videncE e| a w of [LEADING CASES, MATERIALS & QA] | | Dr. ASHOK K. JAIN LLM; Ph.D (Dethi) Ascent Publications 21/29, Shakti Nagar, Delhi-110007CCorvricitt © 1998 - ASCENT PUBLICATIONS, Deis. 8 Reserved. No partofthis work may be copied reproduced, adapted, hritederronsaed sured inay compu er ansmitedinar form y ‘ary means without prior writen permission of the publishers. Pustisiiep By Ascent Pupticarions, 21/29, Sakti Nacar, Deuit ConTENTS "A. INTRODUCTION ‘Substantive and Procedural Laws 1 Law of Bidens in Inia 3 Different Kinds of Evidence 12 Evidence Recorded shu ough Video Conferencing Document 18,22 Indiai9 Proved, Disproved, Not Proved 19 Seanelard/Degree of Proofin respect of Ciil/ Criminal proceedings 24 SEC. 4: May Presume, Shall Presume and Conclusive Pro of 13 2. RELEVANCY AND ADMISSIBILITY OF FACTS SEC. 5: Of What Fact May Evidence be Given 24 Relewencyand Admisibilty 5 Evidence bained by Undesirable Methods Whether Admisible 7 ‘SEC. 6: Relevancy of Facts: 's forming Part of Same- ‘Transaction 28 Resgestae29 ‘SEC. 7: Facts which are the Occasion, Cause or Effect of Facts in Issue 34 iy£61 sae Jo worm asuTESy stuEUeA E61 ssoussng jo asop UrepERY sim=UAN ‘ToT wonmmenpacy Sta] pue uorindo porpeyy Ost gsr aaepag aoqog oxapey wor merpaCy Bea GPL Mormanppacy Bunk PCapegpenn suena] Bia qa foneada nay ‘Eht wormaued fo sasog apos ps pos aq uso uorseusypocy Bua | ser qizaq ut ORLWUVIOAT ONIAG SASSANLIA SV GSTIVO ad LONNVO OHA SNOSUdd Ad SINAWALVIS “+ ‘wast jo [Paouray J93jY SpeU WOISsIFUOD +87 “OAS ZOT peas 2g Sey osnooy wou} peatsaay woreULIOFH JO YIN MOLL */Z “OAS. ZO} wreAapsy WIH|s WOISSIFUOD °67-L2 “OAS SOT Apoxsnc 20F]0g WOISSI}UOD $92 “JAS Zor aoyjog 01 woIssoFUOD #7 “BS (or asrurorg 0 wm, ‘seawzonpuy Aq posneD UOIsayUOD +42 “OAS 001 (Suorss2xt0> rEAD|BIy] Wate SUOISSIFTOD :OF-4Z “OTS eouapiag so meq syuaumo0 Jo sTHNOD 01 SUOSSUPY [HO WYN *Z7 “OAS. 76 WEAIPY Te MOTT SUOWSTIUPY ?€7-27 “OTS 9g pasongag Ae uorssrupy woyps 1streSy +17 “OAS £g woeaappyl a7e SUOISSTINPY 2501] Mh STOSIOg 202-81 “SOAS cg suonstuupy fosuoy pasuonsiupy fo Capgissupy 40fsuoseoyy 78 pauyaql HOISsHUPY 21 ‘OTS. SNOISSHANOO GNV SNOISSINGV *€ sg aeaapp ous ssoung Jo 28mN0D Jo s7ueIsPET 91 “OTS ‘9s yeuonuan sea py upaysa wonsINg uo SuuKag He ST “OTS 6 Suypsog Apog /ApOd /PUIN. so amagyo aouawsteg Bupsous s19eE pT “OTS 2¢ wonsonig st waoasNd) /ApBry way NEAT Se ET 7g soBeure jo wnowy aurora 01 umnop Sur quay sme ZL “OTS yma popiosacade fo angsitupy pu oumnapy dy (sary fo raid) spn weastsuooy os oq 11-058 ameaappy as1757RO ON HHT USA FTL ca puonpey pn ep wa DUE sonponiyy x0 ureydarg on Aress20ayf SPL 6 “OAS 9f PUD wwMb=sqns so snoraazg pue uoneredarg ‘9anojy +8 “OTS oouapiaa 40 MET “324): Declaration as to Public Rights 154 . sug (): Declaration asto Relationship or Pedigree 154 Sec. 32 8): Statement of Several Persons Expressing "SEC. 33:Relevancy of Evidence in Prior Judicial Proceedings 155 SEC. 41: Relevancy of Certain Judgmentsin Probate, Relevancy and Effect of Judgments, etc. se “Ger thas those Mentioned in Sec. 41 160. SEC. 51: Grounds of Opinion when Relevant 176 ‘Character When Relevant (Secs, 5255) 176 SEC. 52: In Civil Cases Character to Prove Conduct Imputed, Irrelevant 177 in Reply 178 SEC. 55: Character as Affecting Damages 179 ‘Facts Which Need Not be Proved 180 Judicially Noticeable Need Not be Proved 180 ts of which Court Must take Juidicial Notice 180 Admitted Need Not be Proved 180 Modes of Proof 183 SECS. 59-60: Oral Evidence 183 SEC. 59: Proof of Facts by Oral Evidence 183 SEC, 60: Oral Evidence Must be Direct 184 Evidence 184 Documentary Evidence 186 f of Contents of Document 186 ‘Primary Evidence 187 ‘Secondary Evidence 187 ‘Proof of Documents by Primary Evidence 188 ~ 65: When Secondary Evidence Relating to Documents May be Given 188 SECS. 65A/ 65B: Admissibility of Electronic Records in Evidence 190 ure and Handwriting of Person alleged > Written Document Produced 192Tec 98pas0uH, surges Aqpepedsg sey Saraosd Jo wapmnd ‘901 “OAS 677 505¢E peut wondaoxg Buiaorg Jo wpme +S01 “OAS 672 AIASSUPY SUPA. axepyonponoag aq on peg SusordJouspmd ‘FOL OAS 877 oauy fo uapung fozrurnioduly Eze poss fosuo | Zee DE TEATATEA 01S" JOO JO !PH 9t7 SFT yoord Jo wapIN WOT, $0z Joos J0 Wop. ECC Sha OV Seep DY ‘woyssanong UeIpt] Jo suo! reqeuoN Aq 2ou0prAT + rwayy 01 SE 29UPIAT +86 "OAS TEL SIDR JO S12 O*8 I, yooug orsBenduv Tyo wonrrddy 01s 22u9pHTZ6 OAS eq suosing [e39826 Jo £faQ BUG 02 Addy eo TPIS genie jo wonean dy 02s ouspiag #96 "OIS Tez seg Sanspeg 0 DUAL ‘uy Sues wound oC] 015¢ DUAPIAAS6 “OBS ze meg Sunsaey ov ETO spuoneagdd y sume sousprsg jo uoIsnPsr 46 "OES gz waumooq snonsiqury