• +91-9223281789
  • sui-generis@consultant.com

“May have been” and “Must be” – When there is absence of evidence to cover the distance between “May have been” and “Must be” it is not safe to sustain the conviction. (Prithvi Raj Vs State of Rajasthan) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 587 (Rajasthan) 

“VE MAR GAYE” – Expression “Ve” cannot be said definitely to be used for husband – “Ve” though is often used by ladies as a respectful term while referring to the husbands but it is not possible to say definitely that the said expression was used not in the normal plural sense but with reference to her husband. (Rajkumar Vs State of M.P.) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 886 (S.C.)

 Abscondence of accused – Does not lead to an inference of culpability in the commission of crime – However, abscondence, as a circumstance, if duly proved, could be utilised to fortify the conclusion of guilt arrived at on the basis of other cogent and reliable evidence. (Arun Dharma Chavhan Vs State of Maharashtra) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 162 (Bom.)

 Accused can be convicted on the sole testimony of a witness provided he is found wholly reliable. (Ramesh & Ors. Vs State of U.P.) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 156 (Allahabad)

Accused cannot be convicted for failure to explain as to why he is falsely implicated. (Alim Ullah Vs State of U.P.) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 407 (Allahabad) 

Accused sold gold chain after few hours of occurrence – Gold chain recovered only after 4 days at the instance of accused, who had no explanation to offer as to how he came in possession of the gold chain belonging to the deceased – Presumption arises that accused was the culprit who removed the gold chain from the person of the deceased. (Gilbert Pereira Vs State of Karnataka) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 470 (S.C.)

Acquaintance or friendship – Evidence of eye witness cannot be discarded for the reason of acquaintance or friendship with the deceased if it is proved by other satisfactory evidence that the witness was very much present at the time of incident. (Ram Kishan & Ors. Vs State of Uttar Pradesh) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 310 (S.C.)

Additional evidence – The necessity for additional evidence arises when Court feels that some evidence which ought to have been before it is not there or that some evidence has been left out or erroneously brought in – In all cases it cannot be laid down as a rule of universal application that the Court has to first find out whether the evidence already on record is sufficient. (Zahira Habibulla H.Sheikh & Anr. Vs State of Gujarat & Ors.) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 195 (S.C.)

Affidavit – Tendered in evidence – Witness not brought in Court for cross examination – The only inference is that prosecution had something to hide. (Rambir Vs State of Haryana) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 396 (P&H)

Age – Ascertainment – Radiological examination – Margin of error is two years on either side – However, in case radiological examination is in respect of multiple joints, margin of error could be reduced to six months on either side. (Lal Bahadur Vs The State) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 372 (Delhi)

Alibi – A distance of 15/20 minutes’ walk from the place of occurrence cannot be said to be “presence elsewhere” to establish a plea of alibi. (Arun Das Vs State of West Bengal) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 566 (Calcutta)

Alibi – Even when plea of alibi is raised, burden of proof is on prosecution. (Narendra Singh & Anr. Vs State of M.P.) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 705 (S.C.)

Appeal – Accused who has not preferred an appeal or even if his SLP is dismissed – If relief granted to remaining accused and case of accused who has not appealed stands on the same footing, he should not be denied the benefit which is extended to the other accused. (Gurucharan Kumar & Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan) 2003(1) Apex Court Judgments 577 (S.C.)

Appeal against acquittal – An order of acquittal cannot be interfered with when findings are not perverse and a reasonably possible view has been taken which is fortified with evidence, in the absence of error of law or miscarriage of justice. (State of Kerala Vs Arun Valenchery) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 355 (Kerala)

Appeal against acquittal – If a view taken by the Court recording verdict of acquittal is reasonable, Supreme Court would not substitute its own view and reverse the verdict of acquittal into conviction – Criminal jurisprudence no doubt requires a high standard of proof for imposing punishment on an accused, but it is equally important that on hypothetical grounds and surmises prosecution evidence of a sterling character should not be brushed aside and disbelieved to give undue benefit of doubt to the accused. (State of Uttar Pradesh Vs Ram Sewak & Ors.) 2003(1) Apex Court Judgments 715 (S.C.)

Appeal against acquittal – Power of the High Court while hearing appeal against acquittal is as wide as an appeal against conviction. (Dhruvendra Singh & Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 307 (Raj.) 

 Appeal against conviction – Committal of accused to prison – Not proper without recording reasons – It is duty of trial Court to enlarge accused on bail on appropriate conditions during pendency of appeal or to pass order for continuance of his detention in judicial custody for reason to be recorded in writing – His continued detention even after completion of sentence of imprisonment for three years, in absence of order either for enlargement on bail or for committing him to prison during pendency of appeal, held, illegal. (State  Vs Gurappa alias Gurava) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 706 (Karnataka) 

Appeal against conviction – Counsel of appellant absent – Appellate Court pronounced judgment after hearing arguments from the public prosecutor – Held, if the appellate Court did not think it proper to issue notice to the appellant to appear and argue, at least, appellate Court could have requested some senior counsel from the local Bar to address the Court as amicus curiae – Order amounts to an illegality and the same set aside. (Pichharu Satnami Vs State of Orissa) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 5 (Ori.)

 Appeal against conviction – In a concurring judgment of conviction, Apex Court is not to scrutinise evidence again unless there has been total miscarriage of justice. (Jai Narain Vs State of U.P.) 2003(1) Apex Court Judgments 90 (S.C.)

 Appreciation of evidence – Bullet injuries – Clothes of witnesses who took deceased to hospital not stained with blood – No case that deceased had profuse bleeding and even if there was bleeding, the blood may not have splashed to stain the clothes of witnesses when deceased himself was wearing clothes – Presence of witnesses at the place of occurrence on this count cannot be doubted. (Hem Raj Vs Raja Ram & Ors.) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 298 (S.C.)

Appreciation of evidence – PW1 a close relative left the dead body in hospital and went to lodged FI – As many other relatives had come to the hospital as such leaving dead body of a close relative and going to lodge FI is not improbable. (Hem Raj Vs Raja Ram & Ors.) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 298 (S.C.)

Arduous and lengthy cross examination of a witness – Contradictions – When a witness is subjected to lengthy arduous cross examination over a lengthy period of time there is always a possibility of the witnesses committing mistakes which can be termed a as omissions, improvements and contradictions therefore those infirmities will have to be appreciated in the back ground of ground realities which makes the witness confused because of the filibustering tactics of the cross examining Counsel. (Jai Sree Yadav Vs State of U.P.) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 28 (S.C.)

Benefit granted in another appeal to one of the other co-accused – Held, same benefit shall be extended to earlier co-accused also albeit dismissal of his appeal on an antecedent date. (Akhil Ali Jehangir Ali Sayyed Vs State of Maharashtra)  2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 414 (SC) 

Benefit of doubt – Prosecution is not required to meet any and every hypothesis put forward by the accused – A reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or merely possible doubt, but a fair doubt based upon reason and common sense – It must grow out of the evidence in the case – Doubts would be called reasonable if they are free from a zest for abstract speculation. (State of Punjab Vs Karnail Singh) 2003(2) Apex Court Judgments 298 (S.C.) : 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 519 (S.C.)

Benefit of doubt – To constitute reasonable doubt, it must be free from an over emotional response – Doubts must be actual and substantial doubts as to the guilt of the accused persons arising from the evidence, or from the lack of it, as opposed to mere vague apprehensions – A reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or a merely possible doubt; but a fair doubt based upon reason and common sense – It must grow out of the evidence in the case. (Krishnan & Anr. Vs State Rep. By Inspector of Police) 2003(2) Apex Court Judgments 281 (S.C.) : 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 181 (S.C.)

Beyond reasonable doubt – Doubts must be actual and substantial doubt as to the guilt of the accused persons arising from the evidence, or from the lack of it, as opposed to mere vague apprehensions – A reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or a merely possible doubt; but a fair doubt based upon reason and common sense – It must grow out of the evidence in the case. (State of Madhya Pradesh Vs Dharkole @ Govind Singh & Ors.) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 796 (S.C.)

Boy of 16 years not disclosing for three days about his having seen the occurrence – Witness was a young lad and accused a hardened criminal – Witness was threatened by accused – Held, silence of boy not telling others for some time is not suspicious and unnatural. (State of Uttar Pradesh  Vs Devendra Singh) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 123 (S.C.)

Case and a counter case or two cases with regard to the same occurrence – Both cases to be tried together. (Alok Kumar Singh Vs State of Bihar & Ors.) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 521 (Patna)

Case and a counter case or two cases with regard to the same occurrence – One case triable by Court of Sessions and the other triable by Magistrate – Held, both the cases can be committed to the Court of Sessions to be tried together. (Alok Kumar Singh Vs State of Bihar & Ors.) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 521 (Patna)

Case property – Alienation before conclusion of trial – With the advanced technology, it is not necessary that original of the property inevitably has to be preserved for the purpose of evidence in the changed context of times – The techniques of photography and photo coping are far advanced and fully developed – Movable property of any nature can be a subject matter of photography and taking necessary photographs of all the features of the property clearly is not an impossible task in photography and photo copying. (K.W.Ganapathy Vs State of Karnataka) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 350 (Karnataka) 

Case property – Case property shifted to new bags but no explanation – FIR number and other particulars written on bags at the time of recovery of case property – But on the case property produced in Court no particulars found – Case property shifted to new bags – Prosecution failing to prove how old bags were damaged and the case property was shifted to new bags – Object of keeping the case property in safe custody is to ensure identification of the property recovered – Accused is entitled to benefit of doubt – Accused acquitted. (Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Ss.52, 52-A, 57 and 15). (Channa Ram @ Maiya Vs State of Haryana) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 279 (P&H) 

Case property – Link evidence that the same is not tampered with – Whenever case property is produced in Court for identification by witnesses, Court records its observations as to the condition of the property, seal impressions and that the same are intact or not – When there are neither observations of Court nor material witnesses state as to what seal, if any, was affixed to case property and whether the case property and seal impressions were intact or not, the benefit goes to the accused – Conviction cannot be sustained. (Sandeep Kumar Vs State of H.P.) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 62 (H.P.) 

Case property – Recovery of stolen car – Car financed and owner intended to sell it to discharge its debt – Car has no evidentiary value as it is only required for the purpose of passing final orders – To ensure the recovery of its value, it is suffice only to furnish security to recover the value in the event of final order passed against him – Petitioner is allowed to sell the car in his own way subject to furnishing security. (K.W.Ganapathy Vs State of Karnataka) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 350 (Karnataka) 

Case property – Weight of case property produced in Court did not tally with the case property recovered from accused – In the absence of proper explanation a doubt arises about the case of the prosecution – Accused acquitted giving benefit of doubt. (Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Ss.52, 55-A and 15). (Kaaraka Singh Vs State of Haryana) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 182 (P&H)

Cellular phone – Print out of calls – Calls made by some person in Dubai – Held, it is a very tenuous piece of evidence to attribute knowledge of the detenu of activities of smuggling of counterfeit currency notes. (Gulam Kadar Gulam Rasool Vs State of Maharashtra) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 660 (Bombay)  

Chance witness – An independent witness who had no motive to depose against accused cannot be condemned to be chance witness. (State of Andhra Pradesh Vs K.Srinivasulu Reddy & Anr.) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 646 (S.C.)

Chance witness – As such his evidence disbelieved – Witness was resident of the same village as the accused and deceased – Failure to mention the presence of this witness at the place of occurrence by another witness in his police statement is an irrelevant circumstance for disbelieving the witness – He was a natural witness – Nothing worthwhile could be extracted in his cross examination – He tried to intervene and save the deceased who went to the house of the deceased to inform his family members about the incident – Held, witness is a natural, truthful and creditable witness. (State of Haryana Vs Mange Ram & Ors.) 2003(1) Apex Court Judgments 135 (S.C.) : 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 372 (S.C.)

Chance witness – If murder is committed in a dwelling house, the inmates of the house are natural witnesses – If murder is committed in a street, only passersby will be witnesses – Their evidence cannot be brushed aside or viewed with suspicion on the ground that they are mere ‘chance witnesses’. (Sachchey Lal Tiwari Vs State of Uttar Pradesh) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 321 (S.C.)

 Chance witness – No suggestion to the witness that he had any animosity towards any of the accused – In a murder trial by describing independent witnesses as chance witnesses it cannot be implied thereby that their evidence is suspicious and their presence at the scene doubtful. (Chanakya Dhibar (Dead) Vs State of West Bengal & Ors.) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 743 (S.C.)

Charge must be proved beyond reasonable doubt – Court cannot infer any part of the prosecution story and it must be established as a matter of fact or there should be complete chain of events based on irresistible evidence leading to or indicating towards the accused as the person who committed the crime. (Municipal Corporation, Amritsar Vs Kuldip Singh) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 308 (P&H) 

Child witness – 10 years old at the time of incident and 12 years of age at the time of recording his deposition – Trial Court should maintain a record regarding preliminary questions put to the child witness in order to determine the competency of the witness – Non maintenance of such record is not of much consequence since not only the trial Court was satisfied about the competency of the witness, but the evidence of the witness itself shows that child witness was a competent witness. (Nandeshwar Vs State of Maharashtra) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 441 (Bom.)

Child witness – A person should not be convicted on the basis of any uncorroborated statement of a child witness – Prudence requires that some corroborations are required in order to pass a conviction order on the basis of the statement of a child witness. (Khokan Patra & Anr. Vs State) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 626 (Calcutta) 

Child witness – Evidence of a child witness requires corroboration in some material particulars implicating the accused – Father stated that he saw his child crying over the dead body of the deceased – Held, there can be no cause for doubt that child is a reliable witness. (Prakash Vs State) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 37 (Karnataka)

Child witness – Evidence of the child witness should be considered with caution as there is chance of tutoring the child witness but conviction can be based on the testimony of a child witness if the Court finds his evidence trustworthy. (Md.Asgar & Anr. Vs State of Bihar) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 111 (Patna) 

Child witness – Evidentiary value – Conviction can be based on the basis of testimony of a child witness – His testimony can be relied on even in the absence of oath, if he understood nature of the questions and gave rational answers thereof – While assessing evidence of a child witness Court should bear in mind that the witness must be reliable and his or her demeanour must be like any other competent witness and there is no likelihood of being tutored – Corroboration for conviction is not necessary in every case but as a rule of prudence Court always finds it desirable to have the corroboration to such evidence from other dependable evidence – Court before recording statement of a child witness has to satisfy itself that the witness is capable to depose – Testimony of a child witness cannot be rejected simply on ground of his tender age – Evidence of a child witness must be evaluated more carefully and with greater circumspection because a child is susceptible to be swayed by what others tell him. (Evidence Act, 1872, S.118). (Dalbir Singh Vs The State of Haryana) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 91 (P&H)

Child witness – Father murdered wife in order to marry another woman – Occurrence witnessed by son aged 10 years – Child witness deposed that on fateful evening accused twisted neck of deceased, caused injuries to her by beating which resulted in her death and deceased was clandestinely buried at night in forest and next day morning accused took him and left their village – Version of child witness supported by medical evidence – Trial Court being satisfied with the competency of the witness convicted the accused – Conviction upheld. (Nandeshwar Vs State of Maharashtra) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 441 (Bom.)

Child witness of 10 years age who was himself seriously injured – Witness described the incidence in clear and cogent manner – No evidence that he gave tutored version – Conviction validly based on sole evidence of child. (State of Himachal Pradesh Vs Prem Chand) 2003(1) Apex Court Judgments 309 (S.C.) : 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 680 (S.C.) 

