as evidence is thus allowed.
Evidence against them:-
1) The main evidence of the conspiracy between Mehr Teja (Wife) and
her paramour, Mirza Akbar, were certain letters where they
expressed their deep love for each other and mentioned money and
means, likely related to the murder of Ali Askar (husband).
2) Mehr Teja (Wife) also made statements before a magistrate after
her arrest on the charge of conspiracy.

22 Scanned by AdobeScanner
23
Law of Evidence
Topic 2: Relevancy and Admissibility of Facts

Issue:- Sadri Rai v. State of Bihar, AIR 1958 SC 953

of aforesaid two evidences under sec- 10 of Indian Evidence
Re Ievan cy rJ;') Reserved with Aasim Yezdani
Act 1872. (Section involved:- Seciionl20A, IPe 1860, and Section 10, lEA 1872)

Court Observation:-
Court
Observed that....
1) Sec-120 A , IPC 18 :-
60 (0 f' ..
e Inltlon of criminal conspiracY),When two
rnore persons agree to do, or cause to be done,- (1) an illegal
O~t or (2) an a~t which is .no.t illegal by illegal means, such an
[!I -III!]
III Itl:
... 1

:-=--'
i=il~ I: ~ ..
••~
'1
•

~
III

~~I~ ~tI:
a 'ern ent is designated a criminal conspiracy:
agre "
2) S - 10, lEA 1872:-Thlngs said or done by conspirator in reference
r::1.... ....
eCornrnon design. (Relevancy of criminal Conspiracy)
to c L!J r.... 1001 ••'1"

Scan this for explanation

Court Decisl on :-
Court held that ... Fact:-
1) The letters were considered relevant evidence under Section 10 of In this case, Ramji and Sadri were accused of conspiring to bribe a
th Indian Evidence Act, 1872 because their content indicated a police officer. They approached the officer and offered him a reward to
e spiracy between Mehr Teja (wife) and Mirza Akbar (paramour) prevent the investigation of stolen ornaments found at Ramji's house.
conca use the death of Ali Askar (husband). These letters were The officer instructed them to come to the police station. Sadri went to
~ h' .
written durin~ t b~ ont.goln g conspiracy and served the purpose of the station and handed the officer a packet of currency notes, claiming it
achieving their 0 Jec Ive. was sent by Ramji as payment for covering up the case. The officer
2) H wever, the statement made by Mehr Teja (wife) to the magistrate seized the money and filed a First Information Report (FIR).
o deemed irrelevant under Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act,
~:;2. This is b~cause the statement was given after the Issue:-
conspiracy's objective had already been achieved and had come to
The question before the Supreme Court was whether the offer of
an end. money & the accompanying statement made by Sadri were relevant
against Rami under sec-1 0 of lEA 1872 ?

Supreme Court Observation:-

Court Observed that... ..
1) Sec-120A, IPC 1860: (Definition of criminal conspiracy), When two
or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done,- (1) an illegal
act, 2) Sec- 10, lEA 1872 -Things said or done by conspirator in or

2) An act which is not illegal by illegal means such an agreement

is designated a criminal conspiracy: reference to common
design. (Relevancy of criminal Conspiracy)

24 Scanned by AdobeScanner
25
Law of Evidence
Topic 2,' Relevancy and Admissibility of Facts
Supreme Court Decision:-
supreme Court Observation:-
Court held that ...
court Observed that ....
1) The accused approached the inspector and asked him to cover up
1) Sec-120A, IPC 1860:- (Definition of criminal conspiracy), When two
the case, indicating a conspiracy to bribe a police officer.
or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done,- (1) an illegal
2) The court recognised this conspiracy based on their actions. act, or (2) an act which is not illegal by illegal means such an
3) Any statements or actions related to the conspiracy made by either agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy:
accused were considered relevant evidence against the other. 2) Sec-10, lEA 1872:- Things said or done 9Y conspirator in reference
4) Both accused had a common intention and collaborated to bribe the to common design. (Relevancy of criminil Conspiracy)
police officer.
5) As a result, they were held accountable and liable for their actions. supreme Court Decision:-
6) Their shared intent made them equally responsible for the Court held that Section 10 operates on the theory of agency. This
conspiracy, leading to their liability for the charges. means tllat in a conspiracy, each person involved is considered as an
agent representing their fellow conspirators while working towards the
Mohd. Khalid v. State of W. B. (2002) 7 see 334 shared objective of the conspiracy.
© Reserved with Aasim Yezdani Court further added that Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act
allows statements made by one conspirator to be admissible as
(Section involved - Section 120A, IPe 1860, and Section 10,
lEA 1872) evidence against another conspirator. However, this only applies to
statements made during the period when the conspiracy was active.
For .h.ldicial.and- Once it is proven that a person is no longer part of the conspiracy, any
Semester Exam statements they make afterward cannot be used as evidence against
•, xam Pressure the other conspirators under Section 10 .
So, any statement made by the accused to a police officer after
their arrest, whether it's a confession or related to their involvement in
the conspiracy, would not be considered as evidence under Section 10
of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

Scan this for explanation

Fact:-
In this case, the appellants were accused of using explosives to
cause fear and killing a large number of people as part of a criminal
conspiracy. The TADA court found them (appellants) guilty of the
offenses listed in the charge sheet.

Issue:-
Question was raised during the appeal, whether confessional
statement of a co-conspirator recorded two days after the incident & not
immediately (while it was possible to do so) can come within the ambit
of sec-1 a of lEA 1872?

26 Scanned by AdobeScanner
27
 Law of Evidence
Topic 2.· .Relevancy and Admissibility of Facts
Jayantibhai Bhenkerbhai V. State of Gujarat
b) if by themselves or in connection with other facts they make the
(2002) 8 see 165 existence or non-existence of any fact in issue or relevant fact
© Reserved with Aasim Yezdani highly probable or improbable.
(Section involved:- Section 11 & Section 103, lEA 1872) 2) Section 103, lEA 1872:- Burden of proof as to particular fact. "The
burden of proof as to any particular fact lies on that person who
wishes the Court to believe in its existence, unless it is provided by
any law that the proof of that fact shall lie on any particular person."

Supreme Court Decision:-

Court accepted Jayantibhai's plea of alibi, which means he was
elseWhere at the time of the crime. According to Section 103 of the
Indian Evidence Act, the burden of proof rested on the prosecution to
prove his guilt. However, the prosecution failed to provide sufficient
Scan this for explanation evidence to establish his involvement in the crime, resulting in
Jayantibhai's acquittal.
Fact:-
In this case, nine people were accused of causing the death of a Bishwanath Prasad v. Dwarka Prasad,
person named Lalu Bhai. They were charged under sections 302/149 AIR 1974 SC 117
and 147/148/452 of IPC, 1860. Out of the nine accused four of them
© Reserved with Aasim Yezdani
we~e ~cquitted due to lack of evidence, meaning there w~s doubt about
their Involvement. However, the remaining five accused were found (Section involved :- Section 17 & Section 145, lEA 1872)
guilty and convicted.
Now, one of the five convicted individuals, Jayantibhai, had Fact:-
appealed. to the Supreme Court. He pleaded "alibi," (Section 11, lEA In this case, there was a dispute over the ownership and partition of
1872) .wh.lch means he was claiming that he was elsewhere at the time certain properties. The plaintiffs claimed that the properties should be
of the Incident and COUldn't have been involved. divided among the joint family members, while the first defendant
argued that he exclusively owned them. The trial court accepted the first
Appellant Contention:- defendant's 'claim based on admissions made by the plaintiffs and the
eighth defendant in a previous lawsuit. The high court affirmed this
He contended that he was in Ahmedabad when the murder
finding.
occur~ed in Si~gapur village, making it highly unlikely that he could have
been Involved In the crime.
Appellants Contention:-
Supreme Court Observation:- The appellants (plaintiffs) challenged the reliance on these
admissions, arguing that they were vague and that the first defendant's
Supreme Court Observed that .......
alternative case was not mentioned in the written statement. They also
1) Section 11, lEA 1872 (Alibi):- Facts not otherwise relevant, are claimed that they were not given a fair opportunity to explain the
relevant. admissions.
a) if they are inconsistent with any fact in issue or relevant fact;

28 Scanned by AdobeScanner
29
Law of Evidence
Topic 2: Relevancy and Admissibility of Facts
1ssue:-
Whether statement made in earlier suit can be a relevant evidence? Central Bureau of Investigation v. V.C. Shukla,
AIR 1998 SC 1406
(c) Reserved with Aasim Yezdani
Supreme Court Observation & Decision:- (Section involved -: Section 10, !EA 1872)
Supreme Court found no substance in these arguments. They
stated that admissions made by a party are usually considered strong ":f�t'."��i��!l'd.,
evidence unless reasonably explained. They also noted that the .;Se�l*�xa�,
appellants did not raise these objections earlier in the proceedings. Exarn
Regarding Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act, the court
explained that there is a distinction between a party who is the author of
a prior statement and a witness who is being examined. A party's
admission is considered substantive evidence and does not necessarily
need to be put to the party. On the other hand, a prior statement of a '·<·'
witness is used to discredit their credibility and must be put to them for µPlncipfe of Agoncy'' CEIi Scan this for explanation
contradiction.
Court further added that the admissions of the plaintiffs and the
Fact:-
eighth defendant were considered as substantive evidence under
Section 17 of I EA 1872 because they were parties to the case and ln this case, the accused individuals, the Jains, were alleged to
statement made in earlier suit is a relevant evidence. The court have conspired between 1988 and 1991 with the intention of receiving
concluded that the reliance on these admissions was valid and undisclosed money and distributing it to their companies, friends,
dismissed the appeal. relatives, public servants, and political leaders. As part of the
Section 145 of IEA 1872 (Cross-examination as to previous
conspiracy, S. K. Jain interacted with various public ser\/ants and
government orgariisations to influence them into awarding contracts to
s tatements in writing)
foreign bidders in exchange for illegal kickbacks. Evidence of these
"A witness may be cross examined as to previous statements made transactions was found in diaries and files recovered from J.K. Jain's
by him in writing or reduced into writing, and relevant to matters in house, and the Jain brothers verified the authenticity of these records.
question, without such writing being shown to him, or being proved; but,
if it is intended to contradict him by the writing, his attention must,
before the writing can be proved, be called to those parts of it which are lssue:-
to be used for the purpose of contradicting him. Whether diary entries indicating payments to specific individuals
provide reasonable grounds to suspect their involvement in a
co�spiracy?

Supreme Court Observation & Decision:-

Supreme Court held that, typically a person cctnnot . be held
responsible for the actions of others unless they. have instigated those
actions. However, Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act provides ah
exception to this rule. ·1t states that if one conspir21tor commits ari. overt
act it can be. considered the act of all conspirators based on the
pri�ciple o( agency"\. However, this concept of agency cafi only be
applied if th·e court is convinced that the conspirators have actually

30 Scanned by AdobeScanner
31
Law of Evidence
Topic 2· Relevancy and Admissibility of Facts
cgr::i!:iJJJLedJo commit an offence or a.wrongJul act
the prohibition enacted in Section 24, Evidence Act, these facts must be
Therefore, simply having entries in a person's diary that mention established:-
payments to certain in�ividuals is not enough to create a reasonable
belief that they were involved in a conspiracy. 1) that the statement in question isa confession;
2) that such confession has been made by an accused persori;
3) that it has been made t(? _a person in ctLJ!b,C>[iJ)D
Veera Ibrahim V. State of Maharashtra, 4) that the confession has been obtained by reason of any
AIR 1976 SC 1167 inducement, threat or promise proceeding from a person in
© Reserved with Aasim Yezdani authority;
(Section involved - Section 21_& 24, IEA 1872) The court examined the statement and concluded that it did not
meet the criteria for a confession. It contained exculpatory details,
where the accL1sed daimeclinnocence and lac:K.otknawledge.abauUhe
contraband· goods. Therefore;·~t1-1Etstatement was . not con_. sidered a�
confession. .
Additionally, at the time the statement was recorded, the.. acc:.US?Q
had not been formally accused of any offense, which was necessary for
the compulsion to apply. i' f'- , ' 1" } .
' . . ., . { 'i •. -.