pusuary x0 ured o1 2oueptag| Jo UO! +66 “OTS 617 swaumooqsnonsiqary Lizaounog? Baap sy rooamcpa PAO aA SUT Gor waursaxSy [EO Jo s9UEptag Jo WoISNPI*A *76 “OAS LOZ TUBKIMOCY 09 POMP “a ‘sugeig ‘SHENTON Jo SUI] JOSUPLA 16 “TAS 902 A SUPA OK SaSpINT KAETUSUTIDOT AG [PIO JO WORMP HE OT IO Z $07 PIO SK _aatg sprosoy aruosisopg 01 se Hondams>3q 706 “AS x aouapiAa'so MET Saopdumssrg paw Jory jo wpa 1 Jo BuTAkS :001 “OAS = cox po sreox Aa stoumoocyonse wondtunssid 06 OAS £07 PeMposd ON so sardog pagag 0188 wondurnserd 98 “OOS zc 312 ‘spronay ‘suHeUIEATY ‘sqrouory on se wondumsat $8 /S8/Vs8 ‘SIS 207 Kouiony yo 1omogorse wordusnserd $8 “OAS Toz suorspoq jo su0dey 61 SwDCITIO 109 pay790 go wonanposg dq sitour0q jo Joord LL O8S 6] ssrsumD0qq FHA JO sardog payas2a #94 “OFS: go] stoaanoog areALd 3S “OAS Zor ssacETIO MAN 372 “OTS £61 SUBANON 61 axraeeiSig peutql Jo MORELIA 02 5. yoord VEL OS $61 nop amp 44 ono omtsmparyy ‘smaeis jo vostredwIOO #£2 "OAS $61 parsany 24 ‘on axe Aq postnbas 10M wH9EMIOC] Jo JOO%d *ZL “OBS $61 BOUNDIAT axpsoruocy song, Sums ways JOO 1 "OBS $61 wa, parson 01 Aazeg Aq norinooxg Jo WOSSTPY 302 OHS eouepiag 40 METLaw of Evidence SEC. 107: Burden of Proving Death 232 ‘SEC, 108: Burden of Proving that Person's Alive whiois “Unheard af for7 Years 232. SEC. 109: Burden of Proof as to Relationship of Certain Kind 233 SEC. 110: Burden of Proof as to Ownership 234 SEC. 111: Proof of Good Faith 234 Presumptions 235 Kinds of Prssomptions 236 ) @Presumption of Fact 236 “May Presume 236 (©) Presumption of Law 237 ‘Shall Preseme’ 237 9: Estoppel SEC. 115: Estoppel 261 Promissory Estoppel 264 Exceptions tothe Doctrine of Extoppel 266 SEC. 116: Estoppel of Tenant and of Licensee of Person in Possession 270 . : Estoppel of Acceptor of Bill of Exchange, Bailee/ Licensee 271 Law of Evidence 10. Witnesses ‘Competency of Witnesses 277 SEC. 118: Who May Testify 277 rldwiones278 (C.130:Production of Title deeds of Witnes Bars Party 290 roductio of D8eoments or Electronic Records 290 ~ Accomplice Evidence 292,307 SEC. 133: Accomplice 292 ‘NoAnithess between Se. 133 and See. 114293 Evidentiary wate ofan Accomplice 93 Confesion of Coacssedv Accomplice Fridence 00 11. Examination of Witnesses 7 Axamination of WitnessesEpe souapiag jo wonDoley so worssapy sodosdar] 30} [PU MIN ON :91 "DTS eve suonsand ing orsiossassy 10 Aanf 01396104 991 “OAS T9¢ woRImpord pig 30 suonsand ang 02 494404 5,28pNf 591 “DAS (OpE 29NON Wo paonposd TON IIUINDOCT JO 28/1 +491 “OTS 6££ |ORON Uo PHMPOL, we eouepiag $0 MET ) poudnauour auaumnoocy mt pareis sioe,{ 02 josuotiaweg amp yo uonazpenttog 70 wonesOgox gee Axowssy 9¢¢ Ksomoyy Sumy soxp>y 02 Se See pumog 9q 10ND OF, pee woneI0qox0D sesIMaUEres J9u04?/51 “DAS EEE AESHUPY SLITS josouapiagysesoqai0g 0 Suipan sons9) 2951 IIS ccesounia PLOW ZeESUIAL PS Tee ssotn JO mpaxD SurEpeadaT :651 “OAS ‘ogg sour asp» fosouaprag a fo "2A ace [ss ssountyy Wa HET 02 Aare Aq st “as 2¢6 Ape) 3a suopsand orsseasry DIpenHoD O1sOUpLATJO WOKE EST ITS gcesuonsond Sarsoury 10 8upT iS soppy Jo a589 tr OD Jo 22029 STE SPUNOID ajqewoseay snot poysy 24 0320N stonsend :6F1 “OAS PLE TosTIY 01 PayaGeUOD sSoUIE A BIA PE paysy9q feus worssang} ways aprs9¢] 1 NOD *8hT “OTS #ZE Joust 01 parjaduto{p 2q, €ce wont yoasp sadosduy Suppp04, 7g wonecurex> 3015 mt jnpaseT SUONSIND :9H1 “OAS (OZE simauTDIe3S ‘uo srotsasg 01 se wOHEUTUTEXD-SSOsD SPT “OAS Océ Busy BT sraneyy 01 Se 2>U9PIAT “PHT “OAS 6TE paIsy 2q Ae AGL OHA BIE PaaSV 24 20N MY ADL WAN :ZhE “OMS gre suonsand Supe] ‘141 “OAS {BIE waurnD0q] BoMpOrT ‘onpaypen wosted yo wonearusexg- S504) +661 “OGS eouapiag $0 METxiv Law of Evidence REFERENCES, 1. Avtat Singh: The Law of Evidence (Central Law Agency) 2. Batuk Lal: The Law of Evidence (Central Law Agency) 3. Ratanial & Dhirajlat: The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Eastern Book Company) 5. Monir: The Law of Evidence (Short Edition) 6. Sarkar on Evidence 7. AN. Saha: 8. Phiphson & Law of Evidence 9. Wigmore on Evidence 5 10. N.. Jhabvala: The Indian Evidence Act (C. Jamnadas &Co) Other Sources 1. The Landmark Judgments of 1997-1998 ~ Ashok K. Jain, 2. Supreme Court Yearly Digests - SCYD (1995-2009) ~ Shailendra Mali Eastern Book Co.). on Law of Evidence ~ Faculty of Law, Delhi University, D: 4. Question Papers Referred — Delhi and Other Indian Universities; Competitive Exams like IAS. TABLE OF CASES A AP. Potion Control Board v Prof. MV. Nayudu 231 Abdul Razak v State of Maharastra 65 Abdul Waheed Khan v Stato of AP. 45 ‘Agassiz v London Tramways Co. 30 ‘AGHNOO NAGESIAVSTATE OF BIHAR 124 ‘Aan v State of Rajasthan 280 ‘Amar Singh v State of Punjab 169, “Amarjit Singh v State