Indian Evidence Act 1872 – Section 106 – The prosecution has to first lay the foundational facts before it seeks to invoke Section 106 of the Evidence Act. If the prosecution has not been able to lay the foundational facts for the purpose of invoking Section 106 of the Evidence Act, it cannot starightaway invoke the said Section and throw the entire burden on the accused to establish his innocence. (Para 55)
Indian Evidence Act 1872 – Section 27 – Just because the panch witnesses have turned hostile does not mean that such discovery should be disbelieved. From the plain reading of the oral evidence of the Investigating Officer if the discovery is believable and inspires confidence, the same can definitely be looked into as one of the incriminating pieces of evidence against the accused – In this case, all that the I.O. did was to depose that he had drawn the panchnama and in the end identified his signature on the same and that of the panch witnesses, SC held: This cannot be said to be proving the contents of the panchnama in accordance with law. (Para 49-50)
Indian Evidence Act 1872 – Section 25– Extra-judicial confession – By its very nature, extra judicial confession is rather a weak type of evidence and requires appreciation with a great deal of care and caution. Where extra-judicial confession is surrounded by suspicious circumstances, its credibility becomes doubtful and would lose its importance. (Para 41)
Indian Evidence Act 1872 – Section 25 ; Maharashtra Village Police Act- Section 14 – Village Police Patil cannot be said to be a Police Officer. (Para 42)
Criminal Trial – Motive – Motive is a double-edged weapon. Motive cannot be the sole basis for convicting the accused and that too for a serious offence like murder. Motive may be considered along with other pieces of reliable evidence in the form of incriminating circumstances. (Para 51)