Circumstantial evidence –  Circumstances relied upon should be clearly established – Proved circumstances must be such as would reasonably exclude the possibility of innocence of the accused – Circumstantial evidence should be consistent with the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with his innocence – Chain of circumstances furnished by the prosecution should be so complete as not to lead any reasonable ground for conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused. (Nachika Deruku Vs State of Orissa) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 268 (Orissa) 

Circumstantial evidence –  Principles governing – The link in the chain of events must be complete and it can be unequivocally point to the guilt of the accused and exclude any hypothesis consistent with the innocence of the accused – It must be such, from which it could be inferred that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. (Araque Lutifi @ Dazy Vs State of Orissa) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 508 (Orissa) 

Circumstantial evidence – Acquittal by High Court on ground of incomplete chain of circumstances viz, recovery of blood stained earth and knife not sent to serologist as such recoveries could not be believed and no independent witness from neighbour joined but witness called from another place who was family friend for 20 years and lastly deceased suffered 30 injuries but strangely no one from neighbouring house was attracted. (State of U.P. Vs Arun Kumar Gupta) 2003(1) Apex Court Judgments 120 (S.C.)

Circumstantial evidence – All links in the chain must be proved. (Narendra Singh & Anr. Vs State of M.P.) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 705 (S.C.)

Circumstantial evidence – Alone and by itself can form basis of conviction provided there is no snap in the chain of events – Chain of events must be complete in such a way so as to point to the guilt of the accused person and to none others – Standard of proof has thus to be at a much higher degree lest an innocent person gets the blame therefor. (Gurpreet Singh Vs State of Haryana) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 128 (S.C.) 

Circumstantial evidence – Benefit of doubt – Circumstances consistent either with innocence or guilt – Accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt. (Ved Prakash & Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 429 (Rajasthan) 

Circumstantial evidence – Circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn must be cogently and firmly established; those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused; circumstances taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else; and circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation on any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence. (Prithviraj Vs State of Rajasthan) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 111 (Rajasthan)

Circumstantial evidence – Circumstances from which conclusion of guilt is to be drawn, should be fully established and facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of accused – There must not be any reasonable ground for conclusion consistent with their innocence – Chain of circumstances should be complete in such manner as to show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. (Amar Mishra Vs State of Bihar) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 866 (Patna)

Circumstantial evidence – Conviction can be based on circumstantial evidence if – (1) The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established – the circumstances concerned must or should and not may be established; (2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of accused and they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty; (3) the circumstances should be of a conlcusive nature and tendency; (4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved and (5) there msut be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasoanble ground for the conclusion consitent with the innocence of the accused and msut show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. (State of U.P. Vs Satish) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 305 (S.C.)

Circumstantial evidence – Conviction for murder of wife and daughter – Valuables alleged to be stolen recovered from office of accused – Wife and daughter usually remaining sick – Intention of accused to get rid of them and to remarry – Wife writing in diary that after her death which she apprehended her property should go to her daughter – One month prior to occurrence accused withdrawing entire money from wife’s account – Blood stained hammer recovered from almirah of accused and hammer containing blood of same group as that of daughter – Accused calling neighbours only to establish his ignorance about incident – Presence of accused in house established and plea of alibi not established – Circumstances against accused not explained – Conviction upheld. (Ashok Raghuvanshi Vs State of Rajasthan) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 692 (Rajasthan) 

Circumstantial evidence – Court can record conviction on circumstantial evidence but  it must satisfy itself that the circumstances from which an inference of guilt could be drawn have been established by unimpeachable evidence led by the prosecution and that all the circumstances put together are not only of a conclusive nature but complete the chain so fully as to unerringly point only to the guilt of the accused and are not capable of any explanation which is not consistent with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. (Gurdev Singh Vs State of H.P.) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 701 (H.P.)

Circumstantial evidence – Doubtful recoveries – Presumption u/s 114(a) Evidence Act can be drawn only if the factum of recovery is proved beyond reasonable doubt – However when recoveries are doubtful,  presumption as to the guilt of accused cannot be drawn. (Babudas Vs State of M.P.) 2003(1) Apex Court Judgments 656 (S.C.) : 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 173 (S.C.)

Circumstantial evidence – Each and every incriminating circumstance must be clearly, established by reliable and clinching evidence and the circumstances so proved must form a chain of events from which the only irresistible conclusion about the guilt of the accused can be safely drawn and no other hypothesis against the guilt is possible. (Sudama Pandey & Ors. Vs State of Bihar) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 384 (S.C.)

Circumstantial evidence – Fact of demand of dowry and torture not disclosed to Investigating Officer –  This fact disclosed in complaint for the first time which was filed after 11 months of alleged occurrence – Held, it is not possible to place reliance upon such evidence to prove this circumstance. (Sashi Jena & Ors. Vs Khadal Swain & Anr.) 2004(1) Apex Court Judgments 528 (S.C.)

Circumstantial evidence – Facts and circumstances must be fully established beyond any reasonable doubt and such circumstances must be consistent and unerringly point to the guilt of the accused and the chain of circumstances must be established by the prosecution. (Golakonda Venkateswara Rao Vs State of Andhra Pradesh) 2003(2) Apex Court Judgments 153 (S.C.)

Circumstantial evidence – False explanation put forward by an accused in a case based on circumstantial evidence provides  an additional link in the chain of the circumstances establishing connectivity between the appellant and the crime. (Deewan Singh Vs State of Uttaranchal) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 277 (Uttaranchal)

Circumstantial evidence – For basing conviction on circumstantial evidence  Court must fell convinced that the chain of various circumstances leading to the conclusion of the guilt of accused is completely and that these circumstances are not only consistent with the guilt of the accused but are also inconsistent with his innocence. (Kamal Bora Vs State of Assam) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 228 (Gauhati)

Circumstantial evidence – In a case based on circumstantial evidence, one circumstance by itself may not unerringly point to the guilt of the accused – It is the cumulative result of all circumstances which could matter – Hence, it would be improbable for the Court to cull out one circumstance from the rest for the purpose of giving a different meaning to it. (Araque Lutifi @ Dazy Vs State of Orissa) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 508 (Orissa) 

Circumstantial evidence – In a case based on circumstantial evidence motive always plays a vital role in connecting the accused with the crime. (Pawan @ Ratan Mandal Vs State of Chhattisgarh) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 460 (Chhattisgarh) 

Circumstantial evidence – In a case of circumstantial evidence, the chain of circumstances must be complete and in case there is any missing link therein, the same cannot form the basis of conviction. (Anjlus Dungdung Vs State of Jharkhand) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 246 (S.C.)

Circumstantial evidence – It must be established that (1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned must or should  and not may be established; (2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypotheses except that the accused is guilty; (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency; (4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and (5) there must be a chain of evidence so compete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. (State of Madhya Pradesh  Vs Sanjay Rai) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 733 (S.C.)

Circumstantial evidence – It should be so overwhelming as to exclude the hypothesis of the innocence of the accused. (Rajkumar Vs State of M.P.) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 886 (S.C.)

Circumstantial evidence – Law as to – Analysed.  (Alamgir Vs State (NCT, Delhi)) 2003(1) Apex Court Judgments 66 (S.C.)

Circumstantial evidence – Married lady alongwith her daughter burnt to death and hanged – Medical report ruling out death by suicide and ascribing death to suffocation because of  burns held to be ante mortem – Evidence of PW3 inspiring full confidence and also corroborated – Theory of suicide only imaginary – Four circumstances as enumerated leading to guilt of accused – Missing links supplied by blunt and outright denial of every thing – Conviction upheld. (Sadhuram & Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 390 (Raj.)

Circumstantial evidence – Motive – If the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution are proved beyond doubt, then the absence of motive would not hamper a conviction. (Sahadevan @ Sagadevan Vs State) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 68 (S.C.) 

Circumstantial evidence – Motive – In a case based on circumstantial evidence absence of motive creates reasonable doubt. (Pawan Kumar Vs State of Chhattisgarh) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 71 (Chhattisgarh) 

Circumstantial evidence – Nature of the recovered articles, the manner of their acquisition by the owner, the nature of the evidence about their identification, the manner in which the articles were dealt with by accused, the place and the circumstances of their recovery and the length of the intervening period and the ability or otherwise of the accused to explain the recovery are some of the circumstances. (Kalpana Mazumdar Vs State of Orissa) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 363 (S.C.) 

Circumstantial evidence – No complete chain of circumstances found – Missing links filled by manipulated materials – Prosecution suppressing and withholding most vital materials – Courts below overlooked serious pitfalls – Concurrent verdict liable to be set aside – Appeal allowed. (Ashish Batham Vs State of Madhya Pradesh) 2003(1) Apex Court Judgments 330 (S.C.) : 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 568 (S.C.) 

Circumstantial evidence – One circumstance cannot be culled out of the rest to give it a different meaning. (Gade Lakshmi Mangraju alias Ramesh Vs State of Andhra Pradesh) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 715 (S.C.) 

Circumstantial evidence – Prosecution failing to adduce satisfactory evidence on motive aspect – It would not be sufficient to throw out prosecution case as unreliable. (State of Karnataka Vs M.N.Ramdas) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 587 (S.C.) 

Circumstantial evidence – Prosecution has to prove all the links in the chain of circumstances which would have to show that in all probability it is only the accused who could have committed the crime. (Subimal Sarkar Vs Sachindra Nath Mondal & Ors.) 2003(2) Apex Court Judgments 54 (S.C.)

Circumstantial evidence – Prosecution must establish each circumstance firmly by cogent evidence and all these circumstances, taken together, should form a chain pointing towards the guilt of the accused and the cumulative effect of the circumstances must  lead to no other inference but the guilt of the accused. (Mahesh Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 193 (Rajasthan)

Circumstantial evidence – Should be of such conclusive nature as to exclude every other possibility except the accused being guilty of the charged offence. (State of Rajasthan Vs Khuma) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 449 (S.C.)

Circumstantial evidence – Some of the links in the chain of circumstances not established by prosecution either in accordance with law or beyond reasonable doubt – It casts serious doubts as to the correctness of the prosecution case – Order of conviction set aside. (Kantilal @ K.L.Gordhandas Soni Vs State of Gujarat) 2003(1) Apex Court Judgments 20 (S.C.) : 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 356 (S.C.) 

Circumstantial evidence – The circumstance  should  be fully established and all the facts so established should be consistent with the only hypothesis of the guilt of the accused – There must be a complete chain of events as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused – Circumstantial evidence must be such that it cannot be explained on any other reasonable hypothesis except the guilt of the accused. (Rohit Naik Vs State of Orissa) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 705 (Orissa) 

Circumstantial evidence – There should be chain of circumstances showing complicity of accused with the crime and the chain should be complete. (Sashi Jena & Ors. Vs Khadal Swain & Anr.) 2004(1) Apex Court Judgments 528 (S.C.)

Circumstantial evidence – To record conviction in a case based on circumstantial evidence Court must satisfy itself that circumstances from which  an inference of guilt could be drawn  have been established by unimpeachable evidence led by the prosecution and that all the circumstances put together are not only of a conclusive nature but also complete the chain so fully as to unerringly point only to the guilt of the accused and are not capable of any explanation which is not consistent with  the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. (Jeevan & Anr. Vs State of Chhattisgarh) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 771 (Chhattisgarh)

Circumstantial evidence – Weapon recovered not found connected with crime – Important link stood missing – Benefit of doubt must go to accused. (Man Preet Singh & Anr. Vs State) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 42 (Delhi)

Circumstantial evidence – When a case rests squarely on circumstantial evidence, the inference of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused for the guilt of any other persons – Circumstances from which an inference as to the guilt of the accused is drawn have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and have to be shown to be closely connected with the principal fact sought to be inferred from those circumstances. (State of Haryana Vs Jagbir Singh & Anr.) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 296 (S.C.)

Circumstantial evidence – When a case rests upon circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy the tests viz (1) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established; (2) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused; (3) the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else; and  (4) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence. (Usman Mian & Ors. Vs State of Bihar) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 334 (S.C.)

Circumstantial evidence – When a case rests upon circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy the tests viz (1) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must been cogently and firmly established; (2) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused; (3) the circumstances, taken cumulatively should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else; and (4) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis then that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence. (State of Haryana Vs Jagbir Singh & Anr.) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 296 (S.C.)

Circumstantial evidence – When case rests upon circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy the tests – (1) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established; (2) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused; (3) the circumstances, taken cumulatively should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else; and (4) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent  with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence. (State of Rajasthan Vs Rajaram) 2003(2) Apex Court Judgments 398 (S.C.)

Circumstantial evidence – Where a case rests squarely on circumstantial evidence, the inference of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or the guilt of any other person. (Vilas Pandurang Patil Vs State of Maharashtra) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 485 (S.C.)

Civil case – Pendency of civil case does not affect the criminal proceedings. (Chinnamma Vs Thomas) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 399 (Kerala)

Civil case also maintainable – Held, criminal proceedings cannot be thwarted merely because a civil case is also maintainable. (Akhileshwar Narayan Singh Vs State of Jharkhand) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 537 (Jharkhand)

Civil Court decree – Complaint on same facts which were adjudicated upon and attained finality in a civil suit between the parties – Same matter cannot be allowed to be adjudicated upon all over again in the criminal proceedings. (Manohar Lal Vs Ram Chander) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 87 (P&H) 

Civil suit pending on same set of facts and circumstances – Criminal proceedings cannot be stayed – There is no applicability of doctrine of “Res Judicata” in criminal trials. (Shridhar Vinayak Modgi Vs Ravindra Khanderao Hajare & Anr.) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 403 (Bombay)

Close related witness – Evidence of such a witness cannot be discarded merely for the reason that witness is close related witness. (State of Punjab Vs Karnail Singh) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 519 (S.C.) 

Complaint – Amendment – There is no provision in Criminal Procedure Code for allowing amendment of complaint to change name of accused and substitute one accused with another and alleging that the substituted accused had committed the alleged offence. (Behram S.Doctor Vs State of Maharashtra) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 638 (Bombay) 

Conflict between oral testimony and medical evidence – Can be of varied dimensions and shapes – Factors to be taken into consideration in judging reliability of occular testimony – Analysed. (Thaman Kumar Vs State of Union Territory of Chandigarh) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 174 (S.C.) 

Continuing offence – Continuing offence is one which is susceptible of continuance and is distinguishable from the one which is committed once and for all, that it is one of those offences which arises out of the failure to obey or comply with a rule or its requirement and which involves a penalty, liability continues till compliance, that on every occasion such disobedience or non compliance occurs, there is the offence committed. (Y.Abraham Ajith & Ors. Vs Inspector of Police, Chennai & Anr.) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 466 (S.C.)

Contradictory evidence in examination-in-chief and cross-examination – No reliance can be placed on evidence of such a witness. (Madari @ Dhiraj & Ors. Vs State of Chhattisgarh) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 487 (Chhattisgarh)

Conviction can be based on sole evidence of a witness if he is found trustworthy. (Munna & Ors. Vs State of Madhya Pradesh) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 274 (M.P.)

Conviction can be based on the testimony of sole witness provided it is wholly reliable. (Kare @ Moti Vs State of U.P.) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 101 (Allahabad) 

Conviction on basis of testimony of sole witness – Can be based even if other eye witnesses turned hostile if testimony of such sole witness is found to be reliable. (Chittar Lal Vs State of Rajasthan) 2003(2) Apex Court Judgments 256 (S.C.)

Conviction on the solitary statement of victim – Held, judgment of conviction can be recorded on the statement of victim alone if it is found to be reliable and worthy of belief. (Surjeet Vs State of Haryana) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 277 (P&H)

Criminal appeal by special leave to Supreme Court – Governing principles are: (1) No interference with concurrent finding of fact based on pure appreciation of evidence even if it were to take a different view on the evidence; (2) No reappraisement or review of the evidence, unless the assessment of the High Court is vitiated by an error of law or procedure or is based on error of record, misreading of evidence or is inconsistent with the evidence; (3) Own view cannot be substituted with that of the High Court; (4) That the Court would interfere where the High Court has arrived at a finding of fact in disregard of a judicial process, principles of natural justice or a fair hearing or has acted in violation of a mandatory provision of law or procedure resulting in serious prejudice or injustice to the accused; (5) the Court might also interfere where on the proved facts wrong inferences of law have been drawn or where the conclusions of the High Court are manifestly perverse and based on no evidence. (State of Orissa Vs Dibakar Naik & Ors.) 2003(1) Apex Court Judgments 196 (S.C.)

