Act/Law wise: Judgment of Supreme Court of India

ALL A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z



Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Section/Order/Article/Rule/Regulation Head Note
Section 27

read with
I.P.C
Section 364(A), 120B
Murder case– Rigorous imprisonment for life– In a trial for murder it is not an absolute necessity or an essential ingredient to establish corpus delicti. The fact of death of the deceased must be established like any other fact. Corpus delicti in some cases may not be possible to be traced or recovered.
There was no credible evidence with regard to the last seen theory. The recovery of the weapon of the offence was disbelieved as no disclosure statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act was brought on record and the recoveries were effected from an open place. The appellant was made an accused on confession of a co-accused. But the vehicle allegedly recovered from the appellant was found not to be involved in the kidnapping. There was no evidence with regard to the appellant having been involved in the kidnapping and taking away of the child. It was held that identification parade was not substantive evidence and apart from the same there was no other incriminating evidence like recovery of articles from the appellant. The appeal is dismissed. …Sanjay Rajak =VS= The State of Bihar, (Criminal), 2020 (1) [8 LM (SC) 11] ....View Full Judgment

Section 32(1)

Dying declaration–
Considering all the three dying declarations, in the light of well-settled principles, this Court held that all the three dying declarations are true, voluntary and consistent. Insofar as third dying declaration, this Court, in paras (408) to (412) held that the dying declaration made through signs, gestures or by nods are admissible as evidence and that proper care was taken by PW-30 Pawan Kumar, Metropolitan Magistrate and the third dying declaration recorded by in response to the multiplechoice questions by signs, gestures made by the victim are admissible as evidence. In the third dying declaration, the victim also wrote the names of the accused persons “Ram Singh, Mukesh, Vinay, Akshay, Vipin, Raju”. So far as the name of accused Vipin written by the prosecutrix in the third dying declaration has been elaborately considered by this Court in paras (150) and (188) of the judgment. .....Mukesh =VS= State of NCT of Delhi, (Criminal), 2018 (1) [4 LM (SC) 101] ....View Full Judgment

Section 68

Will–
This suit was for a declaration that the compromise decree dated 25.01.1997 passed in OS No.7266 of 1996 is not binding on her; that she is the lawful owner of the properties specified in the schedule on the basis of the Will dated 12.03.1980 executed by Ramaiah in her favour. The High Court held that the plaintiff was able to prove the Will dated 12.03.1980 in accordance with law with the evidence adduced by her and hence she was entitled for a declaration as claimed by her in the suit relating to the suit properties. Plaintiff was not a party to the compromise decree dated 25.01.1997 passed in OS No.7266 of 1996, it was not binding on her. Lastly, once the Will dated 12.03.1980 is held proved, in accordance with law, the plaintiff becomes entitled to claim a declaration in her favour that she is the owner of the properties bequeathed to her by the testator as specified in the Will. .....H.V. Nirmala =VS= R. Sharmila, (Civil), 2018 (1) [4 LM (SC) 26] ....View Full Judgment

Section 113A

The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Section 113A read with
The Indian Penal Code
Sections 498A & 306
In the facts of this case, it has been concurrently found that the in-laws did harass her, but harassment is something of a lesser degree than cruelty. Also, we find on the facts, taken as a whole, that assuming the presumption under Section 113A would apply, it has been fully rebutted, for the reason that there is no link or intention on the part of the in- laws to assist the victim to commit suicide. We find, especially in view of the fact that the appellants have been acquitted for the crime under Section 498 A of the Code, that abetment of suicide under Section 306 is not made out. In the circumstances, we set aside the impugned Judgment of the High Court. .....Heera Lal =VS= State of Rajasthan, (Criminal), 2017 (2)– [3 LM (SC) 65] ....View Full Judgment