of Punjab 242 ‘Amitabh Bagchi v Ena Bagchi 18 ‘Amit Banaspati Co. v UOI 227, ‘Anber Singh v State of Rajasthan 115 ~ ‘Awadhesh v State of U.P. 38 B B. Singh (Dr.) v Union of India 201 B. Venkata Rao v Principal, Andhra Medical College 275 BRB.vJB. 255 Babloo v State 170 ‘Babuda v State of Rajasthan 20 ‘Badri Narayanan v Rajabajyathammal 195, Badri Ral v State of Bihar 70,72 Badri v State of Rajasthan 312 shadur Singh v State of U.P. 313 ‘Bal Krishan v Rew University 267 lu Sonba Shinde v State of Maharashtra 330 Banarsi Das v Maharaja Sukhi Singh 187 Besant Singh v Janki Singh 121 Basdnf v State of H.P. 31 joy Krishna v N.B. Sugar Mils Co, 213 ow)S522 oes » peunyy 108) 812 17 weyos A wer seq JEM (08 WEUIeseWeY Nes ‘9¢e uowyent eoyqnour ou 892 sieis A Aio}20g aneiadoog pieog SussnoH 0e'sez enusereyeyt Jo ais A eH uooreH, ty 2eug Jo 215 ‘962 vernpwey Atuos PUNDEIEH 29 dnp aes Awedsnuer oe Uivso ag a oey Ueupenstetn © 5 ‘y0E YBuis ueud UBuIS UeYOW eos Hues ‘YL aH 918 A UpprULES sz essU0 Jo 145 A ug nUBe a Ye uekedweysten A sciodura ‘901 eer A osedus3 Zz wounyBey ysouen Asor0dug “en pueynueR A s0r0du3 a eouapiaa $0 MOT -S6z-weuseleg Jo ees «'iséuIO 165 eyeieused J0 O15 A Kopey efeleveud, rc weBog epetig a uenlber sepiieg ‘8¥2 19 }0 LON) e181S A YBus fea 2epUSKG $9 161 weAus 4 vonesodiog odsue!L 1W9a 061 YeUs WH Aiea NeWekEG (062 Wseing Jo ais 1eigeseg 05 fe. "ino UBIH YoIRDasaId ouand A ppeR Peseid ENS WesEO (617 peseld expuolew A Yous peseld YRUEMUSEG 4251 wound puewy "A nyBuNs Few pe, (05 204@J0 sles a Kopueg weNg ‘906 HOSEN ANHYS INOGNHE bee ern og A eyeMysnU WY EIOyR, 262 enyseseyeyl Jo a16g 4 ed IMEC EAE, Zze'Z21'v6 WeHBeug A yous yereua ‘LL 818S A dnieng venBeds 822 WO sing A yours veMbeu 21 J01aduig A ueseyoneqieug eouapiaa 40 MET we-Jadunath Singh v State of UP. 46 ‘Jai Prokash v State of Haryana 136 Law of Evidence . Law of Evidence ei Re Dannu Singh v Emperor 134 Sate of Bhar v Lalo Prasod 320 *Reetajol Pat v Boat of See. Education 275 Sate of Bary PP. Sharma 248 Regv Prabudas 50 - ‘Sat of Gujarat v Mohd. Ak 76 Ria La va Kumar Siogh 270 Sate of Glaraty Vc. Pat 173 FROOP KUMAR v MOHAN THEDAN! 208210215, Si cf Pv star Rumpingv ico Publ rosettes 206, > ¥Jeot Singh 12,118 “° | Sale of Pv Prem Chand 46. : s Ste of HP. Shree Kant Shekan 26 8. SaktvelvM, Venugopal Pita 219 7 'S. Venugopal vA. Karrupusami 85 ‘SK. Belal State 167 ‘SK Sharma v Mahesh Kumar Verma 270, a ‘SP. Gupta v Union of india 288 imataka v MLV. Manjunathagowda 241 State of Kamataka v R. Yarappa Reddy 328, STATE OF KARNATAKA SHARIFF 147,150 State of MP. v Dharkole 21,312 Stale of MP. v Sanjay Ral State of Maharashtra v Bharat Fakira Ohiwar 112,116 Santa Singh v State of Punjab 51 ‘Slate of Maharashtra v C.K. Sara Veeraswami v Talluri Narayya 214 ‘State of Maharashtra v Dar Sardar Sardul Singh v State of Maharashtra 69 ‘State of Maharashtra v Mad. Yakub 20 Sardul Singh Caveeshar v State of Bombay 75,333 ‘STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v Ph ‘Sarvan Singh v State of Madras 120, State of Maharashtra v Suresh 8 Sat Paul v DethiAdron. 229 Sabir Singh v State of Punjab 101 Satrucharla Vijaya Ram Raju v Nimmaka Jaya Raju 8S Secy. of State v Tatya He Sethu v Palani 262 ‘Shabad Pulla Reddy v State of AP. 97 ‘Shahnaz v Dr. Vijay 245 Shankar v State of TN. 120 ‘Shanti Kumar Panda v Shakuntala Devi 162 Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v State of Mahgrashira 134,199,185 ‘Sharrighan v State of MP. 250 ‘Shashi Nayar v Union of India 182 ‘Sheikh Mehboob alias Hetak v State of Maharashtra 150 Sate of UP. vAnil Singh 311 ‘Shyamdas Kapur v Emperor 241 Sate of UP. v Babu Ram 38 ‘Sida Nitinkumarv Gujarat University 264 Sate of UP. v Madan Mohan 148, Sidharth State of Bhar 76 STATE OF U.P. v RAJ NARAIN STATE OF U.P. vRAJNARAIN268, Sta Ram v Stato 104 ‘ State of UP. v Ram Sagar Yadav 147 ‘Sivakumar v State 99 Stato of UP. v Ramesh Prasad Mishra 330 ‘SUE Benezerv Velayudhan 225 ‘Smt. Dukhtar Jahan v Mohammed Farooq 256 ‘SOMWANTIv STATE OF PUNJAB 258 tra Univ. 275 oa ‘State v S.J. Choudhary 16 ‘Sunil 105. ‘Subhra Mukherjee v Bharat Coking Coal Lid. 226,227 ener Sucha Singh v State of Punjab 232 HAKAR v STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 141, State of AP. v Vasudeva Rao 235 State of Assam v M. Ahmed 137 hadur Subba v State of Sikkim 279*G asnep> “ “@) asnep. ) asnepp “@) osnep> xopuin adex soy wonnaoso3d © UT “VATTy- sAppore ‘¢10z “DY (tuouapustry) ae TeURENLED ayp Aq (pmesgn ‘aq preys Honses Saumoyjoy otf SOY SousprAg oy JO VHTT "79S Zod a odes 103 uopnsesoid ujeye9 uj yuesucs jo eouesqe 0} se voRduinsald VPTE woRnves 405 UopIIeS MOU yo uonMASaNS nz ye2eIn9 30 