Cross cases – Each case to be decided on the basis of evidence which is placed on record in that particular case without being influenced in any manner by evidence or the arguments urged in cross case – However, judgment must be pronounced by the same Judge. (Dilip & Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 810 (Bombay)

Currency notes – Identification – Recovered currency notes having special features as to existence of chits on the bundles bearing the seal of the firm and signatures of PW 16 – Held, currency notes duly identified. (Lal Singh & Ors. Vs State of Uttar Pradesh) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 606 (S.C.)

Custodial death – Compensation – Recovery from Officers concerned – Depends on the fact whether the alleged misdeeds by the officer concerned is committed in the course of the discharge of his lawful duties, beyond or in excess of the same which has to be determined in a proper enquiry. (State of Maharashtra Vs Christian Community Welfare Council of India & Anr.) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 353 (S.C.)

Death of two witnesses during trial – Their legal heirs cannot be relevant witnesses in the case. (Laveti Kamala Vs State of A.P.) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 96 (A.P.)

Death suicidal or homicidal – Opinion of doctor in post mortem report that death was suicidal in nature – Opinion appeared to be perverse as doctor exceeded his jurisdiction – It is not within the competence of doctor to opine as to the nature of the death whether it is suicidal or not – No importance could be given to such opinion. (Khokan Patra & Anr. Vs State) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 626 (Calcutta) 

Defect in investigation – Does not corrode the evidentiary value of the eye witnesses. (Surendra Paswan Vs State of Jharkhand) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 138 (S.C.)

Defective investigation – Acquittal solely on account of defect – Not sustainable – In case of defective investigation Court has to be circumspect in evaluating the evidence. (Ram Bali Vs State of Uttar Pradesh) 2004(1) Apex Court Judgments 590 (S.C.)

Defective investigation – Court has to be circumspect in evaluating the evidence – Accused cannot be acquitted solely on account of the defect. (Dhanaj Singh @ Shera & Ors. Vs State of Punjab) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 01 (S.C.)

Defective investigation – If occular evidence is truthful and inspires confidence, lapse in investigation if properly explained cannot cast doubts – In the  instant  case  conviction  upheld  despite  lapse  of  non  lifting  of  blood  stained earth. (Malhu Yadav Vs State of Bihar) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 694 (S.C.)

Defective investigation – Not a ground to acquit the accused – The only requirement in a defective investigation is that Court should be extra cautious in evaluating evidence – Any deficiency or irregularity in investigation need not necessarily lead to rejection of the case of prosecution when it is otherwise proved. (Visveswaran Vs State Rep. By S.D.M.) 2003(2) Apex Court Judgments 138 (S.C.)

Defective investigation – Solely not a ground for acquittal – To do so would tantamount to playing into the hands of Investigating Officer. (Zahira Habibulla H.Sheikh & Anr. Vs State of Gujarat & Ors.) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 195 (S.C.)

Defective investigation by itself cannot be made a ground for acquitting the accused. (Allarakha K.Mansuri Vs State of Gujarat) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 168 (S.C.)

Defence – Once rejected then presumption under S.114 Evidence Act can also be drawn. (Gilbert Pereira Vs State of Karnataka) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 470 (S.C.)

Defence side getting affidavits of prosecution witnesses in advance – Held, practice adopted by the defence side in getting the affidavits of prosecution witnesses in advance is to be deprecated – It amounts to an attempt aimed at dissuading the witnesses from speaking truth before the court – Trial Judge as well as High Court rightly rejected the defence contention. (Rachapalli Abbulu & Ors. Vs State of A.P.) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 258 (S.C.) 

Defence witness – Evidence of defence witnesses not to be looked at with suspicion merely because they are defence witnesses – They are entitled to be judged with the same yardstick which is applied for judging the prosecution witnesses – Minor inconsistencies cannot be highlighted to jettison the evidence of otherwise truthful witnesses. (Shri Wilson Fernandes Vs Shri Nitin Pandurang & Anr.) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 433 (Bombay)

Defence witnesses – Accused cannot claim a right to examine any number of defence witnesses – If Court is satisfied that a witness is cited for the purpose of vexation or delay or for defeating the ends of justice then Court is entitled to refuse to issue process after recording reasons. (Dharamarajan Vs State) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 266 (Kerala) 

Defence witnesses – Credibility and trustworthiness ought also to be attributed to the defence witnesses at par with that of the prosecution. (State of Haryana Vs Ram Singh) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 571 (S.C.)

Deficiency in investigation – Court can act on evidence brought before it and acquit the accused. (State of Haryana Vs Jagbir Singh & Anr.) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 296 (S.C.)

Deficiency in investigation – Not a ground to discard the prosecution version which is authentic, credible and cogent. (State of Madhya Pradesh  Vs Mansingh & Ors.) 2003(2) Apex Court Judgments 277 (S.C.) : 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 559 (S.C.)

Delay in sending dead body for post mortem – Dead body sent for post mortem at 11-12 in the night and reached hospital next day morning at 9.30 a.m. – Jeep broke down on the way at a distance of 13-14 kms. – Jeep repaired in the morning and then dead body taken for post mortem – Explanation given in regard to delay in delivery of dead bodies for post mortem cannot be rejected. (Jai Sree Yadav Vs State of U.P.) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 28 (S.C.)

Delay of 2 days in questioning eye witnesses by I.O. – No proper explanation given – This is a serious mistake on the part of the prosecution – Held, High Court rightly disbelieved these witnesses. (Vijaybhai Bhanabhai Patel Vs Navnitbhai Nathubhai Patel & Ors.) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 598 (S.C.)

Delayed examination of witnesses – Unless I.O. is specifically asked as to why there was delay in examiantion of witnesses, defence cannot gain any advantage therefrom – If explanation offered for the delayed examination is plausible and acceptable then no adverse inference can be drawn – If explanation offered is found implausible then Court can consider it to be one of the factors to affect credibility of the witness who were examined belatedly – It has no effect on the credibility of prosecution’s evidence tendered by other witnesses. (State of U.P. Vs Satish) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 305 (S.C.)

Denial of right of undertrial accused to enter the Court halls wearing chappals or shoes – It is clear violation of constitutional mandate which ensures individual dignity and honour. (Syed Abdul Ala Vs Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau ) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 405 (Kant.)

Departmental witness – Uncorroborated testimony of the officials of the department concerned does not inspire confidence. (Bhanwar Lal Vs State of Rajasthan) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 433 (Rajasthan) 

Directions issued for compliance – (i) All criminal courts shall ensure that appearance of the accused in all cases before them is completed as expeditiously as possible after commencement of proceedings; (ii) Once appearance is completely, parties shall immediate be heard and appropriate orders on charge shall be passed – Charge/particulars of offence shall be read over and explained expeditiously after appearance; (iii) There after the case shall be listed for trial day-to-day and summons shall be issued to the witnesses; (iv) If for any reasons such posting for trial cannot be given within one year the case shall be adjourned to a date (however distant) on which day a posting for day-to-day trial on a specified date/dates can be made; (v) There shall be no unnecessary formal posting of the case to any date; (vi) The presence of the accused/complainant shall not be ordinarily insisted on days when his presence is not required for the progress of the case – On all such dates the complainant/accused shall be permitted to be represented by his counsel even without an application; (vii) If there is no such presence/representation by counsel, appropriate consequence can certainly follow-again in the judicious discretion of the court;  (viii) Specific direction shall be made in advance (while adjourning the case) by the court to the complainant/accused through their counsel if their personal presence is necessary on the next date of posting; (ix) The above directions shall not in any way affect the discretion of the court to direct personal appearance of the accused generally (or on any specific date of posting) for any particular purpose; (x) No application under Sections 205/317 Cr.P.C. shall ever be rejected unless there are specific and compelling reasons; (xi) As far as possible in summons issued to witnesses specific time for appearance shall be mentioned – Hereafter witnesses will at least be told in such summons whether they are expected to be present in the forenoon (10.30 a.m.) or afternoon (1 p.m.) session; (xii) Cases posted for recording plea or Section 313 questioning of the accused shall not be adjourned for the reason that the co-accused are not present – Such work in respect of the available accused shall be completed and the case adjourned for such work in respect of the non-available accused without insisting on the personal appearance of the available accused on such days; (xiii) When the court commences its work for the day all accused who want to surrender before court shall be permitted to do so, and their applications for bail shall, unless it be impossible for any reason, be disposed of by the court on the same day before the court rises for the day; (xiv) The Chief Judicial Magistrates/Sessions Judges shall ensure that these directions are complied with by the sub-ordinate courts and shall specifically advert to this aspect in the course of their inspections of subordinate courts. (Alice George Vs Deputy Superintendent of Police) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 111 (Kerala) 

Discrepancies – Minor discrepancies cannot be termed as contradictions unless it affects the credibility of the evidence tendered by a witness. (Shashidhar Purandhar Hegde & Anr. Vs State of Karnataka) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 716 (S.C.)

Discrepancy between Medical and Ocular evidence regarding number of injuries suffered by deceased – Medical report that there were 3 injuries but according to eye witnesses five injuries were inflicted – Two injuries might have escaped notice of Autopsy surgeon – Prosecution case not rejected as prosecution otherwise established its case. (Yunis @ Kariya Vs State of Madhya Pradesh) 2003(2) Apex Court Judgments 358 (S.C.) : 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 525 (S.C.)

Distance – Statement of the witness with respect to distance cannot be considered as exact or precise – It is always based on general impression and due allowance must be given keeping in view the intelligence, power of observation and retentive memory of the witness. (Jeeva @ Khema Vs State of Rajasthan) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 90 (Rajasthan)

Doctrine of Autrefois acquit – Accused arrested while in possession of arms and ammunition in notified area and was prosecuted under TADA – He separately prosecuted for offence of kidnapping for ransom being the master mind – Acquittal of that offence by Competent Court – Doctrine of Autrefois acquit attracted and Designated Court was wrong to proceed on the allegations in that case. (Mukhtiar Ahmed Anshari Vs State (N.C.T. of Delhi)) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 795 (S.C.)

Earliest version of two child witnesses suppressed by prosecution – That makes the entire prosecution case vulnerable and doubtful. (Orsu Venkat Rao Vs State of Andhra Pradesh) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 770 (S.C.)

Every person is innocent till proved guilty and further Court presumes a human being to behave normally and this presumption continues till such time some concrete material, like antecedents of an individual, is brought on record to show that he shall not behave in normal fashion. (Naginder Singh Rana Vs State of Punjab) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 295 (P&H)

Evidence – If two views are possible, one which is favourable to the accused has to be accepted. (State of Haryana Vs Inder Singh) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 464 (S.C.) 

Evidence – Minor discrepancies – Should be ignored – When a rustic or illiterate witness faces an astute lawyer, there is bound to be imbalance and therefore minor discrepancies have to be ignored – Some discrepancy is bound to be there and the same should not weigh with the Court so long it does not materially affect the  prosecution case. (Krishna Mochi Vs State of Bihar) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 190 (S.C.)  

Evidence – Ocular evidence not in consonance with medical evidence – If evidence of eye witnesses is of unimpeachable character and is reliable and credible, even if it is not in consonance with medical evidence and is at slight variation, then the same should not be ignored as medical evidence is just an opinion of an expert and the Court is the best expert. (Ram Kishun & Ors. Vs State of U.P.) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 101 (All.)

Evidence – Unless a piece of evidence is tendered in evidence by any witness, the same cannot be taken into consideration. (Munnalal Vs State of Rajasthan) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 686 (Rajasthan)

Evidence by affidavit – Evidence of a formal character – Can be given by way of affidavit – If any party to the lis wishes to examine or cross-examine the deponent he can move application u/s 296 (2) Cr.P.C. and when such an application is made it is the duty of the Court to call such person to the Court for the purpose of being examined. (State of Punjab Vs Naib Din) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 58 (S.C.)

Evidence of a witness cannot be rejected on the ground that he did not reacted in a particular manner – Human behaviour varies from person to person and different people behave and react differently in different situations. (State of Uttar Pradesh  Vs Devendra Singh) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 123 (S.C.)

Evidence of a witness who has got a criminal background – To be viewed with caution – If such an evidence gets sufficient corroboration from evidence of other witnesses, there is nothing wrong in accepting such evidence. (State of Uttar Pradesh Vs Farid Khan & Ors.) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 220 (S.C.)

Evidence of eye witnesses corroborated by medical evidence proved prosecution case – Trial Court recording acquittal relying on circumstances or aspects not based upon legal evidence – Held, High Court was justified in convicting accused by reversing acquittal. (Allarakha K.Mansuri Vs State of Gujarat) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 168 (S.C.)

Evidence of injured persons and eye witnesses to the occurrence not consistent with each other on material particulars such as the manner of appearance of the accused persons at the scene, their chasing and surrounding the informant party before the assault, and the utterings of the accused persons hurling abusive words and threatening to kill the informant party – Not safe to rely upon their evidence. (Pramod Kumar Khadamsingh Vs State of Orissa) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 244 (Orissa)

Evidence of victim clear and cogent – In the absence of any material to show as to why he would falsely implicate the accused, his evidence is to be relied upon. (Mathai Vs State of Kerala) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 698 (S.C.)

Exactly identical deposition of two witnesses – It is one of the grounds for doubting the credibility of the witness. (Shri Wilson Fernandes Vs Shri Nitin Pandurang & Anr.) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 433 (Bombay)

Eye witness – Corroboration – Not required in every case – It is however required when evidence of eye witness though ex facie acceptable but is not of such a character upon which implicit reliance can be placed. (Jeeva @ Khema Vs State of Rajasthan) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 90 (Rajasthan)

Eye witness – Discrepancies in evidence – No true witness can possibly escape from making some discrepant details – A tutored witness can only successfully make his testimony totally non discrepant. (Bhanwari & Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 114 (Raj.)

Eye witness – Evidence of sole eye witness found to be clear trust worthy and unassailed during cross-examination – No evidence that he is enemically disposed of towards the accused – Sufficient to base an order of conviction. (Kanista Barik Vs State of Orissa) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 148 (Ori.)

Eye witness – Non disclosure of occurrence to any person in the village – Not a ground to discard his evidence if his testimony is otherwise found to be credible. (Ramia Gaudo & Anr. Vs State) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 402 (Orissa) 

Eye witness – Reaction – Court should not expect a set reaction from an eye witness on seeing an incident like murder – Different type of reaction is expected from different type of persons – Unless the reaction demonstrated by an eye witness is so improbable or so unconscionable from any human being pitted in such situation, it is unfair to his reactions as unnatural. (Ramdev, Dharamraj & Rampal Vs The State of Rajasthan) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 347 (Rajasthan) 

Eye witness – Son of deceased – Simply because an eye witness happens to be the son of the deceased, his evidence cannot be discarded if his testimony is otherwise acceptable. (Jeeva @ Khema Vs State of Rajasthan) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 90 (Rajasthan)

Eye witness – Two principal considerations are whether in the circumstances of the case, it is possible to believe their presence at the scene of occurrence or in such situations as would make it possible for them to witness the facts deposed to by them and secondly, whether there is anything inherently improbable or unreliable in their evidence – In respect of both these considerations, circumstances either elicited from those witnesses themselves or established by other evidence tending to improbablise their presence or to discredit the veracity of their statements, will have a bearing upon the value which a court would attach to their evidence. (Jeeva @ Khema Vs State of Rajasthan) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 90 (Rajasthan)

Eye witness partly reliable – Court to rely on his testimony has to look for corroboration in material particulars. (Amrita @ Amritlal Vs State of M.P.) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 511 (S.C.)