Furthermore, although the customs· officer was a person in

Scan this for explanation authority, there Wg.S__QQ_Q\/idE3n_c::_� of any indLJ_C§lrrient, threat, or promise
made by the officer to obtain the statement. , J '.
The court also dismissed the argument that the warning of potential
Fact:-
perjury charges amounted to a threat. Court concluded that such a
ln this case, a truck had an accident, and both the driver and the warning did not reasonably cause the accused to believe that making
person next to him were taken to the police station. The police didn't file the statement would benefit them or protect them from harm related to
a case but informed the customs authorities. The customs authorities the smuggling case.
checked the goods in the truck and found illegal items, so they seized In summary, the court found that the st0tement was n,qt Qf!.fX§Q
them. Tb.e_.?ppelLant) the person next to the driver, was questioned by under $Rct.Jo11'"24.,.of IEA 1872 and it was considered admissible as an
the customs inspector and claimed to be unaware of the illegal goods d
a mission of incriminating facts under Section 21 of IEA 1872. The
and d�ied giyirig_ctl1Y.im�trwctLC>17S to t.he d_river. The appellant said he circumstances strongly indicated the acc.us§d's invol_vement in_ ctn
was jusf���assenger arid didn't know about the driver's illegal activities.
-"-� attempt to.evade duty on the contraband goods. Therefore, the appeal
,,,,_..-,.,----"-~

was dismissed, and the accused's involvement was confirmed.

lssue:-
Whether Section 24 of the Evidence Act apply to the statement
recorded in this case?

Supreme Court Observation & Decision:-

The accused argued that his statement was obtained unde_r
pressu.rn because he was th[§latened wi.th prosecution for perjury if he
didn't tell the truth. However, the court rejected this argument. To attract

32 Scanned by AdobeScanner
33
Law of Evidence
Topic 2: r~eleviJncy and Admissibility of Facts
Aghnoo Nagesia v. State of Bihar, AIR 1966 SC 119 2) Section 27 of lEA 1872:- It talks about how much information
© Reserved with Aasim Yezdani received from accused may be proved, ..
(Sections involved - Section 25 & 27, lEA 1872) Coun further added that the accused cannot beJQ!lD.fLa~!.!i. based
solely on the evidence presented, which only establishes that. the
,For Jiidiclal 8nt:t accused had knovvredg(3'qf jh~ LQ.Q<:l.tioDQLJbf:).~cJf:)9:Q.J2Q_cli(3s.and
Semester ~xa"f : weaRo.[ls, This evidence does not C91lc1usiyeJy.prOlLe.lb.aa~guilt
, '.
Exam Pressure o{ijinQQ~r1ce. When there aredjfferentinJ(3rpr~tClti()l}s.oftht:l. e\{~dence,
and one interpretation favour's the accl)sed, that interpretation should
be given preference whicb.JClYOUr'S JhSlClQ£!;l~~.g. Therefore, the
accused was acquitted and found not guilty of the murder charges .
•.""'" .~~~_"AO" ~r'~".o ~_ ., ~ ""~"_.," •. , ,,>-.~ _'~~~~«""m'~~'~"~"""~~~V<"O "_M'_'_"'~" ,~v_' __'>

Pulukuri Kottaya v. Emperor, AIR 1947 PC 67

Scan this for explanation
© Reserved with Aasim Yezdani
(Sections involved: Section 25 & 27, lEA 1872)
Fact:-
~9r'Judjcial fjni{
In this case, the accused went to the police station and confessed
'''L~~m~ster'.cl;x!liii·_
that he killed some people, The police registered a case against the Exam Pressure
accused under Section 302 of IPC and arrested him. Based on this
information, the pOlice found the..cJ.(3adl:Joc:lles and the weapon uSt:lQ.in
!b~grime. In the present situation First Information Report (FIR) fil(3d RY i w.ltlb!"~·i.i'I'~ie>*t.."-;
!!!~!Aia~l!1hIuml~~~~\!U>!m.~ 1
the police was the only evidence against him.
' -
! ';-" {~i'
~~
I~Gf >Jot'~
.. ~

Issue:- if~) Scan this for explanation

Can the accused be convicted for the charge of murder on the
ground of aforesaid evidence? Fact:-
In this case, the appellants, who were found guilty of murder, made
Supreme Court Observation & Decision:- some confessions while in police custody, In their appeal, they argued
Supreme Court observed that... that their statements were admitted as evidence in violation of Section
26 and Section 27 of lEA, 1872, Both of the accused individuals
1) Section 25 of lEA 1872:- No confession made to a police officer
admitted tocommitting an offense and claimed they could show the
shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence.
pofTcethElWeaPOn used in the crime in their confessions,
Court held that a 'confession may contain different asp~cts and
provide information beyond just admitting.JQ JO_e.fiirne. It may also
include details about the motive,lnfenUcln, provocation, opportunity, Issue:-
preparation, weapon used,hidTng the weapon, and the subsequent Whether cQnfessioll rT}iade_Qefore police while in polic(3<:;ustody . ,is
behaviour of the accused. In summary, a confession can provide a admissible as evidence against the accused?
comprehensive account of the crime and the circumstances
surrounding it. !

, / I;
"\ ';' :\

34 Scanned by AdobeScanner
35
Law of Evidence
TOPi~'2. Re/ev~I.1CY and AdT(li~;ibilitY
, .I' : " r .'
,.- }
of Facts
I I

Court Observation & Decision:-

Supreme Court Observation:-
Court held that..
Court observed that Section 27 of the Evidence Act wascreat§<:lClS
1) Section 26 of lEA, 1872 says Confessions made by an accused an exception to Se.9jj.QI)§.2.5.amL2.,g, which prohibited the admissibility oT
while in police custody c~~ngtt)Ej~sed asevi.dence against thBm. any confession made by an accused person ~~i1e in police custody.
2) But Section 27 of lEA, 1872 provides an exception to the above The purpose of Section 27 was to allow a specific part of a statement
rule. \ made by the accused to a police officer to be admissible a~ evidence,
3) If a confession leads to the discovery of some evid_eDce or regardless of whether it was a confession or not. The ban Impos~d by
information, that confession becomes admissible as evidence. Sections 25 and 26 would be lifted if the statement was directly
connected to the discovery of facts. In simpler terms, Section 27 allows
4) However, this exception applies only if the informatio_noLc!isc..Qygry certain statements made by the accused during police custody to be
is about a fact that is releyantto thecase and can be independently
corroborated: . - '. "--~"""'. .. . .... used as evidence if they help in uncovering important information.
) } '\ l j:,. - 1,

5) Confessions regarding the pastuseofJh.e.obj.e.cLpro.ducad,..which is

not related to its discovery, are not admissible under SBction 27. Supreme Court Decision:-
In summary, Section 26 prohibits the use of confessions. made Court held that simply stating that the accused led the police and
while in police custody, but Section 27 allows for .t~.eC\cjm~ssibiLliy"of witnesses to where he hid(the item is not enoughJom~~!ttl~
confessions if they lead to the discovery of releva'}t evidence .. , But requirements of Section 27. In other words, just .p?inti~g out th!(tog,ation\
Confessions about the\past use of an object are not admissible u~ of the concealed article is not considered suffiCient Informatlonl:'nder
Section 27. Hence appeal was thus allowed. this section. The court emphasized that the exact information given by
the accused, which leads to the recovery of the incrirr}iDgtil1J:larticle,
must be proven in order for it to be admissible as evidence.
Bodhraj v. State of J. & K. (2002) 8 see 45
© Reserved with Aasim Yezdani ';~hUShai' Rao v. State of Bombay, AIR 1958 se 22
(Sections involved· Section 25, 26 & 27, lEA 1872)
. © Reserved with Aasim Yezdani
(Section involved· Section 32(1), lEA 1872)

-_._-
i\~~n~~Y~'i

Scan this for explanation

Fact & Issue:-
Scan this for explanation
In this case, the main question was whether finding a weapon oJ
assault based on information provided by the accused while in custody
was enough to prove the accused's guilt. In other words, the court was Fact:-
determining if this discovery alone was sufficient_E3\1i9.E?Dce to establish In this case, the deceased made t~ree dyingdEJg}§~§tiQn§, to a
that the accused was guilty of the crime. dOctor, pQlice inspector, and Illagistrate. These declarations stated that
the accused/appellant and Tukaram had assaulted him with swords and
spears. The High Court convicted the accused/appellant based solely

36 Scanned by AdobeScanner
37
Law of Evidence
Topic 2: Relevancy and Admissibility of Facts
on these declarations, without requiring any additional evidence to
support them.
Sudhakar v. State of Mahat'ashtra (2000) 6 see 671
© Reserved with Aasim Yezdani
(Section involved - Section 32(1), lEA 1872)
Issue:-
Whether the accused could be convicted only on the basis of this
dying declaration or the declaration needed corroboration?

Supreme Court observation & Decision:-

Supreme Court laid down following principles ..
1) A dying declarati()n can be the sole basis of conviction without
corro156ratlOnsince - there is no absolute rule against it..
2) Each case should be evaluated based on its own facts, considering
Scan this for explanation
the circumstances in which the dying decl~ration was made.
3) A dying declaration is notc:Qn~i<:J§r~d as weaker form of evidence.
Fact:-
4) A dying declaration recorded by a competent magistcate in a
In this case, a school teacher agi3sLg.Q.YEli'IS,alleged that she was
question-and-answer format, using the words of the declarant as
raped by the Jleadruaster an<ij:1~_Q-te?ch§r. She shared the incident
much as possible, holds more weight than an oral testimony-based
withh.er mother, br.Qther" uncle, and. later with her father. The matter
dying declaration. was reported to the poli£e after 11 days. The doctor who examined her
5) If the court is convinced that a dying declaratiOJlJ§J~~~ and confirmed signs .of recent sexual intercourse. Unfortunately, unable to
I.YJ2iLJJJfariJ after considering all factors, it is the court's duty 10 b,ear the humiliation, the teacher committed suicide five months later.
co Ilyjet , even without corroboration in the true sense. A genuine
. The prosecution relied on the statement made by the teacher to the
and voluntary declaration does not necessarily require
police In FIH and argued that it should be considered a dying
corroboration. declaration.
Finally court held that a true and voluntary declaration does not
require corroboration. The statement made by the deceEt!3~cjfulfilledEl!
the Jl_<:J~??ary conditions, such as being consistent and accurate in Issue:-
naming the accused. Therefore, the court concluded thatthe appellants Wh~ther the statement given by school teacher in FiR to the police,
,sh9 uld be convicted based on the deceased's statement alone. admlsslole as a dYing declaration and can it be used as evidence to
convict the accused?
,
C'\ \
Supreme Court Observation & Decision:-
c (
e e
Court found that there was nO,l 9,a.l yidence to support the claim
that the teacher disclosed her intention to commit suicide at the time of
making her statement in FIR. The cause of death was not established,
and the circumstances did not suggest that a person making such a
statement would commit suicide after such a long time. Therefore, the
court concluded that the statement could not be considered a dying
declaration.

38 Scanned by AdobeScanner
39
Law of Evidence
Topic 2: Relevancy and Admissibility of Facts
As a result, there was insufficient evidence to connect the accused
by the deceased under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
with the crime, and they were acquitted. The prosecution's failure to
(CrPC) c~uld b~ considered as falling.'£IfilhLotQe ..$f212.eQt.•§5?.9Jjg!J.~.?(1)
prove its case beyond reasonable doubt led to the acquittal of the
of th: 1~~I.an EVld~nce~Ac:.L1.a'Z2. This section specifically deals with the
accused. admIS~L9.llm,Lof.dym.Q..Jj.aQ]Qr.QtiotJs
-'--'-" . . ..
as evidence.
". ~ . . ,.
<.
-~'''~'''''~'''''' "
( "."" '."

By admitting the dying declaration, Cou~t acknowledged that the

Patel Hiralal Joitaram V. State of Gujarat statement was reliable and trustworthy. This means that the court
(2002) 1 see 22 a~ce~ted th~ staten:ent as evidence in the case, recognizing its
Significance In provldlllg valuable insights into the circumstances
© Reserved with Aasim Yezdani
surrounding the incident and the subsequent death of the deceased
(Section involved - Section 32(1), lEA 1872) person.
For Judicial and
Semester. Exam
Laxmal1 v. State of Maharasntra (2002) 6 see 710
© Reserved with Aasim Yezdani
(Section involved .. ~~c:!i2':1~~(11IEA 1872)

~£oi: irtidlc1a(a'n'ii:
Scan this for explanation :$e?J,~~er,~m::
_xam Pressure

Fact:-
In this case, the geg8,gsedWQmgn iDitially mentioned thewrQDg
second part of the name of the acc;used. as Hiralal Lalchand in the FIR.
However, she later clarified her statement in a separate statement given.
under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). In the
r '""i"""~~~:"~)
'.'

