Criminal Trial

Kirpal Singh vs State Of Punjab 2024 INSC 312 – Criminal Trial – Oral Testimony

Criminal Trial – Oral Testimony – Quoted Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras AIR 1957 SC 614 : The court is concerned with the quality and not with the quantity of the evidence necessary for, proving or disproving a fact. Generally speaking, oral testimony in this context may be classified into three categories, namely: (1) …

Kirpal Singh vs State Of Punjab 2024 INSC 312 – Criminal Trial – Oral Testimony Read More »

Bhupatbhai Bachubhai Chavda vs State of Gujarat 2024 INSC 295 – Criminal Trial – Burden Of Proof – Appeal Against Acquittal –

Criminal Trial – Burden of Proof – Unless, under the relevant penal statute, there is a negative burden put on the accused or there is a reverse onus clause, the accused is not required to discharge any burden. In a case where there is a statutory presumption, after the prosecution discharges initial burden, the burden …

Bhupatbhai Bachubhai Chavda vs State of Gujarat 2024 INSC 295 – Criminal Trial – Burden Of Proof – Appeal Against Acquittal – Read More »

Manikandan vs State 2024 INSC 272 – Criminal Trial – Tutoring Prosecution Witnesses

Criminal Trial – Precisely a day before the evidence of Prosecution Witnesses before the Trial Court, they were called to the Police Station and were taught to depose in a particular manner. One can reasonably imagine the effect of “teaching” the witnesses inside a Police Station. This is a blatant act by the police to …

Manikandan vs State 2024 INSC 272 – Criminal Trial – Tutoring Prosecution Witnesses Read More »

Chandan vs State (Delhi Admn.) 2024 INSC 271 – Criminal Trial – Motive

Criminal Trial – When ocular testimony inspires the confidence of the court, the prosecution is not required to establish motive. Mere absence of motive would not impinge on the testimony of a reliable eye-witness. Motive is an important factor for consideration in a case of circumstantial evidence. But when there is direct eye witness, motive …

Chandan vs State (Delhi Admn.) 2024 INSC 271 – Criminal Trial – Motive Read More »

Ballu @ Balram @ Balmukund  vs State Of Madhya Pradesh 2024 INSC 258 – Ss 378 CrPC – Circumstantial Evidence

Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 378,386– Unless the finding of acquittal is found to be perverse or impossible, interference with the same would not be warranted – The High Court could have interfered in the criminal appeal only if it came to the conclusion that the findings of the trial Judge were either perverse …

Ballu @ Balram @ Balmukund  vs State Of Madhya Pradesh 2024 INSC 258 – Ss 378 CrPC – Circumstantial Evidence Read More »

Pankaj Singh vs State Of Haryana 2024 INSC 254 – S 114A Evidence Act- Presumption Of Innocence – S 294 CrPC

Indian Evidence Act, 1872; Section 114A – The condition precedent for applicability of Section 114A of the Evidence Act is that the prosecution must be for the offence of rape under various clauses set out therein under sub-Section (2) of Section 376 of the IPC – When this condition is not met, the presumption under …

Pankaj Singh vs State Of Haryana 2024 INSC 254 – S 114A Evidence Act- Presumption Of Innocence – S 294 CrPC Read More »

Raghunatha vs State Of Karnataka 2024 INSC 238 -Criminal Trial – Circumstantial Evidence – S 106 Evidence Act- Last Seen Theory

Indian Evidence Act, 1872; Section 106 -Where the prosecution proves that the deceased was last seen in the company of the accused and the death of the deceased has occurred soon thereafter, the burden would shift upon the accused. However, for that, initially the prosecution will have to discharge the burden. Merely because the appellants …

Raghunatha vs State Of Karnataka 2024 INSC 238 -Criminal Trial – Circumstantial Evidence – S 106 Evidence Act- Last Seen Theory Read More »

Ekene Godwin vs State Of Tamil Nadu 2024 INSC 229 – S 148 Evidence Act – S 242 CrPC

Criminal Trial – When the examination-in-chief of a material prosecution witness is being recorded, the presence of the Advocate for the accused is required. He has a right to object to a leading or irrelevant question being asked to the witness. If the trial is conducted in such a manner, an argument of prejudice will …

Ekene Godwin vs State Of Tamil Nadu 2024 INSC 229 – S 148 Evidence Act – S 242 CrPC Read More »

Ravinder Kumar vs State Of NCT Of Delhi 2024 INSC 211 – Ss 27,106 Evidence Act – Circumstantial Evidence

Indian Evidence Act, 1872; Section 27 – For a recovery to be admissible on the statement made under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, it has to be from such a place which is exclusively within the knowledge of the maker thereof. When (1) the recovery is from a place accessible to one and all …

Ravinder Kumar vs State Of NCT Of Delhi 2024 INSC 211 – Ss 27,106 Evidence Act – Circumstantial Evidence Read More »