Eye witnesses – Evidence of eye witnesses not corroborated by medical evidence and their evidence did not inspire confidence so as to be wholly reliable – Conviction on such evidence cannot be sustained. (Sheo Prasad Tiwari & Ors. Vs State of Uttar Pradesh) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 743 (Allahabad)

Eye witnesses – Some of the eye witnesses examined and some not examined – Does not make prosecution version suspect and the position is not changed when the witnesses examined are relatives. (Surinder Singh Vs State of U.P.) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 72 (S.C.)

Eye witnesses – When FIR is doubtful then eye witnesses whose names are mentioned in FIR cannot be relied upon. (Gabbu & Ors. Vs State of M.P.) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 335 (M.P.)

Eye witnesses account when found credible and trustworthy, medical opinion pointing to alternative possibilities is not accepted as conclusive. (State of Madhya Pradesh Vs Dharkole @ Govind Singh & Ors.) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 796 (S.C.)

Eye witnesses examined by investigating officer after 14 days of occurrence – Their evidence cannot be relied on to base conviction. (Shiv Yadav @ Sheo Raut & Ors. Vs State of Bihar) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 06(Patna)

Failure to examine all witnesses who witnessed the occurrence – If witnesses examined by prosecution are found to be truthful and reliable then there cannot be outright rejection of prosecution case. (Birendra Rai & Ors. Vs State of Bihar) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 725 (S.C.)

False defence plea – It is an additional link in the chain of circumstances. (Araque Lutifi @ Dazy Vs State of Orissa) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 508 (Orissa) 

False defence plea – Not enough to bring home accusations – However, it provides additional link to substantiate prosecution’s accusations. (Usman Mian & Ors. Vs State of Bihar) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 334 (S.C.)

False implication – In the case of a single accused story of false implication is not known to criminal law – It is not possible that victim would give go-bye to real culprit and falsely implicate another person. (Surjeet Vs State of Haryana) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 277 (P&H)

Fire shots – Deceased wearing a sweater, ganji and carrying a chadar – Plea that blackening of skin around wound not possible – Held, blackening of skin was found only on the margin of the wounds, that is on the skin around the wound – When firing takes place from a close range, blackening of margin of wounds appears to be only normal. (Birendra Rai & Ors. Vs State of Bihar) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 725 (S.C.)

Fire shots – Plea that appellants standing on a higher level and deceased standing on road at lower level – In normal course wound would show a downward trajectory but report disclosed otherwise – Held, after receiving first injury on the chin deceased fell down – Other injuries were suffered when he was lying on the ground – Not much significance is to be attached to the fact that some wounds showed an upward trajectory – A bullet may possibly be deflected if it hits a hard surface. (Birendra Rai & Ors. Vs State of Bihar) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 725 (S.C.)

Firing a gun – Distance – Inconsistency – Medical evidence that gun shot was fired from a distance of about 3-4 ft. and according to PW-1 distance was about 20-25 ft. – Held, where direct evidence of the eyewitness is that the accused committed the murder by firing a gun, some inconsistency relating to distance based on medical opinion offered, is of no significance whatsoever. (Janak Singh & Anr. Vs State of Uttar Pradesh) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 272 (S.C.)

Fundamental right or civil right cannot be curtailed only if a criminal case is pending. (Naginder Singh Rana Vs State of Punjab) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 295 (P&H)

Grievous injury on person of accused – Not explained – Conviction set aside. (Khursid & Ors. Vs State of Haryana) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 610 (S.C.)

Gun not sent for forensic test – Accused cannot be acquitted solely on this ground. (Ram Bali Vs State of Uttar Pradesh) 2004(1) Apex Court Judgments 590 (S.C.)

I.O. – Failure or omission or negligence – When direct testimony of the eye-witnesses corroborated by medical evidence fully establishes the prosecution version failure or omission or negligence on part of the IO cannot affect credibility of the prosecution version. (Dhanaj Singh @ Shera & Ors. Vs State of Punjab) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 01 (S.C.)

I.O. – Non examination – After going through the evidence of witnesses and other material on record, held, no prejudice has been caused to the defence by non examination of I.O. (Birendra Rai & Ors. Vs State of Bihar) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 725 (S.C.)

Identification – Identification parade not held – Identification of the accused for the first time in Court is valueless. (State of Punjab Vs Sudama) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 453 (P&H)

Identification – In the light of fire – Accused known to members of the prosecution party – Identification of accused cannot be doubted. (Shankar Mahto & Anr. Vs State of Bihar) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 550 (S.C.) 

Identification – Murder and dacoity at night time – Accused known to PWs – Identification is possible in gas light when accused are already known to PWs – Omission to indicate location of gas light in site plan is not fatal when FIR is lodged without unreasonable delay. (Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.395, 302). (State of U.P. Vs Babu & Ors.) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 290 (S.C.)

Criminal trial – Identification – Murder and dacoity at night time – Accused known to PWs – When accused are known, identification is possible from the manner of speech, manner of walking and gesticulating and special features of a person like the physical attributes. (State of U.P. Vs Babu & Ors.) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 290 (S.C.)

Identification – Murder at mid night – Accused already known to PW who also suffered injuries – Held, P.W. had abundant opportunity to identify even if there was no light. (Chittarmal Vs State of Rajasthan) 2003(1) Apex Court Judgments 191 (S.C.)

Identification – Offence at mid night – No electricity in village – Accused persons set house on fire – Held, it was possible for eye witness to identify the accused. (Krishna Mochi & Ors. Vs State of Bihar) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 190 (S.C.)  

Identification – Showing photographs – During the course of investigation, if witness gives identifying features of the assailants, the same can be confirmed by the Investigating Officer by showing the photographs of the suspect – More than one photographs, if available, should be shown – If suspect is available for identification or for video identification, photographs shall never be shown to the witness in advance. (D.Gopalakrishnan Vs Sadanand Naik & Ors.) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 879 (S.C.)

Identification – Threat at the point of revolver and demand of ransom – Identification parade held in police station building – Possibility of identifying without seeing the appellant before identification parade, not ruled out – Prosecution had failed to establish that the appellant was one of those persons who gave threats and demanded ransom – Conviction of appellant set aside. (Anthony @ Tony William Rosario Vs State of Maharashtra) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 344 (Bombay)

Identification – Victim had sufficient opportunity to see accused before commission of crime – Evidence of identification of accused in absence of test identification parade cannot be rejected. (Ramesh @ Tillu Vs State) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 600 (Delhi)

Identification by tattoo marks – Body recovered from the river – Tattoo marks may disappear if pigment used is vermilion or ultra-marine and if it has not penetrated deep into the skin. (Shankar Mahto & Anr. Vs State of Bihar) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 550 (S.C.) 

Identification by torch light – Dark night – Accused running – It is very difficult to identify a person who is running and showing only his back. (Reddi Appalnaidu & Ors. Vs State of A.P.) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 589 (A.P.)

Identification by voice – Possible only if person is known very well and he alone speaks – When all the accused were talking with each other simultaneously it is not possible to identify all of them however one or two persons can still be identified – Identification by voice is a very weak piece of evidence and it is not safe to convict the accused on that score. (Reddi Appalnaidu & Ors. Vs State of A.P.) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 589 (A.P.)

Identification of a stranger by victim – Possible only if victim get sufficient time and opportunity of seeing the culprit and thereafter impressing his features, identification marks, in his memory so as to allow him to collect it at the time of test identification parade – It is not possible when incident takes place suddenly, in a surprising way and victims were frightened as it is difficult to maintain a balance and become alert to grasp the features of the culprit as surprizedness in which the victim has been caught, coupled with frightedness are the factors which go against capacity of such witness identifying said person, after gap of even couple of days. (Rajeshkumar Babulal Sharma Vs State of Maharashtra) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 610 (Bom.)

Identification of accused and recovered articles – Not proved – Conviction set aside. (Pappu & Anr. Vs The State of Rajasthan) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 44 (Rajasthan) 

Identification parade – Law as to – (i) Identification tests do not constitute substantive evidence – They can only be used as corroborative of the statement in court – (ii) The main object of holding an identification parade during the investigation stage, is to test the memory of the witnesses based upon first impression and also to enable the prosecution to decide whether all or any of them could be cited as eye witnesses of the crime – (iii) In order to eliminate the possibility of the accused being shown to the witnesses prior to the test identification parade and it is desirable that a test identification parade should be conducted as soon as after the arrest of the accused – (iv) Appreciation of such evidence would depend upon the strength and trustworthiness of witnesses. (Vinod Kumar & Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 254 (Rajasthan)

Identification parade – When accused was specifically named in the FIR then it was not necessary to hold test identification parade. (Bir Chand Vs State of Haryana)  2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 131 (P&H) 

Identity of accused in crime – Accused disputing he is not involved in the alleged incident and no article was found from him then such endorsement be taken on the photograph. (Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs State of Gujarat) 2003(1) Apex Court Judgments 273 (S.C.) : 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 689 (S.C.)

Identity of deceased – Skeletal remains recovered from well after two months of murder – Identity of deceased tested by super-imposition of skeletal remains of deceased with reference to photograph of deceased – Post mortem report opined that age of deceased was between 15-16 years – Forensic expert also opined that skull belonged to a human being of female aged 15 or 16 years – Identity of deceased stood established. (Golakonda Venkateswara Rao Vs State of Andhra Pradesh) 2003(2) Apex Court Judgments 153 (S.C.)

Identity of vehicle – There may not be any necessity of producing the vehicle before the Court – Seizure report may be sufficient. (Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs State of Gujarat) 2003(1) Apex Court Judgments 273 (S.C.) : 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 689 (S.C.)

If a person undertakes to do a particular act, Court should presume that he shall do so unless there be reasons available from which it could be gathered that he shall not abide by the undertaking given by him. (Naginder Singh Rana Vs State of Punjab) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 295 (P&H)

If offender is ill it is duty of Police Officer to take him to hospital and to make efforts for saving his life instead of engaging in technicalities. (Babasaheb Dadasaheb Koli Vs State of Maharashtra) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 57 (Bombay)

If on same evidence two views are reasonably possible, the one in favour of the accused must be preferred. (State of U.P. Vs Gambhir Singh & Ors.) 2005(1) Apex Court Judgments 677 (S.C.)

If on same evidence two views are reasonably possible, the one in favour of the accused must be preferred. (State of U.P. Vs Gambhir Singh & Ors.) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 835 (S.C.)

If testimony of a witness is not reliable an accused can not be convicted simply because there was no ground for his false implication. (Lalla alias Raj Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P.) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 626 (Allahabad)

If two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. (Shashidhar Purandhar Hegde & Anr. Vs State of Karnataka) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 716 (S.C.)

If two views are reasonably possible, one supporting acquittal and other indicating conviction then appellate Court should prefer the former one. (State of Kerala  Vs Ramachandran) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 534 (Kerala) 

If two views are reasonably possible on the basis of evidence on record, the view which favours the accused must be preferred. (Ram Swaroop & Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 359 (S.C.)

In case of direct evidence, lack of motive is no ground to cast suspicion on oral testimony of the witness. (Mohinder Singh & Anr. Vs State of Punjab) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 393 (P&H)

In fardbeyan only six persons named – In evidence names of three more persons added – Witnesses also did not say with respect to other three persons – Conviction of three added persons cannot be held to be legal. (Mojai Sharma & Ors. Vs State of Bihar) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 263(Patna)

Inconsistencies – Of minor nature – Can be regarded as natural – Giving more details while deposing before Court cannot be regarded as improvements. (Karbasappa & Ors. Vs State Through Narona Police Station) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 332 (Karnataka)

Independent witness – Family feud – In a family feud it is rarely an independent witness would come forward to give evidence. (Balram Singh & Anr. Vs State of Punjab)  2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 370 (S.C.) : 2003(2) Apex Court Judgments 119 (S.C.)

Independent witness – Given up being won over – Trial Court finding no justified reason to give up such witness – No other independent witness joined though recovery effected at a busy thoroughfare – The findings recorded by the trial Court are possible findings and do not suffer from any perversity. (State of Punjab Vs Jagjit Singh) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 595 (P&H) 

Independent witness – Joined at the time of search but not examined as a witness – It is a serious infirmity. (State of Punjab Vs Nikku Singh) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 48 (P&H)

Independent witness – One independent witness joined but he not examined and no reason assigned as to why he was not examined –  The only presumption is that if he had been produced, he would not have supported the prosecution version. (Hukmi Vs State of Haryana) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 512 (P&H)

Independent witnesses – Non joining of – Conviction u/s 326/324/34 IPC – Occurrence took place in a cattle fair where there was a large crowd but none of the independent witnesses associated – Conviction set aside. (Mohan Vs State of Punjab) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 640 (P&H) 

Independent witnesses – Raid by Drug Inspector – Independent witnesses not joined – Two doctors from his own department joined – They cannot be said to be independent witnesses – Conviction under Drugs and Cosmetics Act set aside. (Mukhtiar Singh Vs State) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 220 (P&H) 

Inimical witnesses – If witnesses are true and reliable their testimony cannot be thrown out on the threshold by branding them as inimical witnesses – A duty is cast upon the Court to examine the testimony of inimical witnesses with due caution and diligence. (Rama Shish Rai Vs Jagdish Singh) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 946 (S.C.)

Injured witness – Evidence of injured witnesses have greater evidentiary value and unless compelling reasons exist, their statements are not to be discarded lightly. (State of Madhya Pradesh  Vs Mansingh & Ors.) 2003(2) Apex Court Judgments 277 (S.C.) : 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 559 (S.C.) 

Injured witness – Merely because a witness is injured intrinsic value of his evidence is not enhanced by this fact alone. (Jagatpal & Ors. Vs State of U.P.) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 24(Allahabad)

Injured witness – Testimony of an injured witness has its own relevance and efficacy –  The fact that the witnesses sustained injuries at the time and place of occurrence lends support to their testimony that the witnesses were present during the occurrence. (State of U.P. Vs Kishan Chand & Ors.) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 337 (S.C.)

Injuries by Bhala – Incised wound and piercing wound – Bhala will cause piercing and punctured wound only when it is used as Bhala – Bhala can also cause incised wound when the assault is by the side portion of the Bhala and it is used in a slanting fashion – Wounds on the person of victim found by doctor to be incised wound – Evidence of prosecution witnesses that Bhala was used as a Bhala is used and there is nothing to show that Bhala was used in a different manner – Finding of incised wound casts a doubt over the prosecution story. (Parmanand Singh & Ors. Vs State of Bihar) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 749 (Patna)

Injuries on person of accused – Failure to explain – Injuries suffered few abrasions and minor lacerated wounds – Held, prosecution case cannot be disbelieved merely by its failure to explain minor injuries suffered by accused. (Mangu Khan & Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 10 (S.C.)

Injuries on person of accused – Non explanation – Does not vitiate the trial, if the prosecution evidence against the accused is so strong on the basis of which alone the conviction can be recorded. (State of U.P. Vs Kishan Chand & Ors.) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 337 (S.C.)

Injuries on person of accused – Non explanation – Effect – Non-explanation of injuries by the prosecution will not affect prosecution case where injuries sustained by the accused are minor and superficial or where the evidence is so clear and cogent, so independent and disinterested, so probable, consistent and creditworthy, that it outweighs the effect of the omission on the part of prosecution to explain the injuries. (Shriram Vs State of Madhya Pradesh) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 619 (S.C.)

Injuries on person of accused – Non explanation – Effect – When prosecution proves its case beyond any reasonable doubt it is hardly necessary for prosecution to again explain how and under what circumstances injuries have been inflicted on the person of the accused. It is more so when the injuries are simple or superficial in nature. (Shriram Vs State of Madhya Pradesh) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 619 (S.C.)

Injuries on person of accused – Omission to explain – Will not affect prosecution case where injuries sustained by the accused are minor and superficial or where the evidence is so clear and cogent, so independent and disinterested, so probable, consistent and creditworthy, that it outweighs the effect of the omission on the part of prosecution to explain the injuries. (Sucha Singh & Anr. Vs State of Punjab) 2003(2) Apex Court Judgments 641 (S.C.) : 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 01 (S.C.)

