Indian Evidence Act
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

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

While evaluating expert evidence, which is a weak type of evidence and not substantive in nature– It is wellsettled that the Court must be cautious while evaluating expert evidence, which is a weak type of evidence and not substantive in nature. It is also settled that it may not be safe to solely rely upon such evidence, and the Court may seek independent and reliable corroboration in the facts of a given case. Generally, mere expert evidence as to a fact is not regarded as conclusive proof of it. In this respect, reference may be made to a long line of precedents that includes Ram Chandra and Ram Bharosey v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1957 SC 381, Shashi Kumar Banerjee v. Subodh Kumar Banerjee, AIR 1964 SC 529, Magan Bihari Lal v. State of Punjab, (1977) 2 SCC 210, and S. Gopal Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1996) 4 SCC 596. Supreme Court may particularly refer to the decision of the Constitution Bench of this Court in Shashi Kumar Banerjee (supra), where it was observed that the evidence of a handwriting expert can rarely be given precedence over substantive evidence. .....Chennadi Jalapathi Reddy =VS= Baddam Pratapa Reddy, (Civil), 2022(1) [12 LM (SC) 28] ....View Full Judgment

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

Bankers’ Books Evidence Act, 1891
Section 4
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Section 73
Certified copy of a document issued by a Bank is itself admissible under the Bankers’ Books Evidence Act, 1891 without any formal proof thereof. .....Ajitsinh Chehuji Rathod =VS= State of Gujarat, (Criminal), 2024(2) [17 LM (SC) 1] ....View Full Judgment

The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Section 113A r/w
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

The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 302 & 392 r/w
The Evidence Act
Section 114 [Illustration (a)]
The charge of murder cannot be brought home unless there is some evidence to show that the robbery and the murder occurred at the same time– The charge against the accused/appellant under Section 302 IPC can be held to be proved. The learned trial court as well as the High Court, therefore, seems to be erred in holding the accused guilty for the said offence. However, on the basis of the presumption permissible under Illustration (a) of Section 114 of the Evidence Act, it has to be held that the conviction of the accused appellant under Section 392 IPC is well founded. Consequently, we hold that the prosecution has failed to bring home the charge under Section 302 IPC against the accused and he is acquitted of the said offence. The conviction under Section 392 IPC is upheld. .....Raj Kumar =VS= State (NCT of Delhi), [3 LM (SC) 74] ....View Full Judgment