CHANAKAYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

NAYAYA NAGAR, MITHAPUR, PATNA- 800001

ROUGH DRAFT SUBMITTED IN THE PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE COURSE TITLED –

LAW OF EVIDENCE

Topic : Bhagwan Singh vs The State Of Haryana

SUBMITTED TO: MS. MEETA MOHINI

Faculty of Law of Evidence

SUBMITTED BY : PRASIDHI AGRAWAL

ROLL NO : 1950.
SEMESTER : THIRD.
SESSION : 2018-2023.
COURSE : B.A. LL.B. (Hons.)
 INTRODUCTION

The court gave permission to the Prosecutor to cross examine his own witness, thus
characterising him as, what is described as a hostile witness, does not completely efface his
evidence. The evidence remains admissible in the trial and there is no legal bar to base a
conviction upon his testimony if corroborated by other reliable evidence. We are satisfied in
this case that the evidence of Jagat Singh, but for whose prompt assistance the case would
not have seen the light of day and whose statement had immediately been recorded by the
D.S.P., is amply corroborated by other evidence mentioned above to inspire confidence in
his testimony. Apart from that the fact of recovery of the gold coins in the pocket of the
appellant gave a seal of finality to the truth of the charge against the appellant. If Jagat
Singh had accepted the bribe he would have been guilty under section 161 I.P.C. There is,
therefore, clear abetment by the appellant of the offence under section 161 I.P.C. and the
ingredients of section 165A I.P.C. are established against him.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

1. The researcher tends to know about the origin and history of the case.
2. The researcher tends to know about the judgement or outcome of the case.
3. The researcher tends to know about the nature of Indian Constitution related
to this case.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The researcher has used the doctrinal and in doctrinal method with empirical research.
Doctrinal method includes the books, articles, journals etc. whereas the in doctrinal one
includes the online sources like online journals, databases etc.

HYPOTHESIS

After this historic case, it was laid down that since the court gave permission to the
prosecutor to cross examine him as what is described as "hostile witness", does not
completely efface his evidence. The evidence remains admissible in the trial and there
is no legal bar to have a conviction upon his testimony if corroborated by other
reliable evidence.
 TENTATIVE CHAPTERIZATION

1. Reference Details
4. Facts in issues
5. Decision
6. Constitutional Provisions
7. Conclusion

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1027045/

2. https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ac9fe4b014971140f550