Doctor
if
Scan this for explanation
clarification, she rectified heL~grliE3r ~$tgtement and identified the correct
names of the accused as Hiralai.Joitaram, not Hiralal Lalchand.
'\" rJ '"
Fact & Issue:- ///'"
19.._m~dical ..QJ2J.l1jQ.{~f a docto~~Decessary for acceptance of dying
Issue:- declaration in the courfOTTaw~?'
Whether it is considered a reliable dying declaration if a statement
is covered by Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act 1872?
Supreme Court Observation & Decision:-
Supreme Court held that...
supreme Court Observation & Decision:-
1) Court usually relies on medical opinions to determine if a person
supreme Court c?:rE3tl!!!y_~~~g!Din.ad the dying declaration and who made E\ dying declaration(,:,:,as mentafly capablelof identifying
concluded that there wgs .nQ~2,£~.2!•.lb.g.Ube$JCltE3rn.E3ntJ:r.1Cl.ge .t:ly the their attacker. . - ~.~.. . ' .... --
deceased was closely connectea to .the incident in which she was
2) However, if an eyewitness or a rnflgistrate confirms that the person
burned and eventua.ll.Ydle~~J.r2m l1 er J?u...r.r:~s.: The court emphasized that
\.:;:,\,5t1r'.:Gci'flS:QJousl and aRI§. Jo.maKe....tb.e... .cLeclaratLon, their opinion
the statement was d§13.ply Intertwined with the entire episode.
carnes more weight /
As a result, the court determined that the additioDal statement made
3) In suetl cases, court~ill prioritize the assessment of the eY8,l/l{ttD~§P
40 Scanned by AdobeScanner
41
Law of Evidence
Topic 2: Relevancy and Admissibility of Facts
or magistrate over the medical opinion.
4) This means that if theeYRwitDes.s.. or magistrate states ,that the Court held that when relying on the opinion of §lQ9ncjwriting eXPElrt ,
deceasedvyq.~S..ina fiL_<iQ9 conscious state to make the gying
Court should ensure that the opinion can be Jru.sted. One way to do this
is for the court to personally exarTline the writings in question and
d'e.clar'ation, the medical opinigDVv'iilJ1QLgeconsideredasIrTlPorlant
compare them with other known writings of the accused. By doing so,
in determining the persOn'SIJ.1E'lDtalcond[tiQQ'
COJJJJ can indeQ.en9~Eln!lL\l.e!:Jit.the"exper.t;sop~F}iof1-and decide whether
additional corroboration is needed or not. !n this case, Court compared
Ram Narain V. State of U. P., the·il·ar1d~ritiri9jQ•.i;:Z~§tiQnVYi.t€itReaG.CliSeg·~~;8rQ~.t1,handwrfting and
concluded th~tno t\Jrther corrob2!§ji9n._vyas..uec@ssar_~.J
AIR 1973 se 2200: (1973) 2 see 86
© Reserved with Aasim Yezdani
On ground-~~Q'~L<i~I~X~Q, Supreme court ~jph.~IQ..t.h~.g()~yigtig~.__
(Section involved - Section 45 & 47, lEA 1872)

For Judicial and

Semester Exam

Scan this for explanation

Fact:-
In this case, a child was kidnapped bys.omeoDJl, and the parent
received two letters: a handVYrit!eDPo,?!9.?l9and an Inlan.9,I.et!eJ. These
letters demanded Rs lOOO. and later 8s.5.000 as ransom for the child~s
retljrn. The person who wro.te the letters wasidentiii.ed, and a
handwritirJ9.8($per·t confirmed that. theaccus.ed had written.thenn: Based
orliy'on-this evi<:tElrJce, the lower courts found the accused gUilty and
conviCted the'm. So, the matter came before Supreme Court.

Issue:-
Is it legally acceptable to convict someone based onJygnthe testirTlQOY
of a handwriting expert without any other supporting eVidence? .
it"", " "'-
l
~

Supreme Court Observation & Decision:-

Supreme Court observed that. ..
Sec-45:- Opinion of expert
Sec-47:- Opinion as to handwriting, when relevant

42 Scanned by AdobeScanner
43
 Topic 3: On Proof
Topic 3: no title. He must not be allowed to prove his want of title.
On Proof
Essential Ingredients ot Sec. 1i 5:~
1) Genresentation:
Section 115 Estoppel One person makes a 2:aam , You cannot deny what
© Reserved with Aasim Yezdani statement or claim to you just said.
Case involved another person.
R. S. Maddanappa v. Chandramma (1965) 3 SCR 283 2) Belief and action:
Madhuri Patel v. Add!. Commissioner, Tribal Development, AIR 1995 SC 'fh'l~ secoriij persori
94 believes the
statement to be true "
Sanatan Gauda V. Berh?mpur University, AIR 1990 SC 1075 Zaara : I will apply Estoppal
and acts based on (, in Court of Law.
that belief, which/'
leads to a change in their position.
[!J ;.:!-~ [!] 3) Lawsuit situation: If a legal case arises between these two

tdJ¥~
~... individuals, the person who made the statement cannot deny its
truth or validity of his representation.

~
I ~:"[1I"I" "." ":!I
f'i1 ""Jf ""...1£"' : ..
L:J p,," ili.,.".. do
Scan this for explanation
Exceptions to the Doctrine Estoppel:-
1) No Estoppel against a minor: A minor (someone below the age of
majority) cannot be held bound by estoppel because they are not
considered legally capable of fully uJlderstanding or entering into
binding agreements .' "- !,;? P
v, , ' (; I ' ~
,According to Bare Act When one person has by his declaration,. act
2) When true facts are known to both parties: If both parties are
or omission, intentionally caused or permitted another person to believe.
a thing to be true. and to act upon such belief, neithe~ he nor hiS aware of the true fQC..tLoLa~sj1.l,taHon, estoppel QgJJDotb.eiovokeo.
representative shall be allowed, in any suit or proceeding between because there 15;1(; deception or reliance on false information.
himself and such person or his representative, to deny the truth of that 3) Fraud or negligence on the part of tl~~Qll1~LP<!r.ty: If one party
thing. engages in fr?w::iwlentornegligent,behavior that leads the other
In simple way, Section 115 states that if someone makes a party to rely on false inforllJation, estoppel cannot be used aga!T)st
the innocent party., ....
statement, and another person believes it and acts upon It, the person
who made the statement cannot later deny its truth In a legal 4) When both parties plead Estoppel: If bOHJ..J:J..Cl:rtL~~Cl.9@~ and
proceeding between them. argue that estoppel should apply in a situation, it can be invoked
and enforced by tile court. .

Illustration :- 5) No Estoppel on a poirit of law: Estoppel cannot be used to

prevent the application of a specific legal princi!?le or/ul~. It cannot,
Aasim intentionally and falsely leads Zaara to believe that certain be invoked to override the law itseif.JtJI;,!i g " "1 ff;r "
land belongs to Aasim, and thereby induces Zaara to buy and pay for It.
The land afterwards becomes the property of Aasim, and Aaslm seeks In simple terms, estoppel has limitations and cannot be used
to set aside the sale on the ground that, at the time of the sale, he had against minors, when both parties know the truth, in cases of fraud or
negligence by one party, on points of law, or against statutes. It can
44 Scanned by AdobeScanner
45
Law of Evidence
Topic 3: On Proof
only be applied when both parties agreE'), and it does not override the
law. Exceptions to Section 122 (protection of marital communications):-
1) Communication made before marriage or after its dissolution:
Communications that occurred before the marriage or after its
Promissory estoppel is a legal doctrine that allows a party to
dissolution are not protected.
enforce a promise, even if there is no formal contract It applies when
one party makes a clear and definite promise to another, w~o relies on 2)~Suit or crTr;;'i~"~lpr~ceeclingbetween the two spouses: In legal
thaLpromLse totheirdetriment. If the promise is not fulfilled, the part\7 ~- cases where spouses are pitted against each other, the privilege
who relied on-Itcan seek legal remedies. Promissory estoppel prevents may not be upheld, and the comrnunicatior} can be disclosed.
the promisor from golniback on their promise if it would be unfair QC 3) Proof of communication by a third pe'rson: If a third party can
uDi!'LsLtodQ .. so. However, the specific application of promissory provide evidence of the communication, the protection may not
estoppel can vary depending on the jurisdiction and the circumstances apply, and it can be disclosed. .' "~... ~f
of the case. 4) Acts apart from communic~ti~ns: The protection does not apply
to actions or behaviors that are separate from the actual
communication itself. . . ~"
Section 122 Communications during marriage \",""
5) Waiver of privilege: If the privilege is explicitly waived by the
(Privileged Communication) married individual, they can choose to disclose the communication.
© Reserved with Aasim Yezdani These exceptions allow for specific circumstances where the
Case involved protection of marital communications may not be applicable or can be
• M.C. Vergheese V. T.J. Ponnan, AIR 1970 SC 1876 overridden.

According to Bare Act, No Section 123: Evidence as to affairs of State

person who is or has been tW"'rt,.o.\·\I~~';.'vo • Yon OM nnt d. ".ch
@ Reserved with Aasim Yezdani
. d S ha II be compe II ed to
marrle ,. . t1~'\ , / 0 . . . I' thing beOU\IM1 SoetiON
,
'S¢Co{o1.l!.",,"''''''QdUfirtb
~lH10l
d _ ,,'"
gOY gotting
I 12' "'EA, 1872 wHI Case involved
disclose any communication ",.",~o. \ ".t.Il.wyo"!.d.
made to him during marriage d\~O'O.O .. " V th.1... State of U.P. v. Raj Narain, AIR 1975 SC 865

f/'~.,;'-.'

J
by any person to whom he is or r

has been married; nor shall he \' According to Bare Act, "No one shall be permitted to give any
be permitted to disclose any ~ evidence derived from unpublished offici?IJecOJds~LeJ~ting.tg9mL.illf?jL§,
such communication, unless of State, except with the permission of the officer at the hea.dQLtbe
the person who made it, or his
representative in interest,
4Iff'\
''e . . ..
.
department concerned, who shall give or withhold such.permissiQt1~as
he thinks fit.':"
consents, except in _~Hs~. ~ > In simple words, we can say Section 123 protects unpublished
,bJllw,e.e.o._m.illrlE3c:Jper§on!3, or R!itcee.ding,s in which one marriedpeE§Q,n recordsgf t~~~§tate from disclo$ure., The prinCiple behind this sectTori~is
is prosecuted for any crime committed against the other, the welfare of the public isJhe top priority. Normally, witnesses are
In simple way, married individuals are protected trom being ..forced required to tell the truth and provide relevant documents in thejr
to reveaLaoycQ[lJmunication ..made to. them .during their marriage. The possession. However, in certain cases, procjucing official documents
purpose of this provision is to s.§feguard maritaJprivacy, maintain tru§t may harm public welfare, like state security or drpr6niaticYeratio~n's~fhey
between spouses, and prevent disnJptio'ns witbJn famines. . can be with_held. To safeguard larger public interests, the State is
granteqJb.e.RSiyllege ()f not producing certain documents related to
"affairs of the State." ~
\,

46 Scanned by AdobeScanner
47
Law of Evidence
Topic 3: On Proof
Section 123 outlines the conditions for claiming privilege over a
document relating to any affairs of state ... supreme Court Decision:-
1) The document must be an unpublished official record. Court held that since both parties were?Y'!?reD.Lthe JruGJac.!S. the
doctrine of_~§tQJ2P~lcQlJL~~:n.QL beirlYoJWQ, The section of law
2) It should pertain to the affairs of the State.
~.. mentionecJ~Section 115, does not apply when the person to whom the
3) Permission from the head of the concerned department to admit the statement is made~El",c?'~.2 .•tIJgJ'§LaL!Clg~~and is not rnis.ledbYCiDYlJDtrue
document as evidence is required staterlJeot. Additionally, the Court found that there was no harm or
4) The head of the department has the authority to grant or deny disadvantage caused to the other party by defendant No.1's actions.
permission for its admission. In summary, Supreme Court determined that the doctrine. of
estoppel did not appiy in this case because both parties w~rea0.§iiQr
the true._f~Efs}. anCftfiere was no harm caused to the other by
R S. Maddanappa v. Chandramma defendant No. 1's conduct
.".' (1965) 3 SCR 283
© Reserved with Aasim Yezdani
(Section involved: - Section 115: Estoppel, lEA 1872) .MadhuriPateLy. Add!. Commissioner, Tribal
Development, AIR 1995 SC 94
© Reserved with Aasim Yezdani
Fact:-
(Section involved: - Section 115 Estoppel, lEA 1872)
In this case, there was a dispute over the ownership of certain
properties between the plaintiff and the defendant No.1, who is the
plaintiff's brother. The court passed a decree in favor of defendant No.1
for his half share of the properties. The other defendants appealed the
decision, claiming that defendant NO.1 should be estopped (prevented)
from claiming his share because of certain actions he took.