Injuries on person of accused persons – Non explanation – Not a ground to discard the prosecution version – That per se cannot be a ground to totally discard the prosecution version – This is a factor which has to be weighed along with other materials to see whether the prosecution version is reliable, cogent and trustworthy – When the case of the prosecution is supported by an eye witness who is found to be truthful, as well, mere non-explanation of the injuries on the accused persons cannot be a foundation for discarding the prosecution version.  (Chacko @ Aniyan Kunju & Ors. Vs State of Kerala) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 48 (S.C.)

Interested or partisan witness – Evidence of a witness cannot be discarded merely on the ground that he is either partisan or interested or both, if otherwise the same is found to be credible. (Ashok Kumar Pandey Vs State of Delhi) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 429 (S.C.)

Interested witness – A witness can be called interested only when he derives some benefit from the result of litigation; in the decree in a civil case, or in seeing an accused punished – A witness who is a natural one and is the only possible eye witness in the circumstances of a case cannot be said to be interested. (Jeeva @ Khema Vs State of Rajasthan) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 90(Rajasthan)

Interested witness – Court has to sift the evidence to find truth after excluding the exaggerations and embellishments. (Raghunathan Vs State of Kerala) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 493 (Kerala)

Interested witness – Evidence of an interested witness by itself not to be rejected – Test of creditworthiness or acceptability is the guiding factor – The evidence must inspire confidence and in the event of unshaken creditability, there is no justifiable reason to reject the same. (Alamgir Vs State (NCT, Delhi)) 2003(1) Apex Court Judgments 66 (S.C.)

Interested witness – Testimony of cousin and of friend of deceased – Not to be discarded outrightly but to be scrutinised carefully. (Anwar Hussain Vs The State of Rajasthan) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 599 (Rajasthan) 

Interested witness – When a incident happens in a dwelling house or nearby the most natural witnesses would be the inmates of that house – Merely on surmises Court should not castigate a prosecution for not examining other persons of the locality as prosecution witnesses as prosecution can be expected to examine only those who have witnessed the events and not those who have not seen it though the neighbourhood may be replete with other residents also. (Sucha Singh & Anr. Vs State of Punjab) 2003(2) Apex Court Judgments 641 (S.C.) : 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 01 (S.C.)

Interested witnesses – All disclosures, discoveries and even arrests made in presence of three specific persons – These atleast create a doubt or suspicion – Held, when there is such a doubt, the benefit must and ought to be transposed to the accused persons. (State of Haryana Vs Ram Singh) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 571 (S.C.)

Interested witnesses – Not a suspect witness –  However, his evidence has to be considered with proper scrutiny. (State of Haryana Vs Ram Singh) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 571 (S.C.)

Interested witnesses – Testimony of all material prosecution witnesses interested in the prosecution case requires close scrutiny and when there are many infirmities, contradictions, appearing in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, it is extremely hazardous to convict the accused in the absence of corroboration in all material particulars. (Debi Prasad Panda Vs State of Orissa) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 409 (Orissa) 

Interested witnesses – Their testimony not to be discredited simply because they are related to the informant – It is the circumstance of the case which would render their testimony untrustworthy. (Shiv Kumar Yadav & Ors. Vs State of Bihar) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 21 (Patna)

Investigation by police official who was the complainant – Investigation can be assailed only if it is biased. (S.Jeevanantham Vs State through Inspector of Police, TN) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 253 (S.C.)

Investigation by same police official who lodged complaint – In absence of independent corroboration, conviction cannot be recorded in such a case. (Mukhtiar Ahmed Anshari Vs State (N.C.T. of Delhi)) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 795 (S.C.)

Investigation lapses – Ballistic expert not examined to elicit the fact that empty cartridges recovered and pellets recovered from the body of victim were fired from a particular sten gun – Bloodstained earth and shirt of accused not sent for chemical analysis and the reports obtained – Held, these lapses do not affect the veracity of the most natural eye witnesses who have given a consistent version and who came forward with this version at the earliest opportunity. (Gyasuddin Khan @ Md.Gyasuddin Khan Vs State of Bihar) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 242 (S.C.)

Judicial order – Use of cyclostyled form – Held, every judicial act contemplates a judicial performance and it cannot be achieved by mechanical process by utilising a cyclostyled form – Magistrate has to apply his mind and has to write the judicial order himself or has to be got typewritten under his supervision – If order is typewritten the same should be at his dictation – Order overall should show the application of judicial mind and a judicial performance. (Prakash B.Paranjape Vs K.G.Patil) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 651 (Bombay) 

Katar blow inflicted on thigh of deceased – FIR not stating that first blow was attempted on chest – Omission not sufficient to raise doubt about evidence of person making FIR. (Anwar Hussain Vs The State of Rajasthan) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 599 (Rajasthan) 

Laches on part of prosecution – Simply for this reason a criminal case cannot end in acquittal. (Union of India Vs Md.Abdul Hassan, Tax Assistant) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 301 (Gauhati) 

Last seen theory – Comes into play where the time gap between the point of time when the accused and deceased were seen last alive and when the deceased is found dead is so small that possibility of any person other than the accused being the author of crime become impossible. (State of U.P. Vs Satish) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 305 (S.C.)

Last seen together – A person who is last found in the company of another, if later found missing, then the person with whom he was last found has to explain the circumstances in which they parted company. (Sahadevan @ Sagadevan Vs State) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 68 (S.C.)

Last seen together – Last seen circumstance is a very weak type of evidence – It should be corroborated by some other independent material evidence. (Pawan @ Ratan Mandal Vs State of Chhattisgarh) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 460 (Chhattisgarh) 

Last seen together – Prosecution has to prove that the time gap between the last seen and murder is so proximate and so close that there is no possibility of drawing any inference of innocence of the accused  persons and  there was no possibility of meeting of anyone else with the deceased in between. (Pawan @ Ratan Mandal Vs State of Chhattisgarh) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 460 (Chhattisgarh) 

Link evidence – Affidavit not bearing seal of Court which had attested it – Affidavit is inadmissible in evidence and cannot be read into evidence – Accused acquitted. (Gurmail Singh Vs State of Punjab) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 43 (P&H)  

Link evidence – Proof by way of affidavit – Verification of affidavit found to be defective – Affidavit not admissible in evidence – There being no link evidence,  accused is entitled to benefit of doubt. (Santokh Singh @ Sokha Vs The State of Punjab) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 563 (P&H) 

Link evidence – Recovery of charas – Affidavit of two police officials who took sample to chemical examiner tendered in evidence but these officials not produced for cross examination – Affidavits not put to accused during his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. – Report of Chemical Examiner cannot be acted upon as possibility cannot be ruled out that after the seizure and before the analysis the sample was not tampered with – Accused acquitted. (Kapil Dev Vs State of Punjab) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 125 (P&H)

Link evidence – Witness who tested the illicit liquor and re-sealed the same not examined – No doubt his report was tendered in evidence but report was required to be proved by examining him in the Court – Accused acquitted. (State of Punjab Vs Nikku Singh) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 48 (P&H)

Loss of Court file – Reconstructing the records – It is justifiable not to go into merits of the case only when reconstruction of file is impossible or the reconstructed file is scant and incomplete lacking in material documents of which no extracts are to be found in the judgment of the trial Court. (Kunwar Bahadur Singh Vs Sheo Baran Singh) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 46 (S.C.)

Material discrepancies – Material discrepancies are those which are not normal, and not expected of a normal person – Courts have to label the category to which a discrepancy may be categorized – While normal discrepancies do not corrode the credibility of a party’s case, material discrepancies do so. (Krishna Mochi & Ors. Vs State of Bihar) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 190 (S.C.)  

Material discrepancies – Quantity of sample purchased 700 gms. whereas in complaint this quantity mentioned as 900 gms. – PW1 stated that sample was made homogeneous on a piece of paper whereas in cross examination this witness stated that sample was made homogeneous on a piece of newspaper – These are not material discrepancies as with passage of time, memory of witnesses is likely to fade regarding the minute details of what had happened in their presence. (Suraj Pal Vs State of Haryana) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 433 (P&H)

Medical evidence and ocular evidence – Doctor said that injuries appeared to be on one side of the body and the witnesses said that attacks were from different sides – It is too trifle an aspect – It is only when the medical evidence totally improbabilises the ocular evidence, that the Court starts suspecting the veracity of the evidence and not otherwise. (Surinder Singh Vs State of U.P.) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 72 (S.C.)

Medical evidence and ocular evidence – Minor variations – Do not take away the primacy of the latter unless medical evidence in its term goes so far as to completely rule out all possibilities whatsoever of injuries taking place in the manner stated by the eyewitnesses the testimony of eyewitness cannot be thrown out. (Kamaljit Singh Vs State of Punjab) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 726 (S.C.)

Medical evidence and ocular evidence – When there is inconsistency between the ocular testimony and medical evidence, then the ocular evidence should not be discarded unless it is found that the medical evidence totally improbabilises the ocular evidence. (State of Karnataka Vs Papanaika & Ors.) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 629 (S.C.)

Medical evidence and ocular evidence – Where the eyewitnesses’ account is found credible and trustworthy, medical opinion pointing to alternative possibilities is not accepted  as conclusive. (Ramakant Rai Vs Madan Rai & Ors.) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 690 (S.C.)

Medical evidence and ocular version – When there is a minor contradiction between ocular version and medical evidence, the ocular version will prevail but when medical evidence is totally contradictory to the ocular version, the ocular version is to be discarded. (Naresh Vs State of Haryana) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 726 (P&H)

Medical jurisprudence  – Fracture of cornue of hyoid bone – Hyoid bone can be fractured only if it is pressed with great force or hit by hard substance with great force – Hyoid bone is not a bone which can be easily fractured. (State of Karnataka Vs K.Gopalakrishna) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 200 (S.C.)

Medical jurisprudence – Death by strangulation – Features available in case of death by strangulation are not always available in a case where body is burnt after killing. (State of Karnataka Vs K.Gopalakrishna) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 200 (S.C.)

Minor contradictions – When an incident is watched by number of persons, everyone has his own way of narration – Too much cannot be made out of minor contradictions. (Ganga Paswan & Anr. Vs State of Bihar) 2003(1) Apex Court Judgments 593 (S.C.)

Minor discrepancies – Minor, trivial and inconsequential discrepancies do not affect the basic credibility of the witness and they do not come in the way of Court in accepting that evidence. (State of Karnataka Vs Daya @ Dayananda) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 555 (Karnataka) 

Minor discrepancies – While appreciating the evidence of a witness, the approach of Court should be whether the evidence of the witness read as a whole appears to have a ring of truth and if such an impression is formed, then minor discrepancies on trivial matters not touching the core of the case would not entail the rejection of the evidence. (Ian Roylance Stillman Vs State of H.P.) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 417 (H.P)

Minor omissions – Evidence recorded years after occurrence – Minor omissions are natural – There cannot be exact and precise reproduction in any mathematical manner – What needs to be seen is whether the version presented in the court was substantially similar to what was stated during investigation – It is only when exaggerations fundamentally change the nature of the case, the court has to consider whether the witness was telling the truth or not. (Sunil Kumar Vs The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 524 (S.C.)

Motive – Becomes insignificant when there is direct evidence – However, when prosecution comes with a motive against the culprit, it is required to be tested on the anvil of probabilities. (Ram Jatan Vs State of U.P.) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 403 (Allahabad)

Motive – By itself is not sufficient to base conviction. (Subimal Sarkar Vs Sachindra Nath Mondal & Ors.) 2003(2) Apex Court Judgments 54 (S.C.)

Motive – Failure of prosecution to prove motive, is of no consequence where direct evidence has been led. (Randhir Singh Vs State of J&K) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 700 (J&K)

Motive – If incident as projected by prosecution is accepted then presence or absence of motive or strength of motive by itself will not make prosecution case weak. (Balram Singh & Anr. Vs State of Punjab) 2003(2) Apex Court Judgments 119 (S.C.) : 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 370 (S.C.) 

Motive – Injuries sustained by accused – Non explanation – It is not an invariable rule that non explanation of the injuries sustained by accused would justify discarding the entire prosecution case. (Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302, 97 to 99). (Rajesh Kumar Vs State of Haryana) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 384 (P&H)

Motive – Is not evidence in a case – However, when prosecution comes up with a motive, it would be proved or at least tested by the court for satisfying the judicial mind as to the authorship of the crime alleged to have been committed by the accused. (Ram Chandra Vs State) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 133 (Allahabad) 

Motive – Looses much of its importance where case is based on direct evidence of eye witnesses – However when there is a cross version of the incident and the prosecution fails to prove the alleged motive and other circumstances raise a needle of suspicion then motive assumes importance. (Jumman Khan Vs State) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 329 (All.) 

Motive – Murder – Disappointment and failure in love – Not a cause for murder unless it is substantiated by credible evidence that the affair had broken beyond redemption. (Ashish Batham Vs State of Madhya Pradesh) 2003(1) Apex Court Judgments 330 (S.C.) : 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 568 (S.C.) 

Motive – Plays an important role in direct as well as circumstantial evidence – However, in a case based on circumstantial evidence, motive assumes much importance. (Prithviraj Vs State of Rajasthan) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 111 (Rajasthan)

Motive – Possibility of some ire or ill will or even ill-feeling between accused and deceased – It can be a motive for the offence. (Karbasappa & Ors. Vs State Through Narona Police Station) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 332 (Karnataka)

Motive – Presence of motive is only circumstance against accused and by itself is not sufficient for conviction – Motive is a psychological phenomenon and the mere fact that the prosecution failed to translate that mental disposition of the accused into evidence does not mean that no such mental condition existed in the mind of the accused. (Jinnappa Pareesh Hulakund Vs State of Karnataka)  2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 95 (Kant.)

Motive – Weakness or absence of motive – Not material when prosecution relies on testimony of eye witnesses. (Ram Rattan Vs State of U.P.) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 391 (All.)

Motive – When evidence of eye witnesses is found trustworthy and acceptable then absence of proof of motive becomes immaterial. (Rajesh @ Khanna  Vs State of Maharashtra) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 156 (Bombay)

Motive – When prosecution evidence is so strong and positive then motive becomes inconsequential. (Rama Shish Rai Vs Jagdish Singh) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 946 (S.C.)

Motive – Where occular evidence is trustworthy and reliable and finds corroboration from medical evidence, finding of guilt can safely be recorded even if motive for the commission of crime has not been proved. (Thaman Kumar Vs State of Union Territory of Chandigarh) 2003(2) Apex Court Judgments 142 (S.C.) : 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 174 (S.C.)

Multiple offence – Some requiring special procedure – Where a transaction of crime involves multiple offences some of which require special procedure, prosecution has to be by special procedure. (S.G.Mallikarjun & Ors. Vs Smt.Asha) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 167 (Karnataka)

Murder – Injuries sustained by accused – Non explanation – Court can draw inference (1) That the prosecution has suppressed the genesis and the origin of the occurrence and has thus not presented the true version; (2) that the witnesses who had denied the presence of the injuries on the person of the accused are lying on a most material point and therefore their evidence is unreliable; (3) that in case there is a defence version which explains the injuries on the person of the accused it is rendered probable so as to throw doubt on the prosecution case. (Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302, 97 to 99). (Rajesh Kumar Vs State of Haryana) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 384 (P&H)

Murder – Motive – Question of motive is of no consequence, if the evidence against  the accused persons is clear and cogent, but the absence of proof of motive would put the Court on its guard to examine the evidence bearing on the guilt of the accused persons with care before its acceptance. (Debi Prasad Panda Vs State of Orissa) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 409 (Orissa) 

Murder of father – Son not touching the body of his father – Held, different people react differently to a given situation and from the fact that this witness did not chose to fall on the body of his father or carry his dead body from where it was lying, by itself cannot be a ground to reject his evidence. (Jai Sree Yadav Vs State of U.P.) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 28 (S.C.)