An uyous uewngigeH eyez _-sussuoo Jo Aagenb a 40 anasu09 ons Jo ansst gp wo amexapr aq 204 TU wostad dae ys sonata rss SoNaId s,uosiod prs Jo 40 wERotA ays Jo sorDUTeEP aep JO SOUSpIA? “OSS; Hy Ss suasuoo Jo wonsonb arp axa ‘ouegjo ypns Are agunisoo on adoro 30} 10 9pop [EWE TIPU BHP Jo ILE "29S 40 CIILE "29S “D9LE “225 “€9LE 29S “VOLE 29S ‘9L6 29S “CSE 295 ‘OPSE "295 “ESE 79S vist 295 ‘46¢ "295 s9pum aouaqo ue 40} oRoasO¥d © HI “VES, e102 PV (quoupuoury) 7 your amp Aq pun ua2q se HORDES 9U STI, ‘sose9 ujeyi02 uy yueAs|o1 you oouELIodxe jenxes snojsaid 40 s0yDes0y9 Jo GDUEPIA] "VES UORIAS MOU Jo UOIHESUL SINENGNANV INSTT MB] asey pure syaauIpusury 7U299y ZeENdORIVISAUVEDINS eouapiaa 40 MET om| Code, Law of Evidence | of Sec. 376 ofthe Indian Penal Code, where sexual intercourse by the is proved and the question is whether it was without the a | consent of the woman alleged to have been raped and such woman” states in her evidence before the court that she did not consent, the | court shall presume that she didnot consent. Explanation. In this section, “Sexual intercourse” shall mean any of the acts mentioned in clauses (a) to. (d) of Sec. 375 of the Indian Penal ‘who is unable to speak evidence in | any other manner in which he can make it intelligible, as by writing or by signs; but such writing must be written and the signs made in open Court, evidence so given shall be deemed to be oral evidence: Provided that ifthe witness is unable to communicate verbally, the Court shall take the assistance of an interpreter ora special educator | in recording the statement, and, such statement shall be -videographed.” | Ainendment of See. 446: Questions Lawful in Cross-examination In the principal Act, after Sec. 146(3), the following pron shall be incted [Evidence Act (Amendment) Act, 2002 (4 of 2003) wae. 31- 12:2002}-“Provided that in a prosecution for rape or attempt to commit "ape, it shall not be permissible to put questions in the croseexamination of the prosecutrix as to her general immoral character.” This proviso has been further sdutinaed by the following proviso via 2013 Amendment: “Provided that in a prosecution for an offence under Sec. 376, Sec. 376A, Sec. 376B, 5 Recent Amendments and Case Law $3 to the general immoral character, or previous sexual experience, of such victim with any person for proving such consent or the quality of consent.” Amendment of Sec. 154: Question by Party to his own Witness In the principal Act, Sec. 154 shall be numbered as sub-section (1) thereof and after sub-section (1) as so numbered, the following sub- section shall be iaveied, namely:- “@) Nothing in this section shall disentitle the person so permitted under sub-section (1), to rely on any part of the evidence of such witness.” ‘The aforesaid amendment in relation to ‘hostile witness” has been inserted by the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2005 (2 of 2006) (w.e-f. 16-4-2006), RECENT CASES ~ Supreme Court rules ‘on Dying Declaration “The law on the issue can be summarized to the effect that law does not provide who can record a dying declaration, nor is there any prescribed form, format or procedure for the same,” said a Supreme Court bench while reversing a Madhya Pradesh high court order on» acquittal in a dowry death case (dated 245-2013). , Writing the judgment, Justice Chauhan said a dying declaration could be oral or written. Any adéquate method of communication -ss “qeodde step ‘souapy ‘seBzeq soto [fe Jo porsmnboe seas amapddy waursostsdun a7] ofepun 03 souanues amp paprease ue OdI ZOE BoHDag Jepim sueadde orp peroratI0> ano} ‘yBeeT on, ‘peqesepATT 3 ysopesd eMpEY Jo 3NCD WTO auojaq peaddy feureatsD paisoyaud oxesg omp ‘paasuay "~ -warp yo soqp Jo twamrsajoan arp. aous 01 sotepiaa jo wor OW Sea 2F2tp, se wrotfa Jo zorpro astrede seaaosteqs ase9 Aue a4azd 10u pysion cwonnoosoud aerp Baarasqo pomooe axp fe pombe amo PL LL “Sal VB6F PUE ZOE SuOIDNS rpUm svoNAO 305 suared sfy PAE arueypodde amp ssureBe Qqog'Z1'Z wo 3224s aBzeqp poyy saxo at ‘aonfinsoaur Kressooou sayy “sung wo1soua3Te 01 3p Pom eraroeondas seas yrvap Jo osne9 auf aetp poutdo pur waw0mr asod atp potonpuo> so1op aM, ‘Odl V86r PUP ZOE SHONSS Soret mt pe aod nn topmeope ap Bo wo poe qeudsoy arp ut o907'9°¢ Uo panic (paseanop) pecan PE, ssmoqyareu atp JO aos persere yor {29 pur ony poste pasesoop a], “srmmiay "umn 270425 paasoay oq YEH Ov ap say] wo aon Sagem ay _samtp pu Apoq 104] wo auss0r04 pamnod aueypdde arp ‘su0y ‘au08 pey siuapmas orp [fe pure poy Surpjooo seas paseaoap a apres “ard ogy anoge 3 000Z'F FT HO Ie paBaqE OTs METI arensfieyy aapnoaxg 2m Aq popronor seas wonezepap St4p -poroastBor seas yl te oues 2m Jo s1seq aTp UO “sotmM{CT ‘amg pazays ays ‘enn pure 3oy od [pF [YO 90280729 JO [Pf me] ese9 pue suowpuewy yueD0u Lise ‘wornsasoad ay 03 atom sppe emp Joosarp Aariqeypay amp ang suonexepsp Burp amp Jo Aayqeanyd ays you sy3y ey UT Surkp aqp jo 2u0 Jo ss0ddns ur uaa sossousya axp Jo suopysodap arp uy sojuedasssip a¢-4oputt axe a3a0p ase UY ‘qrioyZnomp quaystsu09 94 .prnoys suas .e3s ax Ing “woeIOqoII09 Aue NOY _ypms Jo oadsax wt somop & Aq poptaoad areayazao & yo yusuraziibas ‘oIp “exos10py, “UEyNEYD sonsnf pres ,qusuIWIs © yas SuTyeUT 30 aygedeo sy pur purus yo aneas ay wy st soqEar ep ETA PONSAES 34 ‘srw wonerepop Zuuip e sprooas ofa wostod ay, “0s op 01 uompt0g oouepiag 30 meq rshence in third dying declaration, the appellant and his parents were enroped, in the offence. The declaration dated 28.4.2000 is self contradictory. The learned counsel appearing forthe State has subfnitted that the High Court has appreciated the evidence and the dying declarations of Ratna (deceased) recorded on 15.4.2000 and on 28.4.2000, and the latter clearly involved the appellant and his parents. The High Court has taken a lenient view and did not admit the-appeal against the parents of the appellant. Hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed, ‘The Apex Court observed: The FIR/dying declaration recorded on 15.4.2000 reads as under “I belong to Phoolbagh Colony, Vijianagaram. I married 10 years back with Ramana of Kamma while I was studying at Tirupathi. After one year living together, we got divorced through Vijanagaram District Tam living alone and gave tuitions to children and studying law. I forgone my relation with my own people. There is nobody of my own. Yesterday on 14.04.2000 night at about S hours time the current was cut off lit my kerosene stove and prepared tea, In the darkness, my polyster saree got fire and my entire body, chest, hands, face, legs, foot and some portion of the stomach were burnt. I phoned to my known endorsement on the'deelatation that she was fit to make the declaration and signed the same. The declaration bears signature of the maker (deceased) and the person recording the same. Recent Amendments and Case Law The dying declaration recorded by the Executive Magistrate dated 15.4.2000 reads as under: “Yesterday night at about 8 hours when I was lighting the kerosene stove to Drepare tea, huge winds are coming, in the meanwhile my saree was burnt and flames came out. Likewise my body was burnt. have no children. I got divorced with my husband through Court ten years back. I alone present when this happened. There are no disputes in between myself and my husband. My husband never came to my house after divores. There are no disputes between myself and neighbours. Though 1 mised cries none of neighbours came as-huge winds are in respect of the fit condition of the maker. It bears the signature of the deceased and the Executive Magistrate. However, in the third dying declaration made on 28.4,2000 before the Magistrate, she has stated that she had been brought to the hospital by her husband Ravi, mother-in-law Lolitha, and father-in-law Gangataju. That they got married on 26.10.1991. She was preparing food on kerosene stove in the tid day between 1.30 t0 2.00 p.m. on 144.2000, Her husband asked her whether she had paid the electricity bill. She eplied that she could not deposit a the office was closed. Her husband sent one student to the electricity office to see whether it was opened or closed. He came back and answered that it was closed. However, there was exchange of words between them, He took up a kerosene tin lying there and poured the kerosene on her shoulders and immediately threw her on the burnt stove. She got burn injuries. Her husband took the water from the bath room and224 warp pure skep ¢-z 30} puregsny roy Aq posean Suyaq 224 jo ‘wonsonb arp ‘eudsoy susMTs2405 ap UE OOO Y'ST HO SENSED aaranoaxg atp Aq popzooes woaq seq wonexepap Suép oy 4 "wodn pores aq 10m poo pu asyey Appanqeupe 229m ooo. ‘tonoo ayp se QQZ'F'8Z PaIEP HOREIEDIp Butkp axp wodn Apa 8 eazosteysh user Aue 995 300 Pip pure wonoesoxd aq JO ase tp ty sopsusnstsuooM persone panos Se NOD TL MHL -Ayeapoe sousnfia ung pea paxoyns ays wip povess pea sjesioq suoned orp aeqp puooes yexrdsoy amp ut padorsuar “hpogfre (01 auaprom spp anoge pjor 101 pey ay 2etp posodap sony se 3p] "Toy Uo soveas atp pamnod oy aseyadde om on woasd 2] UO 324] wo sayem Suzmod seat aueypedde pure woos yeg Wt ‘emey pumnoy ap] 2ousuan200 jo 22efd atp poyseas pue PUNY, yo asnoy ayp tao Surenoo ssperys pray pey aq 3H posodap EI Poseaoop axp 01 worm Joy 2u109 02 pasn pasearap