Other defendant claim & Supreme Court opinion:-

The first claim was that defendant No.1 did not reply to a notice
from the plaintiff asking him to join her in filing the suit. However, Scan Ihis for explanation
Supreme Court ruled that the lackoJJ~pjy.QlcLn.otirnpIY'3.n ~dmissiQ.n
that he hgQ no int~!~§Url tQEJproperties. .
The second claim was based on a letter defendant No.1 wrote to Fact:-
his stepmother, where he disclaimed any interest in the suit property. In this case, the plaintiff (Madhuri Patel) used a take caste
Court found that this letter could not have created a mistaken belief in certificate to secure admission to an educational institutio(l. This
his father's mind about his ownership, as the father already knew the certificate gave her an advantage OVer other candJO.ates. She
true legal position. successfully got admitted and started her studies. However, when the
The third claim was related to defendant No.1 attesting his father's institution discovered that the caste certificate was fake, they canceled
will, which disposed of the suit properties. Court concluded that this her admission. This decision was based on the grounds that sbe.had
forged a crucial document required for admission.
action alone did not establish an estoppel.

Plaintiff Contention:-
In response to the cancellation of her admission, the plaintiff argued

48 Scanned by AdobeScanner
49
Law of Evidence
Topic 3: On Proof
that since the educational institution had inltiaJ.Ly~. accepted heri<J.ke
Fact:-
caste certificate and allowed her to get admission, they could not reLeqt
it later. She invoked the doctrine of estoppeL In this case, the appeilant candidate applied for admission to a Law
'.
College and submitted his MA mark sheet as part of hisapglication.
The college accepted his admission and he studied there Jar two years.
Issue:- The University even granted him admission cards for various exams,
Whether the appellant (plaintiff) can plead the doctrine of estoppel including the final year of the course.
'.
as per Section 115 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872? Later on, University had raised conce~ns about the appellant's
eligibility when the results forthepre anginltfrn1f3(jiatestag,es.QLtt:l?.Jaw
Supreme Court Observation & Decision:- CourS5Lw..eJearlilOllnced. University argued that the appellant did not
meet the necessary marK!E!.9..L!!Iem'§Dtsjn,..bJs~ry1.A.:...~xaminilljQn, which
Court held that it was legally valid to cancel the fake social
meant he should not have been?ilmHted._t()!bE!,I?.'N.~GQulse. The
certificate issued by the concerned Executive magistra!E3~~jhrQld£th the appellant had obtained only a few marks in a specific paper of his MA
scrutiny committee. The appellant (plaintiff) argued that her school and exam. So, University refusemcn)lJo1~lIhi'S'result,~_" '.'
college certificates should still be considerE;!cJ\@lis:i, but court disagreed. L ..-· ..·..-
Since her admission was based on forgE;!cJ_~cjQ~ldrrlE:lnt§J those certificates
held no value. As a result, the party who gained ac:jmissioDJQ~"the Appellant Contention:-
educational institution througbJraud.. was not allowed to continue her The appellant contended that by tSSLJ1!J.fL,!b2.~ admit card Clnd
stuc:jiesJher.e, as she couLdn't rely_on the principle of estoppel to justify all()l,\IinfLb.L~~tQ_~,e2E3Clr:..inJbE!~(3x.Clnlif]Cltig,n, the Un iversitlThaa 'give n the
her clairT{. impression that his admission was valid and accepted. The appellant
In summary, Court upheld the cancellation. of the. fake social argued that it was the responsibility of the University to thoroughly
certificate and stated that the fraudulent admission nullified the validity review and verify his admission status prior to allowing him to
anne school and college certiflc"ates.Consequentiy, the party involved participate in the examination.
in the fraud was not permitted to pursue her. studi.e§j[l,.Jb.e. same
educational institLitTo'n;as-UieprTncTpJe of2~tQQP.erdJ~.oot apf)I)!. in her Issue:-
case.
Whether the University legally barred from refLJsjn9. . toQ~.9.a('lLtbe
appellant.$C22@1Jin?tior]J§§LJIts or preventlng him from pursuingbisfLoal
Sanatan Gauda V. Berhampur University, year course based on the principle of estoppel?
AIR 1990 SC 1075
© Reserved with Aasim Yezdani Supreme Court Observation & Decision:-
(Section involved: - Section 115: Estoppel, lEA 1872) Supreme Court held that the University is lf3g~Clllyo..~li9C1tec! Jp
declare the appellant's examinatio ll LE!§_u~lt and allow him to continue
pursuing his final year cours§). This obligation arises from tbe principle
of est()ppelJh6 appellant had subm~lusz~\;Lb!§,mCl.rk.sbg~Lto,,:thEi,g()lI§l:ge
authority along withhi~appJication fOL .. Cl.dmisslon. Importantly, thE)
ap'pellant didnoLpmvide anyJgl;;E)infgrmation or withhoJd.anY:(f3levant
facts durin9!bisp~()9§S.$. '""'~"~~"
Court further added that it was the University's responsibility, to
thoroughly examine the appellant's eligibility foradmi;;sjon ~L~" ..,~
.. gr8:rlting him permission to appear in the examination. Since the
Scan thiS for explanation
University failed to canducta proper scrutin.)" they cannot now refuse t()

50 Scanned by AdobeScanner
51
 Law of Evidence
Topic 3: On Proof
publish the appellant's results. The court stated that it was the
University's duty to carefully review the appellant's academic prohibited from disclosing the letters,so no offense of detamation can
be established,
qualifications and ensure his eligibHftyf6Tthe course,
."'"
Based on these factors, Court concluded that the UniversityJs
e~t.c>PPSld from withholding the appellant's examination results ,or Issue:-
preYS?D!io,9..-bLmJmm pJJISuinghis final year course, The appellant 1) Whether there is a rule under Section 122 that communications
fulfilled his obligation by providing the necessary documents, and it was between a husband and wife during marriage are inadmissible as
the University's failure to scrutinize the matter adequately that led to the evidence L.-'-'
current situation, 2) Whether privilege continues even after marriage has been
dissolved by death or divorce?
M.C. Vergheese V. T.J. Ponnan, AIR 1970 SC 1876
© Reserved with Aasim Yezdani Supreme Court Observation & Decision:-
(Section involved: - Section 122: Communications during marriagEl' lEA 1872) Supreme Court held that under Section 122, lEA 1872,
communications between a husband and wife..gJJ[i.DiLI!LClrrlClg~.ClEe
For Judicial and inadmissible in eVidencl And this pr1.vi!ege90ntinues eVen. ,('[fter
Semester Exam marrTageh~as'beeri"aissoived by death or divorce",_
Exam Pressure Court further added that If the complainant (wife's father) relies
soiely on theevidencepJOvidecll:Jytt)~~ife .QUtJ§..1l.Q.CJ..lsru:J, he may face
a legal barrier. Section t2~,PLe.\!ent$ tbe disclosure. of communication
SECTlQN;t22
CQMMJ/NJCATlQNtl
made by,. a .husband to his wife in court. And it the wife appears as a
PURING MARRIAGI< witness and wants to share information about the communication from
her husband, it may nQ\lJ8 al,lowed without the husband's consent,
Scan this for explanation Court clarified that Section 122 of lEA, 1872, which deals with the
disclosure of comml!l1iCi:ltion between spouses, does not prohibit other.
Fact:- e~idence that is not covered by its provisions.~~~ .' . ' . . .
In this case, the husband wrote letters to his wife, which contained Thus even though the wife is debarred from deposing to the
defamatory statements about the complainant, who was the wife's contents of the letter, it can be proved by any third person, In this case,
father. The wife shared these letters~withher father, who then filed a father of wife can prove it in the court Thus, it can be said that the
defamation complain! based on the evidence of these letters, Tbe { communication between husband and wife by means of letter is
letters were currently in his possession and could be presented Cl? J?rotecledbY..Jhevirtue of Sec..,.122 lEA, 1872 but Father of wife can
evidence in court ~".".,." prove the corre$PQOdeflce (letter) in the court oflfl"\': .

Husband Contention:- State of U.P. V. Raj Narain, AIR 1975 SC 865

Husband contended that the letters that were the basis of the © Reserved with Aasim Yezdani
complaint were not admissible as evidence because Section 122, lEA (Section involved:· Section 123: Evidence as to affairs of State" lEA 1872)
1872 says letters addressed by a husband to his wife cannot be uSed
as evidence without the husband's consent Additionally, the act of a
husband speaking defamatory words to his wife does not count as Fact:-
·b5ublicationj' which is necessary to support a charge of defamatjpn, In this case, Raj Narain filed an election petition alleging misuse of
Since the~'only alleged publication was to the wife, and she is legally public finances by a political party for the re-election of the Prime

52 Scanned by AdobeScanner
53
Law of Evicience

Minister of India. He summoned the State Government of Uttar Pradesh

to produce a document called the Blue Book, containing security Topic 4:
guidelines for the protection of the Prime Minister during travel.
An official of the Home Security of Uttar Pradesh claimed a non-
Accomplice Evidence
disclosure privileg§l,lJnderSeQtiQ[l1230f the Evidence Act,whicFl'
protects unpublished official records related to affairs of State.
Section 133: Accomplice
© Reserved with Aasim Ye.zdani
Issue:-
Case involved
1) Whether the Blue Book qualifies as an unpublished government BhLiboni Sahli v. The King, AIR 1949 PC 257
record under Section 123 of the Evidence Act.
Haroon Haji Abdulla v. State of Maharasira, AIR 1975 SC, 856
2) Whether the government's failure to file an affidavit claiming
Ravinder Singh v. State of Haryana, AIR 1975 SC 856
privilege affected the disclosure of the Blue Book.

Meaning of Accomplice and Approver:-

Allahabad High Court Decision:-
When a crime is
Allahabad High Court ordered the production of the Blue Book, committed by a
stating it was notan ungublished reCor,d as some portions of Blue Book group of people
had been referred To"by the Union Government and a member of working together,
Parliament. The government als.§:pJdnoLspecLflLwhy disclosure would everyone involved is
be against public interesf' $.0.; The State Government of Uttar Pradesh
considered as
appealed to the SupremEtCourt. .' accomplice. Since
\/"/

conspirators plan
Supreme Court Decision:- and carry out their
Supreme Court considered the purpose of Section 123, which aims actions secretly and
to prevent harm to the pU,blic interest by disclosing government without leaving
documents, while also balancing the need for access to relevant much evidence, the
materials in the administration of justice. Court held that the Blue Book police often choose (Accomplice) (Accomplice) (Accomplice)
could not be considered published solely because some parts had been one of them to
disclosed by other government entities. It stated that the Court had the become a witness. This person is granted a pardon under Section 306
PQW~rto. disallow privilege claims if exceptional circumstances of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), on the condition that he will
demanded,vv'efghing the public interest served by disclosure against provide evidence against their former partners in the crime. This
non-disclosure. . individual is then referred to as an approver. By becoming an approver,
Supreme Court ;;lHirl1le.c:I..... tb~ High Court's judgment due to the an accomplice transforms into a prosecution witness. He appears in
government's failure to timely claim privilege through an affidavit. Court court and testify against the accused persons he collaborated with in
noted that privilege exists but can be waived, except when it ..bflrms committing the crime.
public interest, and emphasized the need for adequate inquiry before
deciding on privilege claims. Exception to Accomplice (Person who will not be treated as
In summary, Supreme Court upheld the HigJl Court's decision to accomplice):-
order the production of the Blue Book b.ec;;luse the government failed to 1) A witness who is not involved in the crime being charged is not
timely claim non- disclosure privilege and did not provide sufficient considered an accomplice.
reasons for withholding it.
2) If a person commits a crime under threat or pressure and unwillingly
54 Scanned by AdobeScanner
55
Law of Evidence
Topic 4: Accomplice Evidence
participates, they are not seen as a willing accomplice,
3) A witness who only knows about a crime, witnesses it, or fails to Bhuboni Sahu v. The King, AIR 1949 PC 257
disclose it out of fear is not considered an accomplice, © Reserved with Aasim Yezdani
4) Detectives, paid informers, and trap witnesses are not accomplices (Section involved ~ Section 133, lEA 1872)
but rather interested witnesses,

