You are on page 1of 4

Evidence

InHanumant

v. State

of

Madhya

Pradesh,

The

Honble Supreme

Court Observed, In dealing with circumstantial evidence there is always the


danger that suspicion may take the place of legal proof. It is well to remember
that in cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature the circumstances
from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in the first instance ,
be fully established and all the facts so established should be consistent only
with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. In other words there can be a
chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a
conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as
to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the
accused.
Ashok Kumar v. State of Madhya Pradesh the Honble Supreme Court held(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 the guilt of accused.


(3) The circumstances, taken cumulatively should from 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.
(4) The 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.

Section 3 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872


Evidence . Evidence means and includes
(1) all statements which the Court permits or requires to be made before it by
witnesses, in relation to matters of fact under inquiry, such statements are called
oral evidence;
(2) 6 [all documents including electronic records produced for the inspection of
the Court], such documents are called documentary evidence. Proved .A
fact is said to be proved when, after considering the matters before it, the Court
either believes it to exist, or considers its existence so probable that a prudent
man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the
supposition that it exists.

Under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Investigating


Officer is empowered to examine orally any person (including a suspect)
who is supposed to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the
case, and he may reduce into writing the statement of each such person
and when he does so, he shall make a separate record of the statement of
each such person whose statement he records. The person so questioned
shall be bound to answer all questions relating to such a case put to him,
other than questions, the answers to which would have a tendency to
expose him to a criminal charge or to a penalty or forfeiture.

DEFENCE:
The opinion or belief of the third person is as a general rule irrelevant and
therefore inadmissible. the witness are allowed to state facts and facts
alone : what they themselves heard or saw

Sitaram srigopal v. Daulati Devi.


The evidence of bad character is relevant to prove motive. Mangal
Singh v. State of M.B AIR 1957 SC 199

Hari Charan Kurmi And Jogia Hajam vs State Of Bihar on 3


February, 1964

Equivalent citations: 1964 AIR 1184, 1964 SCR (6) 623


When evidence as defined by the Act is produced before the Court, it is the
duty of the Court to consider that evidence. What weight should be attached
to such evidence, is a matter in the discretion of the Court. But a Court
cannot say in respect of such evidence that it will just not take that evidence
into account.

Ram Bihari Yadav vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 21 April,


1998
The law relating to dying declaration - the relevancy, admissibility and its
probative value- is fairly settled. More often the expressions 'relevancy and
admissibility' are used as synonyms but their legal implications are distinct
and different for more often than not facts which are relevant are not
admissible; so also facts which are admissible may not be relevant, for
example, questions permitted to be put in cross-examination to test the
veracity or impeach the credit of witnesses, though not relevant are
admissible. The probative value of the evidence is the weight to be given to
it which has to be judged having regard to the facts and circumstances of
each case. in this case, the thrust of the submission relates not to relevancy

or admissibility but to the value to be given to Exh.2. A dying declaration


made by a person who is dead as to cause of his death or as to any of the
circumstances of the transaction which resulted in his death, in cases in
which cause of his death comes in question, is relevant under Section 32 of
the Evidence Act and is also admissible in evidence. Though dying
declaration is indirect evidence being a specie of hearsay, yet it is an
exception to the rule against admissibility of hearsay evidence. Indeed, it is
substantive evidence and like any other substantive evidence requires no
corroboration for forming basis of conviction of an accused. But then the
question as to how much weight can be attached to a dying declaration is a
question of fact and has to be determined on the facts of each case.