atp JO -mogyfrau pire wwapnus 1294 puoods t ‘ORISEATTS MUPUO, -uewoa erp Axrear 01 pore ame rep santfnep 334 Aq sp snoge poeazoyay W994 [Pet Os pure earssoy mperensaes soyye wsn{ TEMAS STOUR IATA drqsuonepps apr podojaaap pey wregedde orp ‘soxfSnep 224 JO 6s me] eseg pue syusupuouy 1uaD9y ‘qs ze 29q pfor Heumy eure ‘poype Fu1eq UO “sIuared sy poe ameppdde orp panos ays axsryy, qexdsop auauTUBAOD aTp 01 UIA. Appwerpaura pure 900z'F'ST Uo saxyf2nep s9q Jo sopsnfar zn 2qp anoge sous 0: aure> ays “aeqLreur Jo um amp ae Lxmop awepyzns waar’ pey ays YSnoyp ‘A1mop Sag 01 pueqsny 23q, 4g passezeg seas ays aerp 04 ]23.02 posn (pasesoap) emery eT ‘posodap seq poseaoep arp jo Jaqnour ‘eAnsemy ndereardaes hep werp wo wrereBerett A, ‘Teudbop moumaauop 01 pousapuen ses ap tarp URETp sas00ar 300 pynoo ays sy “O00Z 91 WO Teudsoy azeatsd amp o1 paxEEpE seas ays vatp pur Aspanungelry wo QOT'y'ST WO paqrees sage -ursimared J2p “hep somp-oast 303 suonsofay sq wai Ose Pry pure auioy 3e 494 Sunvan wo9q pey Pueqsny JET ‘0007 Fb Wo a[qepear 10m azom savep-or 494 pur pextdsopy wIUTTIIACD) ‘yp 0} waxes 99g 200 Pe OMS 0O07'F'S]. UO eM IWIpIAD 21 soeus uopexe|pep Burp pap oy, weseBemerlt, ‘Teudsory sroy Woy; Aqqyat0y ausuraress koe waxes 300 sey 30 sovod axp ‘Afsnorsarg -opgisa axom suostod ‘saepOT pure puegsny Jay 4q 109 wo exdsoy auaurUz2A05 02 ‘wages sea ays “oot zy 3noge ve Aep sures oy UO “woRDafar uo pur asoanyf 134 aed rox00p aq, Teudsoy aveaurd v 02 334 001 ser siased pu pueqsny 94 ‘O007'#'9T UO ‘wopput xp noqe ‘uo Kure peanar 01 301 paseanop arp porsonbas ospe ABq I, “0007 +'ST vo Asponanppley Woy sures aepursimased spf “ouoy 3 skep ¢ Jo poured v onp suonnofen xis waa pey aq “Apuonbayy sages 399 2488 2p] 524 01 suoRDofar asx pre sourogpour auI0S e2uepiaa 40 meT esS10 Law of Evidence admission in a private hospital did not arise at all. Her version that she was admitted to the Government hospital, Vijanagaram. on 16.4.2000 could not be true. The contents of the dying _ declaration dated 28.4.2000 being full of contradiction do not inspire confidence. Admittedly, there was a divorce between the parties, Therefore, the question of demand of dowry or illxreatment or harassment could not arise after 8 years of divorce decree by the court. The mother of Ratna has deposed about the illicit relationship of the: appellant and another woman and the appellant wanted to marry that woman, Tn case the paties had separated by a divorce through court, we fil to understand how Ratna (deceased) or her parents were concerned about * such a relationship, Trig setdled legal proposition that in, are discrepancies in two dying declarations, eo beunstievo convict the accused. In such a factsituation, the accused gets the benefit of doubt [Vides Saniy v State of Mabaracira (2007) 9 SCC 148; and Heenalal v State of Madkya Pradesh (2009) 12 SCC ei} In case of plural/multiple dying declarations, the court has to scrutinise the evidence cautiously and must find out whether there is consistency particularly in material particulars therein, In case there are interse discrepancies in the depositions of the ‘witnesses given in suppért of one of the dying declarations, it would not be safe to rely upon the same. In fact it is not the Plurality of the dying declarations but the reliability thereof that adds weight to the prosecution, case. te dying declaration i: found 40 be voluntary, reliable and made in aft mental condition, it can be reed ‘upon without any corroboration, But the statements should be consistent Bronghout. In ease of inconsistencies, the court has to examine the nature of the same ie. whether they are material or not and ‘while scrutinising the contents of various dying declarations, the court has to examine the same in the light of the various surrounding facts and circumstances. Incase of dying declaration, Recent Amendments and Case Law su as the accused does not have right to cross-examine the maker and not able to elicit the truth as happens in the case of other witnesses, it would not be safe to rely ifthe dying declaration oes not inspire fll confidence ofthe court about its correctness, as it may be result of tutoring, prompting or product of imagination. The court has to be satisfied that the maker was in a fit state of mind and had a clear opportuaity to observe and * identify the assailant() [Vide: Sm. Kamla v State of Puyjab ATR This court has tine and again laid down parameters for interference by a superior court agai In exceptional cases where ther reaso1 terference. The ler the matter in correct perspeciive nor observed the parameters laid down by this court to interfere against the order of acquittal. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed and the Judgment and order ofthe High Cour is set aside, The judgment and order of the Sessions Court is restored. The appellant is on bail. His bail bonds stand discharged.wooe-n'a} 14M Aysug werd Loney ‘e] aN, “sapdroutad x0 soqn ureuss9 yo wo} ayp wr BurToseas Jo ssa201d 04j ay? wo suoReITT are asy YoAomopy ‘Suruosear ay 01 [P2180] se onSrisoaur perorpnf v 01 wonepas sures ayp srvaq aouaprAd Jo Ave] ITLL, . spanord 2q 01 stave] © moy ‘170 carat ‘sapraosd yorqas ase empaoord e sta Ss19ey asamp ‘on soxmbul souapiaa jo me] ayy, “Aariqery 10 298s & ainanastioo 01 08 si2ey eqs samyop Afosour ae] aanueasqns ay, ‘soTbuy peroipgl wr $1285 JO stonsonb poiaxoniuos aya Surureas99se 10} sajnu jo traishs ¥ S souapiaa Jo we] ‘sioef ureuza9 odn spuadap Ayqetreant yor. An ays autos yo yotusos0fua st HoneBIisaAtT [eDIpn{ £1949 Jo mL "py pur sop ‘sifis yo aspazaqpo 10 aousspxa qn souopiag S'9-s9n1 jo joosd aqp jo apour ays yates Suxeap sani are azaya “Kypuodzs “ay Jo ‘uno> € ut pamoyjoy aq 01 sampanosd snorea ya Suyeap sopns axe asamp “Gpsaf sured ons ox paprarp romp aq wed sasey emmpaoosd ay], “O'q7D) $9 sae] pounporaad poqeo axe pore|nox st we] aarimeasqns aya yo uoneondde ayn ypryas Aq apoutr aya aquosard yoryas sary ay], “(aua yo Yons 105 auourystund aya uaop sXe] sje pue seouayo [exons SoUyap YDTY) “OraT “8.9 sme] anqurnsgns payeo axe pouyep are sonmqey pure sonmp ‘smyBus ys. Aq save] oy, “say jeanpaoord pue aanmeasqns om paprasp aq Lear sae] Me] [Bnpavoid pue exnuersqns uononpo.quy Tt2 Law of Evidence of evidence is a system of rules which a court has to follow. The law of ‘evidence is basically procedural and does not affect substantive right of parties. However, it has here and there overtones of substantive law: For example, the law of estoppel can defeat a man’s right. It shuts his mouth. Ic would not permit him to speak of his rights. Role of law of Evidence in Civil/Criminal proceedings The rules of law of evidence for civil and criminal cases are, in general, the same e.g. the method of proving that a particular person is dead in respect of civil case (person executing the will died or not on a particular da minal case (a person charged with murder). But, there are tions of Evidence Act which apply only to the civil case(eg. dealing with estoppel) and some only to the criminal cases confessions). ‘The method of proving (ie. burden of proof is on the prosecuti /plaintiff) is same in both, but there is a marked difference as to of evidence) in civil and criminal ¢: in standards of proof in civil and criminal judge, whether and how far he ought to believe what the witness say? The answer isa judge cannot absolutely rely on the rules of evidesice. No rule of evidence can guide the judge on the fundamental question of whether evidence as to a relevant fact should be believed or not; and if believed what inference to be drawn from it as to the main fact- Again, the rules of evidence are.not rules of logic - they throw no light at all on a further question 6f-equal importance to the one first stated. Rules of evidence are artificial. The best guide of judge on a ‘question is his own common sense and experience of human nature. A person ignorant of those rules may give a much better answer than a judge. (Owing to the difficulty and abstruseness of the docitinés propounded, the courts are less eager to entertain and the lawyers ae difident to urge, Introduction 3 the questions of law of evidence which requires closer and critical study of the provisions of Evidence Act. It is suggested that the rules of evidence should not be pedantic nor should discretion be too wide. Law of Evidence in India The word ‘evidence’ is derived from the Latin word evident or ‘evidere, The object of rules of evidence is to help the courts to ascertain the truth to prevent protracted inquiries, and to avoid confusion in the ‘minds of judges, which may result from the admission of evidence in excess. Thus, the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was passed with the main objet of preventing indisciplne inthe admission of evidence by enacting 4 correct and uniform rule of Practice, ‘There are three main principles which underlie the law of evidence:- @ Evidence must be confined to the matters in ise, Hearsay evidence must not be admitted. GH) The best evidence aust be given in all cases, The Indian Evidence Act, 1872.is mainly based on the English law of Itwas drafted by Sir James Stephen.? The Act is no ‘Schemé of the indian Evidence Act, 1872 ‘The Indian Evidence Act is divided into three main Parts: © Relevancy of