Evidentiary Value of Accomplice Evidence:-

An accomplice is to be considered a competent witness under
Section .133, of Indian Evidence Act 1872, However,thereisaquestion
of whether the approver, as an accomplice, is a reliabl~jYitne§3?-, The
fact that the approver~hasbeen inv:oTvea~·in-th~GFfme-Faise&dC}ubts.
about the credibility of his testimony. Since accomplice evidence is
considered tainted, Courts are cautious about accepting it as the most Scan this for explanation
reliable evide~nCe:'
Fact:-
Necessity of Corroboration: Corroboration is a rule of Caution:- In this case.' ~ight individuals were charged with murder. Four of
them were acqUitted. ....
Corroboration isthe provision ofadditional evidence or testimony
that'suppbTfs'ancr:ati.aciittieosIhe,'credrBifirYbf'a witness's statemen!. On~ ?f the remai~ing accused (Bhuboni Sahu) persons appealed
Corroboration is a rule of caution when dealing with the evidence the decIsion to the Pnvy Council. The evidence against the appellant
provided by an accomplice. When it is determined that a witness is an were ...
accomplice, his testimony is viewed with caution and additional (a) Testimony from an accQmpiige who had participated in t.he murder
evidence is sought to support his statements. The requirement for and .Iater be?ame an appr.olJ~r (someone who testifies against their
corroboration has evolved from a rule of caution to a rule of law over ~()-acgld.sgd In exchange for a lenient punishment).. .
time. The purpose of corroboration is tQ..,~?tablish the credibility and
(b) '~"""
A confession from another acc s d (T . "
r~liabilityoLthe.accompUce's testim()nybyconfTrming the main-points of . u e person nnath) that Implicated
both themselves and the appellant.
h!§statemeot.With other.evidence. The main reason why corroboration
is necessary is as following .... (c) The recovery of ~ cloth worn by the deceased and a khantibadi (a
1) An accomplice is a participant in the actual commission of a crime, tool use? f~r cutt~ng grass) under circumstances that supported the
accomplice s testimony. . ....
which taints the source of his evidence.
2) His testimony is not viewed with the same respect as that of a law-
Issue:-
a bi di ng.citizen,
3) The accomplice has betrayed his companions and may also betray 1) Can a ~onvic~ion be based. solely on the testimony of an
the court by att!3mp}irigJoshlftfhe blame to others. ~~<::compllce, With no other eVidence except the confession of a
co-accused?
4) There is a risk that the accomplice may fabricate a story that
wrongly implicates innocent individuals along with the guilty,
5) If the accomplice hgs been granted pardon as an approver, he has Privy Council reply on 1st issue:-
received a favor from the state and may be inclined to support the , Court held that When convicting someone based solely on the
state's case. eVidence of an accomplice supported only by the confession of a co-
accused, 9§utlonlS n,eces.sary. While it is legally justified under Section
133, but there are risks Involved. The accomplice is typically of bad
56 Scanned by AdobeScanner
57
Law of Evidence
Topic 4: Accomplice Evidence
character having participated in the offense and betraying his
associate~ to save himself. He may tell a partially true story, including Haroon Hajl Abdulla V. State of Maharastra,
oath accura.te and false details. He could implicate innocent individuals AIR 1975 se 856
along with the guilty oneS. This tendency to include the innocent is © Reserved with Aasim Yezdani
prevalent in India, making it difficult for the court to p~event such errors. (Section involved:- Section 133. lEA 1872)
Indian villagers often struggle to provide strong alibi eVidence, relYing
on interested testimonies from family or friends. To C\Y:9J9.",YY1~9ngful ~:i<ir\i~iiiCiiii arid~:

~[!] LIj"
convictions, it is crucial to demand indepenaenT'''evidence 1 that :.Sem'ester.exom\.
- ~~ • i' -~"''' .... "'" "":

irrfpTrcates eacn accused to some extent.

"'!'P
""Ir

[!]~ ";5
II.
2) Is it permissible for an accomplice to provide corroborative ~ ::1 ."
evidence to support his own testimony?

nd
Privy Council reply on 2 issue:- Scan this for explanation
Court held that a statement made under Section 164 of the Criminal
Procedure Code cannot be used as direct evidence of the facts stated. Fact:-
However, it can be used to support or challenge the testimony given in This case involving a criminal conspiracy to smuggle gold into India
court by the person who made the statement. The statement ma?~ by from the Middle East. The accused individuals, including Haroon
an approver under Section 164 does not serve as sufflcl~n.t (appellant), were allegedly involved Tri'this conspiracy. The case relies
corroboration for an'accomp!fce's evidence, as courts requ,lre heavily on the testimony of an accomplice named Kashin.a~h, whose
independe01J:;Ql:robQratiQEJn~ignificant details. An ac?omplice can~ot statement is supported by statements made by Bengali and Noar
corroborate his own testimony because tainted eVidence remains Mohammad to the Customs Officers. High Court convicted the appellant
tainted even when repeated. (Haroon). So matter came before Supreme Court.

Privy Council Decision:- Appeliant Contention:-

Court held that the evidence of the approveraloE~'. supported solely Appellant contended that there is no legal evidence connecting
by Trinath's confession, .9annot be rene'a'upon. They h,ad e~ough Haroon to the others. He questioned the admissibility and probative
0PQQ~tunity tocoordinate their statements, and. the approver. s testlm9ny value olthe statements made by Bengali and Noor Mohammad, as well
itself contradiCts his own earlier statements. Tnnath has denied the trLlto, as Kashinath's previous statement. He argued that his conviction is
of nis confession. Although m~~r~ )SliO clear motive for falsely based soiel~ on the uncorroborated testimony of an accompliCe:
impffca1fngtl1'e appellant, motives can be speculative. It's possible that
the two men chose to falsely claim they were acting on someone else's
instructions rather than their own, or they may have personal reasons Supreme Court Observation & Decision:-
for hiding the true instigator's identity. Consequently, the convicti2Dgf Supreme Court considered the deposition of Kashinath and found it
the appellant CClr1nQt~upheld. credible. Court aiso examined the statements of Bengali and Noor
.Mohammad which mention Haroon's involvement in the smuggling.
These state'ments were deemed admissible as 'they were found to be
voluntary and not made under threat Q[ promise. Bengali's statement
was considered legal corroboration of Kashinath's testimony: However,
there is difficulty regarding Noor Mohammad's statement since his trial
was separated. and court did not rely on it.
58 Scanned by AdobeScanner
,,9
Law of Evidence
Topic 4: Accomplice Evidence
Overall, Court found Kashinath's testimony credible, and the supreme Court Observation & Decision:-
statements of Bengali and Noor Mohammad were considered relevant
at]d corroborative. Based on the provisions of Section 133, Court Supreme Court found the approver's statement to be credible and
decided not to interfere in this appeal by special leave and upheld the trustworthy. The approver's testLmQmCwascouo.bruatedbyjndependent
veracity of Kashinath's statements. Therefore, the appeal failed and witn ~'§'~,~~\o\f.bQ2§,vy.t~eacQlJ:')e<ii n.~Q~.g2.rTlpan ygf the .deceased. in the
was dismissed. train. This supportedthef§cJJhat the accused and the deceased were
together.
beforeJh.ecrirne
. '-- .
-~,-~~,.~. ,~,~".
.. was.c.omm.itte9 .
" ., '-.

Furthermore, the subsequent ,Qeh§\J.igl'"qrld conduct of the accused

Ravinder Singh v. State of Haryana, indicate.d his guilty mind. The motive behind the'crlme 'w'as'Tdentifledas
AIR 1975 SC 856 theaccused's illicit relationship with another woman, which provided a
© Reserved with Aasim Yezdani strong motive for him to commit the murder.
(Theory Involved:- Approver) In reaching its decision, Court applied the test for an approver's
testimony. Court held that for the approver's statement to be valid the
story he narrates must involve him, appear to be a ngt~·i3.ran·dr)rQb§l::Jle
"'-~.·I'"
I!!J. ~
P". : -: • I., t ......
II I sequence of eyents, and implicate the accused in a manner that leads
to the conclusion of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.,. .

~~
Based on these factors, Supreme Court concluded that the
approver':') statement met the necessary criteria and implicated the

L!J ~ i./lffl:.
c:lccused in the crime beyond reasonable doubt. As a result, the
acci:iseCl was found guilty of murder and convicted accordingly.
Scan this for explanation

Fact:-
In this case, the accused and his friend conspired to commit th.e.
Qrirne. They both worked in the Air Force and were close friend.' The
hUSt:>C1D.dbedclJ] affair and wanted a divorce, but his wife refused. One
?~~~~~.Cl,nd,wife and his -frTend;-aiOr;g' with cousin, took a train
Journey: During the journey, the husQgnd,Cl,t!Cl,cked hisyvife, with the
help of his friend and cousin.. They threw acid on her mouth, and then
threw her from the running train thereby caused her death. The
husband and his friend returned to work but were arrested. The main
evidence came from the friend of the husband. His friend turned
p'pprover and revealed theaccused's involvement with . another woman..

Issue:-
The reliability of the approver's statement and whether it was
corroborated by independent witnesses.

60
61 Scanned by AdobeScanner
 Topic 5. Witnesses: Competence and Examinations

Topic 5: 3) When corroboration is required, it doesn't have to confirm every

detail, but it should provide additional evidence supporting the
Witnesses: Competence and Examinations child's story and linking the accused to the crime.
4) Corroboration should ideally come from independent sources, and
Section 118: Child Witness the testimony of one child witness may not be sufficient to
corroborate another's.
© Reserved with Aasim Yezdani
5) The corroboration doesn't have to directly prove the accused's guilt
(Questions are asked in short Notes)
but can be circumstantial evidence connecting them to the crime.

Competency of Child witness:-

Word meaning in legal term
1) Section 118 states that Yes /~ I can
a child witness is • Tutoring means to teach or guide usually individually for a
• You are. ( . understand
competent if he can particular purpose
everything. Am i
understand and answer a competent • Demeanour means a person's outward behavior-the way they act,
questions rationally. ~-----.~ ~tness? speak, and express themselves.
2) There is no specific age JUDGE ".j "\("
limit; the determining
factor is the child's ..
:iIio. i {I'.:'1\ Section 119 Witness unable to communicate verbally
ability to understand
and speak the truth.
1
._.~:LliJl'
d.M

CHILD
(Dumb Witness)
© Reserved with Aasim Yezdani
3) The child's intelligence (Questions are asked in short Notes)
and appreciation of the
duty to tell the truth are the key factors. According to Bare Act, Section 119, lEA 1872 says "A witness who
4) The court allows a child of tender age to testify if he has the is unable to speak may give his evidence in any other manner in which
intellectual capacity to understand and answer questions. he can make it intelligible, as by writing or by signs; but such writing
5) The evidence of a child witness is not automatically rejected, but must be written and the signs made in open Court, evidence so given
the court scrutinizes it closely for quality and reliability. shall be deemed to be oral evidence,"
6) Convictions can be based on the testimony of a child witness if the In simple words we can say, Section 119 of the law addresses the
court is convinced of its credibility. testimony of deaf and dumb individuals in court. In the past, they were
considered as mentally deficient, but modern science has revealed their
intelligence and capacity for higher culture. When a deaf and dumb
Corroboration of a child's testimony:- person appears as a witness, the court must carefully determine if they
(Corroboration is the provision of additional evidence or testimony possess the necessary intelligence and understanding of an oath. Once
that supports and strengthens the credibility of a witness's statement.) satisfied, the witness can be sworn in, and their evidence can be
communicated through an interpreter using the deaf and dumb alphabet
1) If a child's statement is credible, shows no signs of tutoring and
signs. This is the common practice today. If the witness can effectively
their demeanour appears truthful, corroboration may not be
communicate through writing, they may be asked to do so. However, if
necessary.
their writing skills are limited, they can testify using signs. The court
2) The court examines each case individually to determine if aims to ensure a fair process while accommodating the unique needs of
corroboration is needed, considering factors such as the child's deaf and dumb witnesses.
age, behavior, and likelihood of being influenced.