Names of eye witnesses not appearing in First Information Report – That by itself not a ground to doubt their evidence – There is no requirement of mentioning the names of all witnesses in the first information report. (State of Madhya Pradesh Vs Dharkole @ Govind Singh & Ors.) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 796 (S.C.)

Near relation witness – Would not depose falsely against innocent persons so as to allow the real culprit to escape unpunished, rather the witness would always try to secure conviction of the real culprit and there is no reason as to why he should depose falsely. (State of Punjab Vs Hardan Singh & Ors.) 2003(2) Apex Court Judgments 467 (S.C.)

Non appealing accused – Conviction of any accused not possible – Benefit of acquittal also goes to non-appealing accused. (Suresh Chaudhary etc. Vs State of Bihar) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 515 (S.C.) : 2003(1) Apex Court Judgments 584 (S.C.)

Non disclosure of names of assailants to doctor – Is of no consequence. (Bhargavan & Ors. Vs State of Kerala) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 63 (S.C.)

Non examination of certain witnesses – Per se does not corrode vitality of prosecution version, particularly when the witnesses examined have withstood incisive cross-examination and pointed to the accused as the perpetrators of the crime. (State of Madhya Pradesh Vs Dharkole @ Govind Singh & Ors.) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 796 (S.C.)

Non examination of I.O. – Rest of evidence does not get totally destroyed – Prosecution can still be sustained on its own credibility. (State of Karnataka Vs Jagadisha) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 125 (Karnataka) 

Non examination of independent witnesses who had gathered at the scene of offence when victim was assaulted – That by itself is not sufficient to discard the testimony of related witnesses if their testimony is found to be trustworthy and acceptable. (Rajesh @ Khanna  Vs State of Maharashtra) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 156 (Bombay)

Non explanation of injuries on the person of accused – No such specific questions put to eye witnesses about the injuries sustained by accused in the same incident – Accused suffered superficial injuries which are not required necessarily to be explained by witnesses especially when on the spot more than 15 persons were present and witnesses themselves were also assaulted – Burden was on the accused to prove that they received injuries in the same incident – Accused did not lodge any report at the police station nor complained to authorities – Held, non explanation of injuries on person of accused not fatal to prosecution case. (Babukhan & Anr. Vs State of M.P.) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 228 (M.P.)

Non explanation of injuries on the person of accused – Where prosecution evidence is clear, cogent and credit worthy, mere fact that injuries are not explained by the prosecution cannot by itself be a sole basis to reject such evidence. (Ram Avtar & Ors. Vs The State of U.P.) 2003(1) Apex Court Judgments 274 (S.C.)

Non explanation of injuries sustained by accused in a murder case – Court can draw the inferences viz. (i) (i) that the prosecution has suppressed the genesis and the origin of the occurrence and has thus not presented the true version; (ii) that the witnesses who have denied the presence of the injuries on the person of the accused are lying on a most material point and, therefore, their evidence is unreliable; (iii) that in case there is defence version which explains the injuries on the person of the accused, it is rendered probable so as to throw doubt on the prosecution case.(Debi Prasad Panda Vs State of Orissa)  2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 409 (Orissa) 

Non production of case property during trial – It cannot be said that what was seized from the accused was sent to the Chemical Examiner. (Madan Vs The State of Rajasthan) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 28 (Raj.)

Non recovery of weapon of offence during investigation – Assault with knife – Eye witnesses described the knife and knife not recovered during investigation – Not a factor to discard evidence of eye witnesses – Wounds noticed by doctor throw considerable light in this aspect – Doctor’s opinion about weapon, though theoretical, cannot be totally wiped out. (Anwarul Haq Vs The State of Uttar Pradesh) 2005(1) Apex Court Judgments 654 (S.C.) : 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 752 (S.C.)

Normal discrepancies  & Material discrepancies – Normal discrepancies are those which are due to normal errors of observation, normal errors of memory due to lapse of time, due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence and those are always there, however, honest and truthful a witness may be – Material discrepancies are those which are not normal, and not expected of a normal person – Courts have to label the category to which a discrepancy may be categorized – Normal discrepancies do not corrode the creditibility of a party’s case, material discrepancies do so. (State of Punjab Vs Karnail Singh) 2003(2) Apex Court Judgments 298 (S.C.) : 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 519 (S.C.) 

Normal discrepancies and Material discrepancies – Normal discrepancies in evidence are those which are due to normal errors of observation, normal errors of memory due to lapse of time, due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence and those are always there however honest and truthful a witness may be – Material discrepancies are those which are not normal, and not expected of a normal person – While normal discrepancies do not corrode the credibility of party’s case, material discrepancies do so. (Sucha Singh & Anr. Vs State of Punjab) 2003(2) Apex Court Judgments 641 (S.C.) : 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 01 (S.C.)

Not examining other persons of the locality as prosecution witnesses – If Court has discerned from evidence or even from the investigation records that some other independent person has witnessed any event connecting the incident in question then there is justification for making adverse comments against non examination of such person as prosecution witness – Otherwise, merely on surmises the Court should not castigate a prosecution for not examining other persons of the locality as prosecution witnesses – Prosecution can be expected to examine only those who have witnessed the events and not those who have not seen it though the neighbourhood may be replete with other residents also. (Hari Ram Vs State of U.P.) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 198 (S.C.)

Number of injuries – Not always determinative of the offence – It depends on the weapon used, place where injuries were inflicted and the nature of the injuries. (Adu Ram Vs Mukna & Ors.) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 678 (S.C.)

Number of injuries is not always a safe criterion for determining who was the aggressor. (Shriram Vs State of Madhya Pradesh) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 619 (S.C.)

Observations against person not party to the proceedings – Court should not make observation in judgments, unless the person in respect of whom comments and criticisms are made is party to the proceedings and further is granted an opportunity of having his say in the matter, unmindful of the serious repercussions they may entail on such persons – Apart from that, when there is no relevance to the subject matter of adjudication, it is certainly not desirable for the Courts to make any comments or observations reflecting on the bonafides or credibility of any person or their actions. (Tessta Setalvad & Anr. Vs State of Gujarat & Ors.) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 77 (S.C.)

Occurrence took place in moonlight – Witnesses standing at a respectable distance for fear of being assaulted – It is doubtful whether they were in a position to observe each and every detail of the alleged occurrence, that too in the moonlight. (Harjinder Singh @ Bhola Vs State of Punjab) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 251 (S.C.)

Ocular evidence and medical evidence – Acceptable ocular evidence cannot be dislodged on hypothetical bases for which no proper grounds were laid. (Mangu Khan & Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 10 (S.C.)

Ocular evidence and medical evidence – Ocular evidence has to be given importance over medical evidence – Where medical evidence totally improbablies the ocular version that can be taken to be a factor to effect credibility of prosecution version. (State of Rajasthan Vs Bhanwar Singh) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 407 (S.C.)

Ocular testimony – If reliable cannot be discarded even when there is no sufficient corroboration by medical evidence. (Ashok Kumar & Ors. Vs State rep. by Inspector of Police) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 458 (Madras)

Omissions – Every omission is not a contradiction – Minor details which are not indicated in the first information report and later on elaborated in court do not justify a criticism that the case originally presented has been abandoned to be substituted by another one. (Sunil Kumar Vs The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 524 (S.C.)

Order passed on concession of Advocate without authority or competence – Recall of order – Court does not become functus officio – No need to approach higher forum for annulment of the order – Court can recall or vary the order for ends of justice. (Hemanta Kumar Kar Vs Srimanta Kumar Kar) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 268 (Orissa) 

Original record brought by witness at the time of his examination-in-chief and on that day no cross examination took place – Original record not brought when witness was cross examined – Documents exhibited have to be taken as true copies in absence of request for producing original record once again.  (Surjit Singh & Ors. Vs State of Punjab) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 729 (P&H)

Part of evidence of a witness when not accepted – Does not mean that entire evidence of that witness should be scored through or disbelieved. (Kali Charan Basra Vs State of Orissa) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 413 (Orissa) 

Part of statement when found to be correct – If two parts are severable and they can be looked into and appreciated by Court then it will not be appropriate to reject or disbelieve the entire testimony of a witness. (Tehal Singh Vs The State of Punjab) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 406 (P&H) 

Part of testimony of PW found to be trustworthy and part of his testimony whereby he sought to make an improvement by naming the other accused persons found to be not true – Part of evidence of PW believed to convict the witness. (Chittarmal Vs State of Rajasthan) 2003(1) Apex Court Judgments 191 (S.C.)

Partisan or interested witness – Evidence of such a witness cannot be discarded on the ground that it is the evidence of a partisan or interested witness – All that is required is to analyse evidence of such a witness with due caution and particularly in the light of medical evidence available on record. (Gopal & Ors. Vs State of Madhya Pradesh) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 266 (M.P.) 

Pendency of civil suit between parties is not a ground for quashing of criminal proceedings alleging forgery of documents and cheating etc. (Bimal Kanti Ghosh Dastidar Vs Sri Sukhen Roy & Anr.) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 359 (Calcutta)

Physically challenged person since birth – As of necessity improvise their own methods of doing things very much in the same manner as a normal person does. (Gilbert Pereira Vs State of Karnataka) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 470 (S.C.)

Place of occurrence – Fire shots – Pellets not found at the place of occurrence – Held, in the absence of such evidence one has to rely upon the ocular evidence which if found reliable, may be acted upon. (Birendra Rai & Ors. Vs State of Bihar) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 725 (S.C.)

Place of occurrence – IO not examined – No suggestion put to witnesses that occurrence did not take place at the alleged place of occurrence – Attention of witnesses also not drawn to any material point to show that witnesses have deposed falsely in the Court – Held, there is no substance in the submission of accused that place of occurrence is not proved. (Mojai Sharma & Ors. Vs State of Bihar) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 263(Patna)

Place of occurrence – Mentioning of Door No.58 in death intimation and accident register is of no use when there is substantive evidence of occurrence taking place at Door No.55. (Ramesh & Ors. Vs State) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 405 (Madras)

Place of occurrence – No conviction can be made if prosecution fails to prove the place of occurrence by unimpeachable evidence. (Bande Lal Sah & Anr. Vs State of Bihar) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 589 (Patna)  

Plea of alibi – Failure of defence to prove –  Does not make the accused liable for conviction unless prosecution is able to prove that he is guilty of the crime as alleged beyond reasonable doubt. (Raghunathan Vs State of Kerala) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 493 (Kerala)

Plea of alibi – Plea that accused was at his service place – Duty Certificate marked for ‘identification’ but was never exhibited – On the other hand all the eye witnesses claimed to have seen the accused actively participating in the occurrence – Defence thus produced meagre and unsatisfactory evidence in support of plea of alibi and can be termed to be tainted. (Padarath Dhanuk & Ors. Vs Upendra Dhanuk & Anr.) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 326 (Patna)

Plea of alibi – Should be established by the person who is pleading it – Strict proof of alibi is necessary and plea of alibi should be proved with absolute certainty completely excluding the possibility of the accused at the time and place of occurrence. (Raghunathan Vs State of Kerala) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 493 (Kerala)

Plea of false implication – Burden to prove is upon accused and accused should discharge the burden with cogent and reasonable evidence and establish a case based on probabilities may not be beyond shadow of any reasonable doubt like the prosecution. (Mohan Singh Vs State of Punjab) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 623 (P&H)

Plea taken in defence – Not established – On the weakness of defence, case of prosecution is not proved – Prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. (Major Singh & Ors. Vs State of Punjab) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 776 (P&H)

Police Officer cannot be compelled to disclose name of informant. (Babasaheb Dadasaheb Koli Vs State of Maharashtra) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 57 (Bombay)

Postmortem report – By itself not a substantive piece of evidence – However, evidence of doctor conducting post-mortem is significant as to injuries appearing on the body of the deceased and likely use of weapons therefor – It is then prosecution’s duty and obligation to have the corroborative evidence available on record from the other prosecution witnesses. (State of Haryana Vs Ram Singh) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 571 (S.C.)

Presence at scene of occurrence – Absence of finger impression is not guarantee of absence of the person concerned at the scene. (Gade Lakshmi Mangraju alias Ramesh Vs State of Andhra Pradesh) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 715 (S.C.) 

Presence of I.O. during trial – Investigating Officer should be present during trial unless compelling reasons exist for a departure. (Zahira Habibulla H.Sheikh & Anr. Vs State of Gujarat & Ors.) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 195 (S.C.)

Prosecution cannot be permitted to lead evidence contrary to complaint. (R.G.Srivastava Vs State of Punjab) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 176 (P&H) 

Prosecution cannot take advantage of the weakness in defence case – Prosecution can succeed by substantially proving the version it alleges. (Suchand Pal Vs Phani Pal & Anr.) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 292 (S.C.)

Prosecution evidence – Relief sought to close evidence of prosecution on ground that time fixed by Supreme Court for completion of trial is over – Held, it is open to Court to consider whether evidence should be closed or further time should be granted to prosecution to complete evidence. (Udayakumar Vs Superintendent of Police) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 455 (Kerala)

Prosecution led evidence – The same remained unchallenged – Held, it is open to accused to rely upon same for defence. (Kajal Sen Vs State of Assam) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 700 (S.C.)

Prosecution must establish its case on its own merits and not on the weakness of the defence. (Sukhdev Bhimrao Hastapure Vs State of Maharashtra) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 183 (Bombay) 

Prosecution not examining certain witnesses – If defence feels importance of evidence of witnesses not examined by prosecution, defence could have called them in defence – No such steps taken – Held, defence has raised such objection only for the sake of arguments. (Babukhan & Anr. Vs State of M.P.) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 228 (M.P.)

PW changing his version – His evidence does not get totally wiped out – A part of it which is reliable can be taken note of by the court. (Sunil Kumar Vs The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 524 (S.C.)

PW on seeing six accused persons felt panicky and hid herself – She was thus not in a position to observe each of the accused carrying a particular weapon – Her evidence to that effect not believed. (Shiva Shankar Pandey & Ors. Vs State of Bihar) 2003(1) Apex Court Judgments 240 (S.C.)

Radio transmission of the incident to higher authorities – Message transmitted to higher authorities of an incident is only an information sent about a crime that has occurred which does not require all the particulars of the crime to be stated. (Jai Sree Yadav Vs State of U.P.) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 28 (S.C.)

Reaction of a witness – There is no set rule of natural reaction – Everyone reacts in his own special way and in what way the witness should react cannot be predicted. (State of Punjab Vs Hardan Singh & Ors.) 2003(2) Apex Court Judgments 467 (S.C.)

Rebuttal evidence – Not to be conclusively established but such evidence must be adduced before the Court in support of the defence that Court must either believe the defence to exist or consider its existence to be reasonably probable, the standard of reasonability being that of the ‘prudent man’. (Shri Wilson Fernandes Vs Shri Nitin Pandurang & Anr.) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 433 (Bombay)

Recall of witness for further cross examination – Ground that during earlier cross examination certain points left out from being asked – Application rejected being vague. (Haribabu Vs State of U.P. & Anr.) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 605 (All.)

Recovery – Independent witnesses – None ready to be a witness – Explanation of IO does not appear to be plausible as it does not appear from record that he made efforts to procure independent witnesses and the witnesses declined to come forward – Evidence of I.O. is worthy of ejection and no reliance can be placed on his testimony. (Pappu & Anr. Vs The State of Rajasthan) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 44 (Rajasthan) 

Recovery of contraband from house – Joining of neighbours – Explanation given that neighbours did not join on the plea that accused is a person of bad character – This is a plausible explanation. (Rohtas alias Bunder Vs State of Haryana) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 367 (P&H) 

Related, interested or inimical witness – Evidence of a witness cannot be discredited simply for the reason that he is a victim or is related to or interested in the victim/complainant or is inimical towards the accused – As a rule of prudence evidence of such witness must be read with care and caution if found confidence inspiring, trustworthy and finds corroboration from some other independent evidence on material particular, a conviction can be based on such evidence – In case on scrutiny of evidence of an interested witness, keeping in view the probability and the attendant circumstances, the evidence is found unnatural, improbable and non-confidence inspiring, no conviction can be based on such evidence – While appreciating evidence of interested witnesses, the attendant circumstances must always be kept in view as a human being may lie but not the circumstances. (Dorje Ram Vs State of H.P.) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 890 (H.P.)

