Landmark Judgments of Law of Evidence (BSA, 2023)
The 29 leading Law of Evidence (BSA, 2023) cases — each with a full brief (facts, issues, held, ratio). Verified against the original judgment. Free to read.
Estoppel (S115 IEA / S121 BSA)
- Sarat Chunder Dey v Gopal Chunder Laha A person whose acts or declarations induced another to act is estopped from denying their truth, even if he was himself mistaken and had no intention to mislead.
- Union of India v Indo-Afghan Agencies Ltd. Government cannot, on an undisclosed ground of executive necessity, resile from a solemn representation in its scheme on which a citizen acted to his detriment.
Admissions & confessions; statements to police; dying declarations / statements as to cause of death (S24-30 IEA / S22-23, 26 BSA)
Admissions & confessions; statements to police; recovery (S24-30 IEA / S22-23 BSA)
Corroboration of prosecutrix in sexual offences; child witness competency and oath; previous statement as corroboration (S118, S133, S157 IEA)
Burden of proof, presumptions & S106/S114 (S101-114 IEA)
- Shambu Nath Mehra v State of Ajmer Section 106 is a narrow exception to Section 101; it shifts burden only for facts 'especially' within the accused's knowledge, never relieving the prosecution of its primary burden.
- Izhar Ahmad Khan v Union of India A rule prescribing a conclusive presumption from an inherently relevant fact is a valid rule of evidence, not substantive law, so the passport rule under Section 9(2) was intra vires.
- Sodhi Transport Co v State of Uttar Pradesh A statutory "shall presume" provision creates only a rebuttable presumption that shifts the burden of going forward, not conclusive proof, and is therefore constitutionally valid.
- Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v State of Maharashtra Where a spouse dies an unnatural death inside the matrimonial home, the accused inmate bears a burden under Section 106 to explain; a false or absent explanation forms an additional incriminating link.
Dying declaration & statements of persons who cannot be called (S32 IEA / S26 BSA)
- Kushal Rao v State of Bombay A dying declaration, if found truthful and reliable on its own facts, can sustain a conviction without independent corroboration; corroboration is not a rule of law but of prudence.
- Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v State of Maharashtra Conviction on circumstantial evidence requires a complete chain excluding every hypothesis but guilt; the five 'panchsheel' tests must be fully satisfied.
- Laxman v State of Maharashtra A doctor's certificate of the declarant's fitness is only a rule of caution; a dying declaration is admissible if shown to be voluntary and truthful by other reliable means.
Proof of wills; onus on the propounder; suspicious circumstances; standard of proof for documentary evidence
Admissions & confessions; statements to police; recovery / information leading to discovery (S24-30 IEA / S22-23 BSA); constitutional validity under Article 14
Admissions & confessions; voluntariness of confession; corroboration of retracted confession (S24 IEA / S22 BSA)
Admissions & confessions; confession of a co-accused (S24-30 IEA / S22-24 BSA)
Admissions & confessions; confession to police; confessional FIR; non-severability; recovery exception (S24-27 IEA / S22-23 BSA)
Relevancy and admissibility of confessions — whether a self-incriminating soliloquy (statement made by an accused to himself, without communication to another) is a confession; admissions/confessions as declarations against interest (S5, S8, S17-30 IEA)
Accomplice evidence and corroboration; confession of a co-accused under S.30 IEA; weight of retracted confessions (S.30, 133, 114 illus (b) IEA)
Witnesses, examination, hostile witness, leave to cross-examine own witness, corroboration of interested witnesses (S118-146 IEA)
Promissory Estoppel against the Government (distinct from estoppel under S115 IEA / S121 BSA)
Relevancy — res gestae, conspiracy, motive, preparation, conduct (S5–15 IEA)
Relevancy — res gestae (facts forming part of the same transaction), Section 6 IEA [S.4 BSA]
Relevancy — discovery of fact under Section 27, doctrine of confirmation by subsequent events; conduct, motive and conspiracy (S8, S10 IEA)
Documentary & electronic evidence; primary/secondary; S65B certificate (S61-90 IEA)
- State (NCT of Delhi) v Navjot Sandhu @ Afsan Guru Printouts of cellphone call records could be proved as secondary evidence under Sections 63 and 65 even without a Section 65B certificate (later overruled by Anvar P.V.).
- Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal A written certificate under Section 65B(4) is mandatory for admitting secondary electronic evidence, but is excused where a party who has done all it could cannot obtain it from a third party.
Relevancy — motive and identity (S8 & S9 IEA): role of motive where there is direct eyewitness evidence; identification as substantive evidence
Documentary & electronic evidence; primary/secondary; S65B certificate (S61–90 IEA)
- Anvar P.V. v P.K. Basheer Secondary electronic evidence is inadmissible unless accompanied by a Section 65B(4) certificate; Sections 65A and 65B are a complete code overriding the general provisions on secondary evidence.
- Shafhi Mohammad v State of Himachal Pradesh Section 65B(4) certificate is procedural and not always mandatory; a party not in possession of the device producing the electronic record cannot be required to furnish it where justice so requires.