62 Scanned by AdobeScanner
63
Law of Evidence
Topic 5: Witnesses: Competence and Examinations

Importance of Section 119, lEA 1872 State of Bihar v. Laloo Prasad (2002) 9 see 626
1) Section 119 applies to witnesses who cannot speak due to physical @ Reserved with J\asim Yezdani
deformity or have taken a vow of silence.
(Section involved - Section 137 & 154, lEA 1872)
2) Witnesses who have taken a religious vow of silence can provide
their evidence in writing in open court, respecting their commitment.
3) For deaf-mute witnesses, the court verifies their intelligence and
ssur(;
understanding of an oath before examination.
aIiCTlfJN.ii14
4) Deaf-mute witnesses can respond to written questions or use signs (HOSTILE_WITHES$)
made in open court to communicate. ~"n'"
","H"'~"'"
_'\
.....
y .... :.:.:'''~ .,

5) This approach ensures transparency and accountability in court

proceedings while accommodating witnesses with speech
disabilities or religious commitments. Scan this for explanation

Fact:-
Section 137 & 138
In this case, during a trial, prosecution witness provided testimony
Examination, Examination~in-chief, Cross-examination, that contradicted the prosecution's case. The witness stated that he had
and Re-examination executed a document in 1993, which differed from the prosecution's
© Reserved with Aasim Yezdani claim. The public prosecutor did not request permission from the court
Case involved to question the witness during cross- examination.
State of Bihar V. Laloo Prasad (2002) 9 SCC 626 However, the adverse party cross-examined the witness, and
during this process. the witness provided additional details about how
he received the consideration. After the cross-examination, the public
Section 137 of lEA, 1872 defines examination-in-chief, cross- prosecutor requested permission to treat the witness as hostile, as the
examination, and re-examination. All three stages are collectively answers given during cross-examination favored the defense. Trial
known as Examination. It is a requirement that a witness undergo all Court refused to grant the permission and High Court did not interfere
three stages. If the opposite party is unlawfully denied the opportu~lty to Trail Court's decision. So, matter came before Supreme Court.
cross-examine the witness or the party who called the witness IS not
allowed to re-examine, the examination is considered incomplete. Issue:-
1) Definition of Examination-in-chief: The examination of a witness, Can the party who calls a witness seek permission from the court,
by the party who calls him, shall be called his examination-in-chief. as specified in Section 154, at any point during thE?~c€lxami(1,ati.on?
~V" :""
2) Definition of Cross-examination: The examination of a witness by / (, F'
Supreme Court Observation & Decision:- \,"""",",1 j
the adverse party shall be called his cross-examination.
3) Definition of Re-examination: The examination of a witness, Supreme Court held that the party who calls a witness has the
subsequent to the cross-examination by the party who called him, option t9 seek permissionfromthe court at any stag~ oJ ,the
shall be called his re-examination. examination. However, it is up tothe~0Qurt'sd[scretion tog[~nt or deny
the permission. Usually, If the public prosecutor requests permission to
cross-question a witness called by them, the court tends to" grant it. The
Example of Examination-in-chief, Cross-examination, and Re- public prosecutor can express his iaclsof[(3lianc€lQnthewitrwss's
examination :- testimony through different means as provided by Section 154, or he
In a murder case, the prosecution calls his eye witness named can inform the court during the final arguments that they are not relying
on the witness's evidence. Supreme Court upheld Trial Court decision.
64 Scanned by AdobeScanner
67
 Topic 6: Presumptions
Topic 6: 4) It simplifies legal proceedings by avoiding the need for extensive
evidence and allowing for a straightforward determination of
Presumptions legitimacy.
5) The presumption of legitimacy protects the child's rights, including
Section 112: Birth during marriage, conclusive proof of inheritance rights and social status, by ensuring legal recognition as
the legitimate offspring of the husband.
legitimacy (Legitimacy of Child)
6) Section 112 also sets a standard for establishing paternity, requiring
© Reserved with Aasim Yezdani
clear evidence to overcome the presumption of legitimacy, such as
Case involved demonstrating that the parties had no opportunity for cohabitation
Goutam Kundu V. State of West Bengal, AIR 1993 SC 2295 during the relevant period.
• Dipanwita Roy V. Ronobroto Roy, AIR 2015 SC 418 7) This provision helps to maintain the integrity of marital relationships
and discourages baseless challenges to paternity.
Section 112 of lEA, 1872 simply says that. .... 8) Overall, Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, provides a
practical and efficient framework for determining the legitimacy of a
1) If a child is born while his
child while safeguarding the interests of all parties involved.
mother is married to a man, Don't cry my son.
or within 280 days after Section 112 of lEA will
their marriage is legally . prove your legitimacy. / ' Goutam Kundu V. State of West Bengal,
ended and the mother ~/-"~ AIR 1993 SC 2295
remains unmarried, it is
considered strong evidence
'--
~
/ /
r (He Is not m Y
\\ legitimate !
1 © Reserved with Aasim Yezdani
that the child is the V ' ~n. / (Section involved:- Section 112, lEA 1872)
legitimate son of the ~~/
husband. ...
2t.'This presumption of
,fo'/ legitimacy can only be
challenged if it can be
proven'That the husband
and wife did not have any Wife Husband
opportunity to be together
and conceive the child during the relevant period.
Scan this for explanation
Importance of Section 112 of lEA, 1872:-
1) Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, plays a crucial role in Fact, Issue and Judgement:-
establishing the legitimacy of a child in cases of disputed paternity. In this case, a man wanted to prove that he was not the biological
2) It provides a strong legal presumption that a child born during a father. Of <:1_ chllc;!jil_9!geLlo._'1'LQLCUinanc;iill reSPQnslRili!yfQr the. ehrig's
valid marriage or within 280 days after its dissolution is the support; he requested a blood test. However, the court did not accept
legitimate child of the husband. his request. Court said that the only way to challenge the presumption
3) The section offers stability and certainty to family relationships by of paternity under Section 112 (a legal provision) is by providing
creating a conclusive proof of paternity in most cases. evidence that there was no possibility of having physical relations (non-
access) during the time of conception. Biomedical evidence such as
68 Scanned by AdobeScanner
69
Law of Evidence
Topic 5: Witnesses: Competence and Examinations
blood tests or DNA tests cannot be used to challenge this legitimacy of
Aasim and questions his own witness Aasim about the details of the
a child.
crime. Aasim testifies that he witnessed the accused, Ravi, stabbed the
Court further added that... victim at 10 pm in a coffee shop near DU Campus. This is Examination-
1) In India, Courts do not automatically order blood tests in ,paternity in-Chief.
cases. Now Ravi's defense lawyer challenges Aasim's (prosecution's
2) If someone requests a blood test without a strong reason, just to witness) testimony by questioning his visibility at the crime scene
investigate or doubt paternity, Court will not consider it suggesting that it was dark and difficult to identify the assailant. This i~
3) To challenge the presumption of p(lternity under Section 112, the Cross- Examination.
husband must provide strong evidence that he couldn't have had .After t~en. prosecution again seeks to clarify Aasim's visibility by
physical relations (non-access) with the mother of child\,/••. J asking Aaslm If there were any sources of light present or if he had a
4) Court carefully considers the potential consequences' of a blood clear view of the incident. Aasim explains that there was sufficient
li~hting ~nd he ~ad a direct line of sight to the crime scene, confirming
test, as it ma~.. ~~~.'3:irl.xIC:~E)lthElc;bilc:i a~ilIegitimCltEl . .<:lnd the moth~..
hiS prevIous testimony. This is Re-Examination.
as unfaithful.
. , •
5) Anyone cannot be forced to undergo blood tests because it goe§ Apart from this, Section 138 of lEA, 1872 sets the order in which
these questioning phases occur and specifies their limits. These orders
against his personal liberiy.j'...·
"'_""".<4F
are ...
1) Firstly, Examination-in-chief;
Dipanwita Roy V. Ronobroto Roy, 2) Secondly, Cross-examination;
AIR 2015 SC 418 3) and thirdly, Re-examination.
© Reserved with Aasim Yezdani It is important to notes that the examination and cross-examination
(Section involved:- Section 112, lEA 1872) must relate to relevant facts but the cross-examination need not to be
confined to the facts which the witness testified on his examination-in-
chief.
The re-examination shall be directed to the explanation of matters
referred to in cross-examination, and if new matter by permission of the
Court, introduced in re- examination, the adverse party may further
cross-examine upon tilat matter.

wm Court Section 154: Hostile Witness

allow DNA
Tost? © Reserved with Aasim Yezdani
Scan this for explanation
Case involved
• State of Bihar V. Laloo Prasad (2002) 9 see 626
Fact:-
In this case, a petition for divorce was filed by the husband,
Ronobroto Roy, against his wife, Dipanwita Roy, under Section 13 of A hostile witness is someone who does not want to tell the truth or
the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The husband alleged that his wife had an support the party who called him as a witnesp. In Indian law, the term
adulterous lifestyle and made various accusations against her, including "hostile witness" is not officially used. A witness who has been
incurring heavy debts, living in an extramarital relationship, and giving influenced by the opposing part~ is also considered hostile.
~V
birth to a child as a result of that relationship.

70 Scanned by AdobeScanner
65
Law of Evidence
Topic 6: Presumptions
In simple words we
High Court Decision;-
can say, a witness may /";he is a-
0
O

The wife denied these allegations, stating that she had a continuous
• \

make statemenls that go i Hostile .

against the ihterests Of
\
\, Witlless./
i
marital relations.hlp with her husband and that the accusations were
/ ./ '.........~-~, ~--_/ false. The husband sought a DNA test to prove that the child born to the
the party who called him;
In such cases, it wife was nol}lj§) and the Family Courtfnitially dismisse.d this request.
Ho\,iVever;'the husband appealed to the High Court, which ordered a
becomes important for
that party to cross- DNA test to be conducted.
examine the witness and
challenge his statements. Wife contention and appeal before Supreme Court:-
Section 154 of lEA, 1872 The wife approached the Supreme Court through .a special leave
allows the court to permit petition':chaJienging the High J:~ollr:i:~Qr9.§f. She argued that Section
the party who called the 1J.2 of the indian Evidence Act establishes a conclusive presumj:>tion of
witness to ask him ~9~ir11acy for.a chi.ld born duringa valid marriag.~LJ1(lJ\ij·sit @U]i.e
questions as. if he. was Adv. Aasim his witness Judge
sh~9.YYD thatttle parties had no access to'eaCh'oth_E?L .?tt.Qe time of
being cross-examined by Zaara
conception. The wife relies on previous court decisions to support her
the opposing party. argument against the DNA test. "- .
This section is based on the principle that a witness should not be
given more credibility than he deserves, regardless of whichp.?:rI$l5§'is·
Issue:-
assoctatedwTth:. Cr6ss-examfnationunder this section.. involves asking
leading questions, referring to the witness's previous written statements, \tYb?ther DNA Test should be conducted to ~f
and questioning"his truthfulness or credibility. a child? '

Conditions when a witness cannot be said to be hostile:- Supreme Court Observation & Decision:-
1. A witness is not considered hostile just because his. testimony Supreme ~9urt agreed that a DNAtest is necessary toestab.llshJhe
dQe,SD'Ls~PJlQ!L the party th?t called him or conflicts with other truth in this rtil?tt.E?T. It is considered a reliable .and scientjficalJ),c~accurate
witnesses' evidence. \
method to cJtt!3rmin?paterniIY. However, Court also recognised the
2. If a witness is not brought forward because the party fears they wife's right to eithE;lrcomply l,Vith or disregard the court's or.dar_toLthe
might be unfavorable, he can't be labeled as hostile. [)NA test. If sh~,.,CigrEl?S to thetes'f, it will GonCIOsiveIY. determine
whether or not the. husband's accusation of inJideJity is true. On the
3. Giving inconsistent or contradictory answers doesn't automatically
other hand, if she refu§estoundexgo.... tl18...,test, Court can draw a
make a witness hostile, such as when he tells a different story in
presumption based on the evidence presented and make a decision
court compared to what he said before a Magistrate. based on that presumption.
In simple words, Supreme Court su[)[)ortE?cl the husband'sreqyesJ
for a DNA test to prove his claim of infidelity against the wife. However,
the wife has the choice to either take the test or not. If she agrees, the
test will determine the truth. If she refuses, Court can still make a
decision based on the available evidence and assume infidelity:

Infidelity means the act of not being faithful to your wife or husband by
having a sexual relationship with somebody else.

66 Scanned by AdobeScanner
71
 Oelhi University Previous Year Questions with Solution

Delhi University 1. It applies to statements ClI actions made by any member of a

conspiracy, not just the person accuseci.
Previous Year Questions with Solution 2. The "comrnon design" t'EJfers to the shared objective or plan agreed
upon by the conspimtors.
3. To be adrnissible as evidence, the statement or action must be
01. X supplied to Y explosives sufficient to blow up a bridge. Y,
made or done in furtherance of the conspiracy. This means that it
together with Z, utilized the explosive for the purpose of
must be related to promoting or adv2,ncing tile unlawful objective of
blowing up the bridge. But the attempt was unsuccessful. Next
the conspiracy. .
following day, Y sent a letter to X describing the unsuccessful
attempt to blow up the bridge and further asked him to supply 4. This section allows for the admission of evidence that reveals the
another consignment of explosives. The said letter was statements or actions of a conspirator, as long as they are in
intercepted by the police, which consequently arrested all furtherance of the conspiracy.
three of them. Later in case of conspiracy to blow up the said 5. By conSidering such evidence as relevant, the section helps
bridge, the prosecution wants to use the said letter of Y as establish the existence of a conspiracy and supports the
against Z and X. Will it succeed. Discuss? prosecution in proving the involvement of the conspirators in
(LLB. /I Semester Examination July-August 2021. Subject: pursuing their unlawful objectives.
Evidence Law Paper Code: LB-201) The relevant case law related with aforesaid situation is as follow ....