Related or interested witness – By itself not sufficient to discard their evidence unless it is proved that their evidence suffers from serious infirmities which raises considerable doubt in the mind of the Court. (Jeeva @ Khema Vs State of Rajasthan) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 90(Rajasthan)

Related or interested witness – Evidence of such a witness not to be rejected merely because he is related to or interested in the parties on either side – If the presence of such a witness at the time of occurrence is proved or considered to be natural and the evidence tendered by such witness is found in the light of the surrounding circumstances and probabilities of the case to be true, it can provide a good and sound basis for conviction of the accused – Where it is shown that there is enmity and the witnesses are near relatives too, the Court has a duty to scrutinize their evidence with great care, caution and circumspection and very careful too in weighing such evidence. (Harijana Narayana & Ors. Vs State of A.P.) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 370 (S.C.)

Related or interested witnesses – Evidence of eye witnesses if otherwise reliable cannot be rejected on the ground that deceased was related to the eye witnesses or previously there was some dispute in between the prosecution and the accused side. (Padarath Dhanuk & Ors. Vs Upendra Dhanuk & Anr.) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 326 (Patna)

Related witness – Credibility – (i) Merely a related witness is not a ground to reject the testimony of a witness if otherwise found to be trustworthy and reliable; (ii) Judicial approach has to be cautious in dealing with such evidence, but the plea that such evidence should be rejected because it is partisan, cannot be accepted as correct; (iii) If for the plea of false implication proper foundation is laid, Court, by adopting a cautious approach, will analyse the evidence to find its credibility; (iv) A related witness normally to be considered independent unless he or she springs from sources which are likely to be tainted; (v) There is no general rule in regard to appreciation of testimony of related witnesses. Each case must be limited to and governed by its own facts. (Lotan & Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 51 (Rajasthan) 

Related witness – Daughter of deceased – Presence of daughter of deceased proved at the time of incident and her evidence inspire  confidence – Conviction not interfered inspite of the fact that other eye witness and relative witnesses of deceased turned hostile. (Ramesh & Ors. Vs State) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 405 (Madras)

Related witness – Evidence of eye witnesses cannot be rejected merely because they are related. (Ravi Vs State Rep. by Inspector of Police) 2005(1) Apex Court Judgments 16 (S.C.)

Related witness – Evidence of eye witnesses cannot be rejected merely because they are related. (Ravi Vs State Rep. by Inspector of Police) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 679 (S.C.)

Related witness – Evidence of such a witness cannot be thrown out – Court should approach such evidence with care and caution in order to exclude the possibility of false implication. (Basu Harijan Vs State of Orissa) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 170 (Orissa) 

Related witness – Ground that the witness being a close relative and consequently being a partisan witness, should not be relied upon, has no substance. (Surinder Singh Vs State of U.P.) 2003(2) Apex Court Judgments 679 (S.C.) : 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 72 (S.C.)

Related witness – It does not render per se their evidence suspect – All that is required to be done in such case is to carefully analyse the evidence and if after deeper scrutiny it is found acceptable, to act on it. (Shriram Vs State of Madhya Pradesh) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 619 (S.C.)

Related witness – Just because the witnesses are related to the deceased is not a ground to discard their testimony, if otherwise their testimony inspires confidence. (State of U.P. Vs Kishan Chand & Ors.) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 337 (S.C.)

Related witness – Kith and kin of deceased, if they had seen the occurrence, would not absolve the real offenders and involve innocent persons. (Babulal Vs The State of Rajasthan) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 340 (Raj.) 

Related witness – Merely on account of the witnesses being closely related to the victim their evidence cannot be thrown out, if the same otherwise appears to be truthful. (Karbasappa & Ors. Vs State Through Narona Police Station) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 332 (Karnataka)

Related witness – No ground to reject the testimony of the witness who otherwise is found to be trustworthy and reliable. (Bijoy Singh Vs State of Bihar) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 382 (S.C.)

Related witness – Not a ground to discard their evidence – Careful scrutiny has to be done of their evidence. (Banti @ Guddu Vs State of Madhya Pradesh) 2003(2) Apex Court Judgments 608 (S.C.) : 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 27 (S.C.)

Related witness – Not a ground to reject their evidence as untrustworthy – In law, what is expected is to analyse and scrutinise the same due care and caution before accepting or acting upon the same. (Malhu Yadav Vs State of Bihar) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 694 (S.C.)

Related witness – On account of relationship with the deceased credibility of a witness cannot be questioned. (Kailash Kumar @ Kalji & Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 310 (Rajasthan)

Related witness – Relationship is not a factor to affect credibility of a witness –  It is more often than not that a relation would not conceal actual culprit and make allegations against an innocent person – Foundation has to be laid if plea of false implication is made – In such cases, court has to adopt a careful approach and analyse evidence to find out whether it is cogent and credible. (Surinder Singh Vs State of U.P.) 2003(2) Apex Court Judgments 679 (S.C.)

Related witness – Relationship is not a factor to affect credibility of a witness – A relation would not conceal actual culprit and make allegations against an innocent person – Foundation has to be laid if plea of false implication is made and court has to adopt a careful approach and analyse evidence to find out whether it is cogent and credible. (Sucha Singh & Anr. Vs State of Punjab) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 01 (S.C.)

Related witness – Relationship is not a factor to affect credibility of a witness – It is more often than not that a relation would not conceal actual culprit and make allegations against an innocent person – Foundation has to be laid if plea of false implication is made – In such cases, court has to adopt a careful approach and analyse evidence to find out whether it is cogent and credible. (Surinder Singh Vs State of U.P.) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 72 (S.C.)

Related witness – Relationship is not a factor to affect credibility of a witness – It is more often than not that a relation would not conceal actual culprit and make allegations against an innocent person – Foundation has to be laid if plea of false implication is made. (Hari Ram Vs State of U.P.) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 198 (S.C.)

Related witness – Relationship is not a factor to affect credibility of a witness – It is more often than not that a relation would not conceal actual culprit and make allegations against an innocent person. (Gangadhar Behera & Ors. Vs State of Orissa) 2003(1) Apex Court Judgments 176 (S.C.)

Related witness – Relationship is not a factor to affect the credibility of a witness – It is more often than not that a relation would not conceal the actual culprit and make allegations against an innocent person – Foundation has to be laid if a plea of false implication is made – In such cases, the court has to adopt a careful approach and analyse the evidence to find out whether it is cogent and credible. (State of Karnataka Vs Papanaika & Ors.) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 629 (S.C.)

Related witness – Relationship is not a factor to attract credibility of a witness – Court has to adopt a careful approach to find out whether evidence is cogent and credible. (Bhargavan & Ors. Vs State of Kerala) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 63 (S.C.)

Related witness – Testimony of a witness cannot be discarded merely for the reason that he is related to the deceased or that his name does not find place in the first information report. (Sher Singh   Vs The State of Rajasthan) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 18 (Rajasthan)

Related witness – Testimony of eye witnesses if found to be trustworthy cannot be discarded merely because they are closely related to the deceased. (Rajesh @ Khanna  Vs State of Maharashtra) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 156 (Bombay)

Related witness – The testimony of relative witness cannot be disbelieved on the ground of relationship –  The only requirement is to examine their testimony with caution. (State of Himachal Pradesh Vs Mast Ram) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 766 (S.C.)

Related witness – There is no proposition in law that relatives are to be treated as untruthful witnesses – Reason has to be shown when a plea of partiality is raised to show that the witnesses had reason to shield actual culprit and falsely implicate the accused. (Harbans Kaur & Anr. Vs State of Haryana) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 570 (S.C.)

Related witness and witness having criminal antecedents – Evidence which is found truthful and credible otherwise cannot be discarded on the ground that witness is related with deceased and their criminal antecedents. (Anil Sharma & Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 90 (S.C.)

Related witnesses – Evidence of two sons of deceased rightly believed as they were natural witnesses and their evidence was consistent. (Rajinder Vs State of Haryana) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 274 (S.C.)

Related witnesses – Their evidence has to be appreciated with greater care and caution and evidence of such witnesses is not to be disbelieved merely because they are related to the deceased. (Ram Shanker & Ors. Vs State) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 663 (Allahabad)

Relationship of witness with deceased is no ground to disbelieve his evidence. (Ram Rattan Vs State of U.P.) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 391 (All.)

Relative or interested witness – “Related” is not equivalent to “interested” –  A witness may be called “interested” only when he or she derives some benefit from the result of a litigation; in the decree in a civil case, or in seeing an accused punished –  A witness who is a natural one and is the possible eye witness in the circumstances of case cannot be said to be “interested”. (Saka  Vs State of Rajasthan) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 188 (Rajasthan)

Relative or interested witness – By itself not sufficient to discard their evidence straightaway unless it is proved that their evidence suffers from serious infirmities which raises considerable doubt in the mind of the court. (Saka  Vs State of Rajasthan) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 188 (Rajasthan)

Relatives – Evidence of eye witnesses cannot be over thrown above board simply because they are close relatives of the deceased – The only caution is that  evidence of such witnesses is to be scrutinized with greater care and caution. (Shiv Ram @ Shiva Lal & Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 584 (Rajasthan)

Requisition to doctor for post mortem – Though it is necessary to give the gist of the information collected during the course of inquest proceedings and from the material available in the FIR to the doctor conducting the post mortem, it is not necessary to give all the particulars as contained in either of the above said documents. (Jai Sree Yadav Vs State of U.P.) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 28 (S.C.)

Res gestae evidence can be used in corroboration of primary evidence. (Rudal Shahi & Ors. Vs State) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 129 (Allahabad)

Residents of other villages cannot  be  said  to be natural witnesses. (Radhey Shyam Gupta (In Jail) Vs State of U.P.) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 614 (All.)

Resiling from statement made in Court by filing an affidavit that he had deposed at the instance of police – Once the witness is examined he cannot be allowed to resile from the testimony given in Court on oath. (Yakub Ismailbhai Patel Vs State of Gujarat) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 554 (S.C.)

Right to go abroad during pendency of corruption case – Petitioner on bail – Application for cancellation of bail pending – State not able to secure any interim adverse order against the petitioner – While moving application for cancellation of bail it is not the case of State that petitioner would run away from law – Held, fundamental right or civil right cannot be curtailed only if a criminal case is pending against a person and surely, to go abroad to see his children or grand children is a right of an individual. (Naginder Singh Rana Vs State of Punjab) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 295 (P&H)

Running away when police raided the spot – Not sufficient for basing conviction. (Rajeshkumar Babulal Sharma Vs State of Maharashtra) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 610 (Bom.)

Rustic villagers – Testimony – There are bound to occur certain discrepancies – It is difficult to expect them to remember the events with mathematical precision after a lapse of more than two years – It is common knowledge that ordinarily human memories are apt to blur with the passage of time – They are unexposed to the technicalities of urban life and they speak plainly what they saw and did – They are straightforward looking people, truthful and trustworthy. (State of Karnataka Vs M.V.Manjunathegowda & Anr.) 2003(1) Apex Court Judgments 543 (S.C.)

Seal – No evidence that seal with which the sample was sealed was put in safe custody and that at no stage  the same was not available to the police – It cannot be held that there was no scope of tampering of the sample or of the recovered item. (Balbir Singh Vs State of Punjab) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 505 (P&H) 

Search – Independent witnesses – Failure to join local, independent and respectable witnesses  may be an irregularity which, by itself, will not vitiate the trial – However, Court while appreciating evidence should keep in mind that provision of S.100(4) Cr.P.C. is not complied with. (Sandeep Kumar Vs State of H.P.) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 62 (H.P.) 

Search and seizure – I.O. remained for more than two hours at a crowded place but still no independent witness joined – This casts doubt in the veracity of the prosecution case. (Shambhu Ram Vs The State of Haryana) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 342 (P&H) 

Search of bag in the hand of accused – Amounts to search of person of accused. (Bhanwar Lal Vs State of Rajasthan) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 433 (Rajasthan) 

Second complaint on same facts – Previous complaint dismissed in default and no reasons given for the second complaint – Second complaint dismissed. (Om Parkash Bhatia Vs State of Punjab) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 632 (P&H)

Seizure memo – I.O. not examined – Seizure witness turned hostile – Seizure not proved – Ignoring seizures decision based on other evidence and evidence of two eye witnesses reliable – Conviction – No interference. (Birendra Rai & Ors. Vs State of Bihar) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 725 (S.C.)

Sentence – In awarding sentence the facts and given circumstances in each case, the nature of the crime, the manner in which it was planned and committed, the motive for commission of the crime, the conduct of the accused, the nature of weapons used and all other attending circumstances are relevant facts which would enter into the area of consideration. (State of Madhya Pradesh Vs Ghanshyam Singh) 2003(2) Apex Court Judgments 598 (S.C.) : 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 286 (S.C.)

Sentence – Long pendency of a matter by itself cannot justify lesser sentence. (State of Madhya Pradesh Vs Ghanshyam Singh) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 286 (S.C.)

Single eye witness – Conviction can be based on evidence of single eye witness provided Court is totally and completely satisfied about not only the truth and credibility but about the reliability with regard to every aspect of that evidence. (State of Karnataka Vs Daya @ Dayananda) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 555 (Karnataka) 

Single witness – Conviction can be based on the testimony of a single witness if he is wholly reliable – Corroboration may be necessary when he is only partially reliable – If evidence is unblemished and beyond all possible criticism and the Court is satisfied that the witness was speaking the truth then on his evidence alone conviction can be maintained. (Evidence Act, 1872, S.134). (Chacko @ Aniyan Kunju & Ors. Vs State of Kerala) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 48 (S.C.)

Single witness – If neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable Court to look for corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony, direct or circumstantial, before acting upon testimony of a single witness. (Lallu Manjhi  Vs State of Jharkhand) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 392 (S.C.) : 2003(1) Apex Court Judgments 553 (S.C.)

Single witness – Partly reliable and partly unreliable – It is hazardous to base conviction upon the uncorroborated testimony of a single witness who has been found to be partly reliable and partly unreliable. (Qamruddin Vs State of U.P.) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 527 (All.)

Site plan – Merely because name of PW-2 did not appear at the site plan that does not render his presence at the place of occurrence improbable. (Surinder Singh Vs State of U.P.) 2003(2) Apex Court Judgments 679 (S.C.) : 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 72 (S.C.)

Sketch – Murder and dacoity at night time – Omission to indicate location of gas light in site plan is not fatal when FIR is lodged without unreasonable delay. (State of U.P. Vs Babu & Ors.) 2003(2) Apex Court Judgments 686 (S.C.) : 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 290 (S.C.)

Sketch map – Prepared by I.O. – No evidence adduced with reference to the sketch by the witnesses –  Sketch is not of much use unless some of the witnesses state as to the state of affairs at the scene. (State of Himachal Pradesh Vs Prem Chand) 2003(1) Apex Court Judgments 309 (S.C.) : 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 680 (S.C.) 

Sole child witness – Conviction not sustainable solely upon testimony of a solitary child witness when there is a serious doubt as to whether she knew the accused at all when the occurrence took place. (Jagjit Singh @ Jagga Vs State of Punjab) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 733 (S.C.)