Instructions for how to answer Mirza Akbar V. Emperor, AIR 1940 PC 176
Demand of the question is ..... (Case explained on my YouTube channel 'Exam Pressure' in playlist
1) Relevant Theory or Section. 'Law of Evidence')
2) Relevant Case Laws (it is advisable to write 2 relevant case laws,
but do not write unnecessary case laws just to fill the answer Fact:-
sheet). In this case, the prosecution alleges that Mehr Teja, the wife of Ali
3) Judgement of relevant case law must support your opinion in the Askar, and her paramour, Mirza Akbar, conspired to murder Ali Askar,
given situation. Mehr Teja's husband. It is further claimed that they hired a sharpshooter
4) Student's own opinion or decision in the given situation. named Umer Sher to carry out the murder. Umer Sher was caught in
the act of murdering Ali Askar. Mirza Akbar arrived at the scene and
5) Conclusion
pleaded for Umer Siler's innocence, citing the absence of a motive.
6) Do not focus on quantity of your answer, just focus on quality of Mehr Teja, Mirza Akbar, and Umer Sher all were prosecuted for the
your answer. charges of murder and conspiracy to murder.
7) For 20 marks question, 6 to 7 page is sufficient. Sec- 120B, IPC Punishment for criminal conspiracy
Sec- 302, IPC Punishment for Murder
Answer with one case law by the Author (Aasim Yezdani) Sec- 10, lEA Things said or done by Conspirator in
The aforesaid question is related with section 10 of Indian evidence reference to common design \ /
Act which talks about relevancy of criminal conspiracy. Section 10 of
the Indian Evidence Act states that things said or done by a conspirator
in reference to the common design are considered relevant if they were
Evidence against them:-
said or done in furtherance of the conspiracy. 1) The main evidence of the conspiracy between Mehr Teja (Wife) and
her paramour, Mirza Akbar, were certain letters where they

72 Scanned by AdobeScanner
73
Law of Evidence
Delhi Universiry Previolls Year Questions with Solution
expressed their deep love for· each other and mentioned money and
the category of a statement made by a conspirator in reference to a
means, likely related to the murder of Ali Askar (husband).
common design (Section 10 of the Indipn Evidence Act, 1872). The
2) Mehr Teja (Wife) also made statements before a magistrate after letter demonstrates '('s involvement in the conspiracy and his
her arrest on the charge of conspiracy. communication With X regarding the unsuccessful attempt to blow up
the bridge. Since Z and X are also implicated in the conspiracy, the
Issue:- letter can be used as evidence against them to establish their
participation and knowledge of the plot.
Relevancy of aforesaid two evidences under sec- 10 of Indian Evidence
Act 1872.
Conclusion:-
Court Observation:- . In the case of the unsuccessful attempt to blow up the bridge,
wnere Y sent a letter to X describing the incident and requesting more
Court Observed thaL. explosives, the letter serves as proof of their involvement and further
1) Sec-120A, IPC 1860:- (Definition of criminal conspiracy),When two supports the charge of conspiracy. Therefore, the prosecution is likely
or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done,- (1) an illegal to succeed in using the letter as evidence against Z and X.
act, or (2) an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an
agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy:
Note:-
2) Sec- 10, lEA 1872:-Things said or done by conspirator in reference
There are 4 Case Laws on Section 10 of lEA, 1872 in our case mate
to common design. (Relevancy of criminal Conspiracy)
namely ...
Mirza Akbar V. Emperor, AIR 1940 PC 176
Court Decision:-
Badri Rai v. State of Bihar, AIR 1958 SC 953
Court held that ...
Mohd. Khalid v. State of W. B. (2002) 7 SCC 334
1) The letters were considered relevant evidence under Section 10 of
Central Bureau of Investigation v. V.C. Shukla, AIR 1998 S C 1406
the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 because their content indicated a
conspiracy between Mehr Teja (wife) and Mirza Akbar (paramour)
to cause the death of Ali Askar (husband). These letters were But according to the given situation in the question 'Mirza Akbar V.
written during the ongoing conspiracy and served the purpose of Emperor, AIR 1940 PC 176', seems more relevant to put in the answer.
achieving their objective. If you want to put another case law to add in your answer, then 'Central
2) However, the statement made by Mehr Teja (wife) to the magistrate Bureau of Investigation v. V.C. Shukla, AIR 1998 S C 1406' case will be
was deemed irrelevant under Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act, another relevant case Law because it also talks about the criminal
1872. This is because the statement was given after the Conspiracy through letter (i.e. Diary entry). But this case will contradict
conspiracy's objective had already been achieved and had come to your opinion in the given question. You may use both cases.
an end.
Q2.ln case involving Robbery and Murder, X, one of the accused
On comparing the above judgement with the given situation we can person, told ,"I am wearing a pant which I washed after the
commission of crime" while other accused Y said" I can show
say that. ..
you the place where the looted property has been kept". The
property was recovered from the place of hiding. Can
The prosecution can use the letter sent by Y to X as evidence statement made by X and Y be said to be confession?
against both Z and X in the case of conspiracy to blow up the bridge. (LL.B. /I Semester Examination July-August 2021. Subject:
According to the Evidence Act, the letter is admissible as it falls under Evidence Law Paper Code: LB-201)
74 Scanned by AdobeScanner
75
Law of Evidence {)elhi University Previous Year Questions with Solution
Instructions for how to answer confession made by any person whilst he is in the custody of a police-
Demand of the question is ..... officer, unless it be made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate,
1) Relevant Theory or Section. shall be proved as against such person.
2) Relevant Case Laws (it is advisable to write 2 relevant case laws, The relevant case law related with aforesaid situation is as follow ....
but do not write unnecessary case laws just to fill the answer
sheet). Aghnoo Nagesia v. State of Bihar, AIR 1966 SC 119
3) Judgment of relevant case law must support your opinion in the (Case explained on my YouTube channel 'Exam Pressure' in playlist
given situation. 'Law of Evidence')
4) Student's own opinion or decision in the given situation.
5) Conclusion Fact:-
6) Do not focus on quantity of your answer, just focus on quality of In this case, the accused went to the police station and confessed
your answer. that he killed some people. The police registered a case against the
7) For 20 marks question, 6 to 7 page is sufficient. accused under Section 302 of IPC and arrested him. Based on this
information, the police found the dead bodies and the weapon used in
the crime. In the present situation First Information Report (FIR) filed by
Answer with two case laws by the Author (Aasim Yezdani) the police was the only evidence against him.
In the aforesaid question it is not clearly mentioned that whether
both accused are confessing their crime before police or they are
already in police custody while making this confession. So, Section 25 Issue:-
and 26 of Indian Evidence Act will play the crucial role in their acquittal Can the accused be convicted for the charge of murder on the
or conviction. Apart from this Section 27 of lEA will help to support the ground of aforesaid evidence?
answer.
According to Bare Act, Section 25 of lEA 1872 says, no confession Supreme Court Observation & Decision:-
made to a police-officer, shall be proved as against a person accused of
Supreme Court observed that...
any offence.
1) Section 25 of lEA 1872:- No confession made to a police officer
In Simple way ... shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence.
1) Section 25 of the lEA, states that confessions made to a police
Court held that a confession may contain different aspects and
officer cannot be used as evidence against an accused person. provide information beyond just admitting to the crime. It may also
2) Confessions refer to statements where a person admits guilt or include details about the motive, intention, provocation, opportunity,
involvement in a criminal offence. preparation, weapon used, hiding the weapon, and the subsequent
3) This section aims to protect the accused from potential coercion or behaviour of the accused. In summary, a confession can provide a
improper influence during the process of obtaining a confession. comprehensive account of the crime and the circumstances
surrounding it.
4) Confessions made to police officers are considered unreliable due
to the possibility of undue pressure, intimidation, or coercion. 2) Section 27 of lEA 1872:- It talks about how much information
5) Section 25 highlights the importance of preserving the rights of the received from accused may be proved.
accused and promoting a fair trial by excluding confessions Court further added that the accused call not be found guilty based
obtained in a manner that may compromise their reliability or solely on the evidence presented, which only establishes that the
legality. accused had knowledge of the location of the dead bodies and
And According to Bare Act, Section 26 of lEA 1872 says, no weapons. This evidence does not conclusively prove the accused's guilt

76 Scanned by AdobeScanner
77
Law of Evidence
Delhi University P(evious Year Questions with Solution
or innocence. When there are different interpretations of the evidence,
and one interpretation favour's the accused, that interpretation should On comparing trw above judgement with the given situation we can
say that. ..
be given preference which favour's the accused. Therefore, the
accused was acquitted and found not guilty of the murder charges. , In the given sritU?tiO~ of case involving robbery and murder, neither
X s ~tatement no, Y s STatement can be considered confessions under
S.ectlon 2.5 or 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 if both of them have
The other relevant case law related with present situation is as
given their st~tements .either before police or while they were in police
follow ...
custody. And Just pOinting out the location of the concealed article is not
considered suffiCient information under section 27 of lEA, 1872. So, X's
Bodhraj v. State of J. &K. (2002) 8 see 45 ~tat~ment about washing the pants after the crime does not directly
(Case explained on my YouTube channel 'Exam Pressure' in playlist
adml~ to the commission of the offence and V's statement about
'Law of Evidence') shOWing the place where the stolen property is kept also does not
expliCitly confess to the crime.

Fact & Issue:-

Conclusion:-
In this case, the main question was whether finding a weapon of
assault based on information provided by the accused while in custody I.f these statements were made before competent Judicial
was enough to prove the accused's guilt. In other words, the court was Magistrate under section 164 of CrPC, then it would be considered as
determining if this discovery alone was sufficient evidence to establish conf~sslon. But In spite of this additional evidence would be required to
that the accused was guilty of the crime. convict the accused in present case.

Supreme Court Observation:-

Court observed that Section 27 of the Evidence Act was created as
an exception to Sections 25 and 26, which prohibited the admissibility of
any confession made by an accused person while in police custody.
The purpose of Section 27 was to allow a specific part of a statement
made by the accused to a police officer to be admissible as evidence,
regardless of whether it was a confession or not. The ban imposed by
Sections 25 and 26 would be lifted if the statement was directly
connected to the discovery of facts. In simpler terms, Section 27 allows
certain statements made by the accused during police custody to be
used as evidence if they help in uncovering important information.

Supreme Court Decision:-

Court held that simply stating that the accused led the police and
witnesses to where he hid the item is not enough to meet the
requirements of Section 27. In other words, just pointing out the location
of the concealed article is not considered sufficient information under
this section. The court emphasized that the exact information given by
the accused, which leads to the recovery of the incriminating article,
must be proven in order for it to be admissible a s evidence.

78 Scanned by AdobeScanner
79
 iv/CQ for Judicial Service Examinations PrevIous Years Questions with Answer

Mea on Law of Evidence for Judicial (0) 180 Sections and 15 Chapters
Service Examinations Previous Years Ans. (A)
[U.K. CJ 2021, Bihar APO 2013,U.K. APO 2010)
Questions with Answer
5. Point out the correct answer.
1. As per Section 1 of the Indian Evidence Act, the Act came into force Law of Evidence is
on (A) Lex Tellienis
(A) March 15, 1872
(8) Lex Loci
(B) September 1, 1872
(C) Lex Fori
(C) September 15, 1872
(0) Lex Situs
(0) October 1, 1872
Ans. (C)
Ans. (B)
[U.P. CJ 2016, H.P. JS 2007-1, UJS 2012]
[Raj. JLO 2019, U.P. CJ 2015,CJS 2014]
6. Indian Evidence Act applies to:-
2. As per Preamble of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 the purpose of
(A) Civil proceedings only
this Act is
(B) Criminal proceedings only
(A) to provide, define and amend the law of evidence
(C) Both the civil and criminal proceedings
(B) to provide, consolidate the law of evidence
(0) None of the above
(C) to define and amend the law of evidence
Ans. (C)
(0) to consolidate, define and amend the law of evidence
[BHJS 2015, Raj APP 2007]
Ans. (0)
[UKJS 2015, U.P. APO 2006]
7. The Law of evidence under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is
(A) Substantive Law
3. The Indian Evidence Act was drafted by
(B) Procedural Law
(A) Lord Macaulay
(C) Substantive and Procedural Law
(B) Sir James F. Stephen
(0) None of the above
(C) Huxley
Ans. (B)
(0) Sir Henry Summer Maine
[U.P. CJ 2015, PJS 2017, Bihar APO 2012]
Ans. (B)
[Bihar APO 2020, H.P. JS 2011, BJS 2012,PJS 201 O,UKJS 2015,
8. Facts can be:
2013]
(A) physical facts
(B) psychological facts
4. How many Sections and Chapters are there in the Indian Evidence
Act, 1872? (C) physical as well as psychological facts
(A) 167 Sections and 11 Chapters (0) only physical facts and not psychological facts
(B) 172 Sections and 16 Chapters Ans. (C)
(C) 160 Sections and 10 Chapters [PJS 2011]

80 Scanned by AdobeScanner
81
Law of Evidence
MCQ for Judicial Sefllice Examinations Previous Years Questions with Answer
9. Fact in issue mean the fact, existence or non-existence of which is:
13. Test Identification Parade is admissible under
(A) admitted by the parties
(A) Section 7
(B) disputed by the parties
(B) Section 8
(C) non-disputed by the parties
(C) Section 9
(0) none of the above
(D) Section 10
Ans. (B)
Ans. (C)
[AJS 2011,PJS 2017, BJS 2013]
[H.P. JS 2019J

10. "Evidence" means and includes:

14. A and B were prosecuted for conspiracy for bribing a police officer.
(A) Oral evidence A came to the police station and offered an Inspector packet of
(B) Documentary evidence currency notes. He told the inspector that B had sent the money as
(C) (a) and (b) above a consideration for hushing up the case against him. The offer of
(0) Pleadings of the parties money and the accompanying statement made by A were relevant
Ans. (C) against
[MH. CJ 2021] (A) A only
(B) B only
11. Facts forming part of the same transaction are known as (C) Both A and B
(A) Plea of Alibi (D) None of the above
(B) Dying Declaration Ans. (C)
(C) Admission [DJS 2010]
(0) Res Gestae Note:- This question was asked from this case ... Badri Rai v. State
of Bihar, AIR 1958 SC 953, and section involved is Section 10, lEA
Ans. (0)
1872.
[U.P. APO 2019, BJS 2009]

15. Which one of the following sections of the Indian Evidence Act
12. In which case was it held that tape recorded conversation is provides the provision regarding plea of Alibi'
relevant under Section 6, 7 and 8 of Indian Evidence Act?
(A) Section 7
(A) Ravindra v. State of Andra Pradesh 1980 S.C.
(B) Section 6
(B) R.M. Malkani v. State of Maharashtra 1973 S.C.
(C) Section 4
(C) G. V. Rao v. State of Karnataka 1996 S.C.
(D) Section 11
(D) K.N. Goswami v. State of UP. 1992 S.C.
Ans. (D)
Ans. (B)
[MH. CJ 2021, U.K. CJ 2021, DJS 2019, U.P. CJ 2003, RCJ 2017,
[U.K. APO 2021] HJS 2011, JJS 2016, BJS 2009, 2012" Raj APP 2007, AJS 2012,
M.P. CJ 2018 (1)

82 Scanned by AdobeScanner
83
Law of Evidence
iV/CQ for Jucficial Service Examinations Previous Years Questions with Answer
16. Which one of the following sections of the Indian Evidence Act 20. During the course of investigation information received from an
defines admission? Clccused who is in police custody leads to the discovery about arms,
(A) Section 16 cloths, ornament, corpus which are related with the offence are
(B) Section 17 relevant under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. This principle is laid
(C) Section 15 down in the case law of:
(D) Section 18 (A) Pulkuri f<ottya v. Emperor
Ans. (B) (B) Khushal Rao v. State of Bombay
[U.P. CJ 2003, 2015,UJS 2010,2016, Raj APP 2007, A.P. JS 2016J (C) Savaldas v. State of Bihar
(D) Pakla Narayan Swami v. Emperor
17. Confession caused by inducement, threat or promise, when Ans. (A)
irrelevant in criminal proceeding is covered by [M.P. CJ 2012]
(A) Section 24 of Evidence Act
(B) Section 26 of Evidence Act 21. In which section, doctrine of dying declaration is found?
(C) Section 21 of Evidence Act (A) Section 16
(D) Section 28 of Evidence Act (B) Section 27
Ans. (A) (C) Section 32
[RJ. JLO 2019, PJS 2012J (D) Section 41
Ans. (C)
18. In which Section of Evidence Act, 1872 confession made to the [BJS 2009, U.K. APO 2010,Raj APP 2007]
police is not admissible.
(A) Section 25 22. The principle on which a dying declaration is admissible under the
(B) Section 24 Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is indicated in the legal maxim.
(C) Section 32 (A) Actori incumbit onus probaandi
(D) Section 27 (B) Nemo moriturus proesunitur mentiri
Ans. (A) (C) Dormiunt leges aliguado, mungquam moriuntur
[HJS 2008, M.P. APO 2008, BJS 2009] (D) Fateur facinus qui judicium fugit
Ans. (B)
19. A confession made by a person while in police custody is [Bihar APO 2020, PJS 2015]
inadmissible under:
(A) Section 29 of Evidence Act 23. Kaushal Rao v. State of Bombay, AIR 1958 SC 22 is related with
(B) Section 26 of Evidence Act which topic of the law of evidence?
(C) Section 25 of Evidence Act (A) Confession
(D) Section 27 of Evidence Act (B) Admission
Ans. (B) (C) Dying declaration
[HJS 2011, U.K. APO 201 OJ (D) Estoppel
Ans. (C)
[UJS 2015)

84 Scanned by AdobeScanner
85
Law of Evidence
MeQ for Judicia! Service Examinations Previous Years Questions with Answer
24, Dying declaration may be made to a 28, ,l\n Expert under Evidence I~ct is a person
(A) doctor (A) who speaks fluent English
(B) any other person (8) expert in detecting lies
(C) magistrate (C) having requisite skills on a matter upon which he is giving
(D) all of the above opinion
Ans. (D) (D) none of the above
[OJS 2007, 2019]
Ans, (C)
25, Which of the following could be proved as dying declaration after [DIS 2007]
the death of a person?
(A) FIR lodged by the person (deceased) 29. Estoppel' has been defined under
(B) Statement of the person (deceased) recorded under section (A) Section 115
161 Cr. P,C. (8) Section 114
(C) Statement of the person (deceased) recorded by mic. the (C) Section 117
executive Magistrate, (D) Section 130
(D) All of these Ans, (A)
Ans, (D) [Raj JLO 2019, JJS 2014, U.K, A PO 2010, HJS 2012]
[M. P. CJ 2019]
30. Principle of Estoppel is:
26. A dying declaration:
(A) Rule of law
(A) Can form the sole basis of conviction without any corroboration
by independent evidence (8) Rule of equity
(8) Can form the basis of conviction only on corroboration by (C) Rule of justice
independent witness (D) (a) and (c) above
(C) Cannot form the sole basis of conviction under corroborated by Ans, (8)
independent witness [MH, CJ 2021J
(D) Only (b) and (c) are correct
Ans. (A) 31, Section 118 of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is related to
[HJS 2011, OJS 2008, AP. JS 2015] (A) Judges and Magistrates
(8) Who may testify
27. A dying declaration recorded by the police officer in the form of FIR
(C) Accomplice
before the death of author without obtaining certificate as to his
(D) Number of witnesses
mental fitness-
Ans. (8)
(A) Cannot be treated as dying declaration
[U.K, CJ 2021]
(B) Cannot be read in evidence
(C) Can be treated as dying declaration
(D) Cannot be admitted in evidence
Ans. (C)
[M.P. HJS 2010, 2020, HJS 2014]

86 Scanned by AdobeScanner
87
Law of Evidence
MeQ for Juciicial Service Examinalions Previous Years Questions with Answer
32. Who amongst the following is not a competent witness? 36. An accomplice is a competent witness.
(A) A child (A) Under Section 118 of the Evidence Act
(8) An idiot person (8) Under Section 119 of the Evidence Act
(C) A lunatic person (C) Under Section 132 of the Evidence Act
(D) A dumb person (D) Under Section 133 of the Evidence Act
Ans. (8)
Ans. (D)
[U.P. APO 2002, M.P. CJ 2018) [DJS 2019, H.P. JS 2007, U.K. APO 2010, U.P. APO 2011, UKJS
2009,2013, U.P. CJ 2018, M.P. HJS 2017)
33. Which one of the following is not correctly matched?
(A) Child witness: Section 118 37. An accomplice is a person
(8) Oumb witness: Section 120 (A) who participates in the commission of crime with the charged
(C) Hostile witness: Section 154 accused
(D) Expert witness: Section 45 (8) who is a prefended confederate
Ans. (8) (C) who is an informer
[UK JS 2009] (D) all the above
Ans. (A)
34. Which Section of the Indian Evidence Act protects communications [HIS 2010)
during marriage?
(A) Section 125 38. Who amongst the following is not an accomplice?
(8) Section 122 (A) A bribe giver
(C) Section 123 (8) A detective
(D) Section 124 (C) A prostitute
Ans. (8) (0) A person receiving stolen property
[U.K. CJ 2021, Raj. JLO, 2019] Ans. (8)
[U.P. APO 2009]
35. A communication made to the spouse during marriage, under
Section 122 of the Evidence Act: 39. In which Section of the Indian Evidence Act, Examination-in-chief,
(A) Remains privileged communication after the dissolution of Cross-examination and Reexamination have been defined?
marriage by divorce or death
(A) Section 138
(8) Does not remain privileged after the dissolution of marriage by (8) Section 135
divorce or death
(C) Section 136
(C) Does not remain privileged after the dissolution of marriage by
(D) Section 137
divorce but remains privileged even after death
Ans. (0)
(D) Remains privileged after the dissolution of marriage by divorce
but not so on after death [Raj. JLO 2019]
Ans. (A)
[H.P. JS 2007, HJS 2010)

88 89 Scanned by AdobeScanner
Law of Evidence
MCQ for Judicial Service Examinations Previous Years Questions with Answer
40. Examination-in-chief'means 44. "Leading question" has been defined in Indian Evidence Act under
(A) The examination of a witness by adverse party
(A) Section 41
(8) The examination of a witness by the party who calls him (8) Section 121
(C) The examination of a witness, subsequent to the cross-
(C) Section 141
examination by the party who called him
(0) Section 144
(0) The examination of a first witness
Ans. (C)
Ans. (8)
[Raj JLO 2019, H.P. JS 2019,U.P. CJ 2003, U.P. APO 2009, JJS
[M.P. APO 2008, MJS 2011, OJS 2011]
2014]

41. Cr~ss-examination under Section 137 of the Evidence Act means

45. What do you understand by the term "Leading Question"?
which one of the following?
(A) Question suggesting the answer which the person putting it
(A) Examination of a witness by a party who calls him wishes or expects to receive
(8) Examination of a witness by the adverse party (8) A question asked to contradict the witness by his previous
(C) Examination of a witness by a party who calls him and the writing
adverse party (C) A question asked with reasonable ground
(0) Examination of a witness by the Court (0) A question asked with a view to check the veracity of the
Ans. (8) witness
[OAPP 2008] Ans. (A)
[G]S 2019]
42. The examination, after the cross-examination of a witness by the
party who has called him, is called- 46. Leading questions can be asked during
(A) Main examination (A) examination-in-chief
(8) Additional cross-examination (8) cross-examination
(C) Re-examination
(C) re-examination
(0) Re-cross examination
(0) all of the above
Ans. (C)
Ans. (8)
[Raj JLO 2019, U.P. APO 2006, M.P. CJ 2001] [UK CJ 2021, Raj JLO 2019, PJS 2010.2015,2019, M. P. APO
2002,2003, U.P. CJ 2016, UP HJS 2009, MP. CJ 2010, 2012,
43. Which is the correct order of examination of witnesses? UJS 2002, 2018, , CJS 2004, 2008, OJS 2008, 2022, Bihar APO
(A) Cross-examination, examination-in-chief, re-examination 2012]
(8) Examination-in-chief, re-examination, cross-examination
47. What questions cannot be asked in examination.-in-chief?
(C) Examination-in-chief, cross-examination, re-examination
(0) None of these (A) Irrelevant question
(8) Introducing question
Ans. (C)
(C) Cross question
[HAOA 2016]
(0) Leading question
Ans. (0)
[U.K. APO 2021]
90 91 Scanned by AdobeScanner
Law of Evidence

48. The provision relating to "hostile witness" is provided in

(A) Section 154 of the Evidence Act
(6) Section 155 of the Evidence Act
(C) Section 114 of the Evidence Act
(0) Section 133 of the Evidence Act
Ans. (A)
[Raj JLO 2019, HPJS, HJS 2012 2007]

49. Hostile witness means-

(A) An unfavourable witness
(6) A witness who is desirous of telling the truth
(C) A witness who is not desirous of telling the truth
(0) An overpowered witness
Ans. (A)
[U.P. APO 2002]

50. Testimony of Hostile Witness' is to be:

(A) rejected outrightly
(6) partially rejected
(C) partially accepted
(0) considered with caution and be corroborated
Ans. (0)
[CJS 2016]

92 Scanned by AdobeScanner