Sole eye witness – If his testimony does not suffer from any infirmity it can form basis of conviction – Conviction can be based on the sole testimony of a witness if Court is fully satisfied that such witness is truthful witness and his presence at the time of occurrence has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. (Nisar Vs State of Rajasthan) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 109 (Rajasthan) 

Sole testimony – Conviction can be based on the sole testimony of a witness provided it finds corroboration from other physical factors and circumstances – It is also of no consequence that the sole witness is the police personnel. (Alim Ullah Vs State of U.P.) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 407 (Allahabad) 

Sole witness –  Court can and may act on the testimony of a single witness provided he is wholly reliable – If there are doubts about the testimony the courts will insist for corroboration – It is not the number, the quantity, but the quality that is material – Evidence has to be weighed and not counted. (Evidence Act, 1872, S.134). (Sunil Kumar Vs The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 524 (S.C.)

Sole witness – When a case is based upon the testimony of the only witness, his statement must be confident and inspiring, leaving no doubt in the mind of the court being above from all suspicions. (State of Haryana Vs Inder Singh) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 464 (S.C.)

Solitary witness – Conviction can be based on his evidence provided the witness is wholly reliable and his evidence is unimpeachable. (Ashok Kumar Gupta Vs State of Bihar) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 508 (Patna)

Solitary witness – Conviction can be based on the evidence of a solitary witness if it is found reliable and trustworthy and inspires confidence. (Surendra Prasad Vs State of Bihar) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 408 (Patna)

Some of the accused acquitted – Same direct evidence against all – Does not lead as a necessary corollary that those who have been convicted must also be acquitted – It is always open to a Court to differentiate accused who had been acquitted from those who were convicted. (Krishna Mochi & Ors. Vs State of Bihar)  2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 190 (S.C.)  

Specific names of children PW2 and PW4 not mentioned in fard beyan as well as in statement before police but stated that at the relevant time children of her family were also at the place of occurrence – It will not negative the presence of PW2 and PW4 at the place of occurrence. (Shankar Mahto & Anr. Vs State of Bihar) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 550 (S.C.) 

Speedy trial – No time limit can be prescribed for conclusion of trial – Each case has to be judged on its own special features – Court to see whether delayed trial become oppressive and unwarranted. (State through CBI Vs Dr.Narayan Waman Nerukar) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 07 (S.C.) 

Spot witness wrongly identifying accused in cross examination – Mistake indicate that witness is not telling the truth and his presence at the time of occurrence is doubtful and that he had not witnessed the occurrence otherwise he would have rightly identified the accused person who had actually shot the deceased. (Ramesh & Ors. Vs State of U.P.) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 156 (Allahabad)

Statement of witness recorded 10 days after occurrence despite his availability – Before giving statement to police, witness did not divulge incident to anybody in village – It is dangerous and immensely risky to act upon such evidence to sustain conviction. (Santosh Kumar Bhukta Vs State of Orissa) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 517 (Orissa)

Statutory provision – Requirement of statutory provision cannot be dispensed with as a result of agreement between the parties. (Kamal Prasad Singh Vs State of Bihar)  2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 506 (Patna) 

Stock witness – Appearance as a witness in two prosecution cases – Not a stock witness in absence of any other evidence to show he is a stock witness. (Ramesh Kumar Vs State of Himachal Pradesh) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 504 (H.P.) 

Stock witness – Recovery of opium – Eye witness to recovery was a stock witness who had been cited as a witness in ten other cases u/s 15 of NDPS Act – These cases relating to the year 1995 (1 case), 1997(1 case) and 1998 (8 cases) – This witness not examined at trial and given up having been won over – Character of this witness cannot be impeached unless he had appeared as a witness and cross examined – Fact remains that police invariably had this witness as a recovery witness – This brings a sort of taint to the whole investigation – Conviction set aside. (Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, S.18). (Raj Kumar Vs State of Punjab) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 368 (P&H)

Suspicion – Circumstances appearing from record creating suspicion that accused might have killed the deceased considering his past conduct and relationship with the deceased – However, suspicion cannot take place of proof. (Bigan Prajapat Vs State of Bihar) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 680 (Patna)

Suspicion – However strong it may be cannot take the place of proof. (Anjlus Dungdung Vs State of Jharkhand) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 246 (S.C.)

Sworn affidavits of witnesses Ex.DB & DC that injuries were caused by some other persons and the same were not attributable to the accused – Two witnesses examined and both related to the injured – Occurrence took place in a cattle fair where there was a large crowd but independent witnesses not joined –  Held, prosecution failed to prove the guilt of accused – Conviction set aside. (Mohan Vs State of Punjab) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 640 (P&H) 

T.I. parade – P.W.1 failed to identify in T.I. parade held 4-1/2 months after the occurrence – Evidence identifying in Court about one year after the date of occurrence – Not to be accepted. (Nimai Bhandari @ Barik & Anr. Vs State) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 690 (Orissa) 

Telephonic message by Sarpanch at 11.00 P.M. of cognizable offence – A note of it not made in station diary – Place of occurrence 4 kms. from police station – Police reached place of occurrence at 6.30 A.M. next morning – It leads to doubt that Sarpanch reported the matter to police at 11.00 P.M. (State of Andhra Pradesh Vs Patnam Anandam) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 851 (S.C.)

Test identification parade –  Train robbery – Test identification parade held after 36 days – Eye witnesses travelled for seven hours in same compartment – Had ample opportunity of noticing facial features of accused in light in compartment – Accused proved to be kept ‘baparda’ right from day of their arrest – Held, in such circumstances delay in holding parade is of no consequence. (Lal Singh & Ors. Vs State of Uttar Pradesh) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 606 (S.C.)

Test identification parade – Conducted after 35 days of arrest – Nothing to show that prosecution had taken care to ensure that identity of appellant was not revealed when they were produced in Court – It would be unsafe to place implicit reliance on evidence of identification. (Shyam Singh & Anr. Vs State of U.P.) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 128 (Allahabad) 

Test identification parade – Delay – It is desirable to hold test identification parade at the earliest possible opportunity – However, no hard and fast rule can be laid down in this regard – If delay is inordinate and there is evidence probabilising the possibility of the accused having been shown to the witnesses, Court may not act on the basis of such evidence – Moreover, cases where conviction is based not solely on the basis of identification in Court, but on the basis of other corroborative evidence, such as recovery of looted articles, case stand on a different footing and the Court has to consider the evidence in its entirety. (Lal Singh & Ors. Vs State of Uttar Pradesh) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 606 (S.C.)

Test identification parade – Held after the pictures of accused appeared in newspapers – Cannot be relied on to determine the identity of the accused. (Rasi  Vs State of Kerala) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 746 (Kerala)

 Test Identification Parade – In cases where offence is committed in broad day light and witness had ample opportunity to see the salient features of the culprit for sufficiently long duration, the ground for holding of TIP disappears. (Ramesh @ Tillu Vs State) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 600 (Delhi)

Test identification parade – Law as to – Enumerated. (Dana Yadav @ Dahu & Ors. Vs State of Bihar) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 706 (S.C.) 

Test identification parade – Non holding of – By itself does not disprove the prosecution case – To what extent and if at all the same would adversely affect the prosecution case, depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. (Dastagir Sab & Anr. Vs State of Karnataka) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 399 (S.C.)

Test identification parade – Not held – Accused identified for the first time during trial – Evidence of eye witnesses identifying the accused for the first time during trial does not become inadmissible or totally useless – Evidence whether deserves any credence or not depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. (Chandresh Paswan Vs State of U.P.) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 132 (All.)

Test identification parade – Rape of girl aged 8 years – No identification parade held – Accused too did not apply for test identification parade – Accused cannot take advantage that he was not put to test identification parade. (Bhupinder Vs State of Haryana) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 639 (P&H)

Test identification parade – Should not be held in police station buildings and separate rooms should be reserved for holding identification parades in separate buildings from the police station. (Anthony @ Tony William Rosario Vs State of Maharashtra) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 344 (Bombay)

Testimony of a witness can be rejected qua some accused and can be believed qua some other accused. (Sher Singh   Vs The State of Rajasthan) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 18 (Rajasthan)

There is no hard and fast rule that the names of all witnesses more particularly eye-witnesses should be indicated in the FIR. (State of Madhya Pradesh  Vs Mansingh & Ors.) 2003(2) Apex Court Judgments 277 (S.C.) : 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 559 (S.C.) 

Three accused – Conviction – Appeal by two – Conviction based solely on evidence of identification – Evidence of identification found not reliable to sustain conviction – Case of third accused who had not appealed was not distinguished – His conviction also liable to be set aside. (Nirmal Pasi & Anr. Vs State of Bihar) 2003(1) Apex Court Judgments 32 (S.C.)

Three eye witnesses – Patent inconsistency between one eye witness on one side and two on the other side – If one set is to be accepted, other set has necessarily to be rejected as they are mutually destructive and it is impossible to reconcile two sets – When it is impossible to hold with certainty as to which of two sets represents the truth, it is unsafe to rely on either of two for conviction – In such a situation there is no option except to afford the benefit of doubt to the accused. (State  Vs Vaijinath) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 84 (Karnataka) 

Three eye witnesses examined – Their testimony cannot be discarded on the ground that other persons who may have collected at the spot were not examined – It would have been better if some more persons who may have collected at the spot at the time of incident had been examined but their non examination will not as such erode the credibility of the testimony of the witnesses examined. (Dhanraj & Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra) 2003(2) Apex Court Judgments 167 (S.C.)

Time – Villagers do not have a mathematical idea of the actual time. (Jeeva @ Khema Vs State of Rajasthan) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 90 (Rajasthan)

Time of death – Medical science is not yet so perfect as to determine exact time of death nor can the same be determined in a computerised or mathematical fashion so as to be accurate to the last second. (Ram Bali Vs State of Uttar Pradesh) 2004(1) Apex Court Judgments 590 (S.C.)

Time of occurrence – 7.00 p.m. or 10.00 p.m. – PW4 stated it to be 7.00 p.m. whereas PW3 has given time of occurrence in between 9.00 and 10.00 p.m. – It is a great variation and it cannot be attributed merely to the inability of the witnesses hailing from the village to give correct time – PW3 signed in Hindi and he is a ‘Lambardar’ and PW4 signed in English – Held, witnesses are not illiterate persons though living in a village – It is difficult to assume that they will not have the idea of time – PW3 has come forward with the story that the incident happened between 9.00 and 10.00 p.m. to cover up the delay as report to police was given at 11.20 p.m. (Harjinder Singh @ Bhola Vs State of Punjab) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 251 (S.C.)

Time of occurrence – Variance between oral evidence and medical evidence – Witnesses when rustic villagers who have no sense of time, slight variance in time cannot be reason to discard their evidence which otherwise conforms to probability in testimony already delivered. (Karbasappa & Ors. Vs State Through Narona Police Station) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 332 (Karnataka)

Transfer of investigation – Body abducted – Not recovered for one year – Investigation not yet complete – None of accused arrested, nor FIR submitted – Investigation not prompt – Case transferred for investigation by CBI. (Prem Chand Vs State of Rajasthan & Ors.) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 259 (Raj.)

Two or more offences – If one offence is cognizable then case shall be deemed to be a cognizable case notwithstanding that the other offences are non-cognizable. (Vaman Narayan Ghiya Vs State of Rajasthan) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 08 (Rajasthan)

Two views – In the event of there being two possible views, the one supporting the accused should be upheld. (Narendra Singh & Anr. Vs State of M.P.) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 705 (S.C.)

Version given in FIR changed subsequently while giving evidence to suit medical evidence – Erodes credibility of prosecution version. (Debi Prasad Panda Vs State of Orissa) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 409 (Orissa) 

Weapon of offence – Non recovery – Sticks used in commission of offence not recovered – Not a ground to throw out the prosecution case when the same has been otherwise found to be truthful by credible evidence. (Rajinder Vs State of Haryana) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 274 (S.C.)

When there are contradictions and omissions of serious nature casting doubt on prosecution case, conviction of accused cannot be sustained. (State of H.P. Vs Sukhvinder Singh) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 68 (S.C.)

While assessing evidence one has to keep realities in view and not adopt a hyper sensitive approach. (Damodar Vs State of Rajasthan) 2003(2) Apex Court Judgments 361 (S.C.) : 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 567 (S.C.)

Witness – An adverse inference would be drawn in respect of a matter for which no explanation is sought for from the relevant witnesses. (State of Punjab Vs Pohla Singh & Anr.) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 330 (S.C.)

Witness – Can be believed and disbelieved in part. (Gopal & Ors. Vs State of M.P.) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 266 (M.P.)

Witness – Credibility – Contradiction with statement u/s 161 – Omission to state a fact – Omission must be a significant one and relevant – An omission to be significant must depend upon whether the specific question, the answer to which is omitted, was asked of the witness by the police officer during investigation. (Sadhuram & Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 390 (Raj.)

Witness – Evidence of witnesses cannot be discarded merely because their statements were recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. – All that is required as a matter of caution is a careful analysis of the evidence. (State of Madhya Pradesh  Vs Mansingh & Ors.) 2003(2) Apex Court Judgments 277 (S.C.) : 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 559 (S.C.)

Witness – Intending to change his earlier testimony – Held, if a witness who deposed one way earlier comes before the appellate Court with a prayer that he is prepared to give evidence which is materially different from what he has given earlier at the trial with the reasons for the earlier lapse, Court can consider the genuineness of the prayer in the context as to whether the party concerned had a fair opportunity to speak the truth earlier and in an appropriate case accept it. (Zahira Habibulla H.Sheikh & Anr. Vs State of Gujarat & Ors.) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 195 (S.C.)

Witness – Won over – Prosecution cannot be compelled to examine a witness who has been won over and no adverse inference can be drawn for non-examination of such witness. (Tunai Sharma Vs State of Bihar) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 223 (Patna) 

Witness belonged to a different area and had no business to be near the place of occurrence – Not a ground to disbelieve his evidence. (State of Uttar Pradesh Vs Farid Khan & Ors.) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 220 (S.C.)

Witness closely connected with the deceased in view of the fact that he was a teacher in the School of which deceased was the Manager – By this it cannot be presumed that this witness has volunteered to be a false witness. (Jai Sree Yadav Vs State of U.P.) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 28 (S.C.)

Witness examined earlier when wants to change his stand – Court not to readily accede to such request – If the witness gives reasons for the earlier lapse, only then Court can consider the genuineness of the prayer in the context as to whether the party concerned had a fair opportunity to speak the truth earlier and in an appropriate case accept it. (Anil Sharma & Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 90 (S.C.)

Witness not available to police for 10 days after the incident – Plausible explanation given that he was afraid for his safety hence he went to his in-laws’ place and remained there and it is only when things settled down he decided to come out and give a statement to the police – I.O. stated that there was tension in the village at the time of funeral of the deceased, which proves the apprehension of the witness for his non availability to the investigating agency. (Jai Sree Yadav Vs State of U.P.) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 28 (S.C.)

Witness reaching spot after occurrence – Evidence of such witness is of no value. (Vijay Kumar Vs The State of Rajasthan) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 325 (Rajasthan) 

Witnesses – Minor contradictions – Instead of discarding their testimony strengthens the case of the prosecution as witnesses are truthful and have not made parrot like statement. (Allarakha K.Mansuri Vs State of Gujarat) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 168 (S.C.)

Witnesses gathered at the spot and put on guard of the dead body not examined – Witness given up as being unnecessary – Evidence of persons who gathered immediately after the occurrence would have been valuable piece of evidence to serve as corroboration of the account given by the direct witnesses, especially when presence of the alleged eye witnesses at the spot was too much of coincidence – This is a serious lapse which casts a doubt on the prosecution case. (Harjinder Singh @ Bhola Vs State of Punjab) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 251 (S.C.)

Witnesses partly not trustworthy – Simply because the statements of the witnesses are partly not trustworthy that does not mean that the whole of the testimony of the witnesses should be discarded. (State of Karnataka Vs Papanaika & Ors.) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 629 (S.C.)