Facts (Chapter I containing Sees. 14 deals with Preliminary points; Chapter It deals with ‘what fxéts may and may not be proved’ ~ Secs. 5~55). es 2 Win dentate tin =amp Aq wasp pre] st eT a8 AL uid ere oda rome s12n09 nafos aq 02 oo] We> stmo09 ay ‘apy axp jo stones ayp Jo tol 1 aq J04{“2oURpLAD Jo SON aT [Te upeatos 01 r10dind 204 soop 24 9 ‘aanseeqpa 10u st S9ADMOG TY HL, “spuapiao Jo ae] aq spuBUr pure SOUTop ‘Sx¥prTOsUOD IY SHI, “29909 jo asey YsySug axp uo paseg Apu st ZzgT “Hy SuSpIAd weIPUT AL opog eyajdusog © JY Out -ampoypg pur z “295 poyrades seq ‘gc6t “PY Suypeadoy UL, -zouaptss Jo soqns osoth fe payvodas (1) 7 "29g "s0u2F2sU0D poy pur sonsnf ‘Aaynbg Jo sojns stp PUE ti jOUTWIO YsTTBa Jo saps ae Aq pausoa08 arom aouaptas jo s9f iq jo ued 5 91908 YDITae OUEPIAD jf squeunzeug so 1eodoy {09.008 + (C002) 279g MHfeael] HO BuO8 st Surpoooosd axp axoyan Animoo arp uy Suneaasd ase aq 9q pytors90aps2 Jo Surpiosaz yp 01 aqqearidde ave] aya ‘sino [eo] 3x3 Jo OUPISTSSE ap yaa 0 worssqurur09 AreuTpsO WO F91119 ‘Anmunoo Jaq ou UT (@urpaadord) ‘wore Jo 1Ins e jo pre Uy Axquno9 auo uy wayer St 9U9pIA2 9TA\ ‘ay 20xoyu 01 sizs 1zn02 xp azo pre pootogue ag 02 1fn0s st Apousay ap axaq ‘sostre wonsan axp arog Animoa agp Joey aq Aq, pauymmszep 9q 02 st 3eIp om 40 te © sonoud aouapina uyensoo soqiay 00 40 tuoradaroD s ST e roqpoqyy,(wonse axp Jo apeqd aya jo ase], pau st ase> © Mma UF (@anoo 30) taro ays yo ae] '°t 140f 32] tp st Souapyss yo me - C10f 3277 -sonsn{yemaew yo sous aoqjos sfeungin yons ssareseq> wy [eEypn{ 24 ‘ear Kagp yBnonp wane ‘seunquas xp £q paonpuco ssummbus or wonrodde ‘ou seq 27 2ouapiag ayp “aM TNS “TET OS LE ATV APY HOH qaoy, ueBof a aq “udioc tung) soweptas Jo ase] aq Aq prog 108 376 ‘agp ang aonsnd yemaen yo saydioutsd orp sopoy 02 ary stonearigan “opm s uoronposyut “DaID “L67-G67 “99S SO''D “ pezuoyne Aypayrods 7110 Axed ‘wea a] ‘Jord Jo apous ¥ sv pa: sanazisuoo 100 sso aBpe[ouy [euosrod sy Jo sIseq atft TO s1>Fj jo ‘uopumsse anauodap anp anesoq susepye, 01 Addie 20% s20p t9y OH, ~Agmbuy asnensrapape ae ‘21 wonazop yo 2sn ow 9q 01 sf azoqp pu papro22s 2q 02 2424 5324} paroaoostp Aquo pores ty Aamnbut Suxpayasey v wrosy wrazaysp st Azmmbut ‘ue gong ‘wonazoep jo asn axp Aq auomSpnl v areyntazoy 02 uot Pur saps mi0q se2q 1 Sop T1oq Woy souapras ayes o1 oReS|GO UE ZOpuN 5131p poprpnl sy Axmnbuy we Soy souaplag amp jo sasodind axp so ‘Sumpaooord [er pip uooq seq peumguy.esImpuy ax0j0q sSunpa220xd anq “DY sSugpaoaoxd feroipnl you aze xe], awoouy axp sopun sBuyp22004 smu09 & ang ‘Burpso0rd yerotpal e st Suxpaosord 1 "ZHA ame] Jo wo,staosd Aue £q, as} wo sor0g omar auio> |feys 3] OremIGzTE Aue ax0y>q sBimp2200Id o1 sou ‘reotyo 40 uun09 Aur 01 paruasozd sutsepyge 02 20m ang *(}9Y 940, sry pure py oudiosiq eae “py Atazy orp s2ptn adaoxs) Sunpnyour ‘moo Ae axojaq go tr sBtmpaoo0ud e>gpnt 02 $y ZLeT ‘WV couapIAg U Jo uoneayddy ap wr apeus 90g aary steouspusie wosiuTe Bap uino> aya Jo woResapisuon amp Joy amoos pe ‘ap avezedas 01 popusiat are oy soueptag weIpay 3 aq souaptas axp asnur souurar reqs UE poe woys Aq, Yat STPp TX 1 A sra1deyD) soueptag Jo 39a pue woRNy “(001-95 “$99g - "219 “ poaord 2q 01 suey reeAD|> agp ame oy, TEA STEP IA 02 II] Si=ndeqD) joorg Jo =PoW (Hl) ( oouapiaa 40 MET y‘6 Law of Evidence The law of evidence is contained in the Evidence Act and in otber ‘Acts and Statutes which make specific provisions on matter of evidenee viz. Order XXVI, CP.C,5 Secs. 291-292, ‘CrP.C.s Secs. 59 and 123, TP. Act. It may be noted that ic Evidence excluded by the Evidence Act is inadmissible even if it seems essential i the provisions | the ground of public policy, evidence relevant under this Act, Derinirions: INTERPRETATION CLAUSE ring words and expressions are used in the following ry intent from the context: “Court”; inchudes all Judges and Magistrates and all persons, except legally authorized to take evidence. This definition is not Temay be noted that in atrial by jury, the Court includes jury. A Court does not include an arbitrator though he is legally authorized vo take evidence. Fact? “Fact” means and includes - (any thing, state of things, or elation of things, capable of being recived by senses [ie. extemal fats illustrations (a), (8) and Oh ee 3. What is a fact? How is it cliferent from ‘fact in Issue’? Give two istration of each. Pete meeee Act. Likewise, a court cannot on < Introduction 7 @) any mental condition of which any person is conscious [internal facts; illustrations (d) and (¢). Imustrations That there are certain things arranged in a certain order in a certain place, is a fact. (©) That a man heard or saw something is a fact. (© That a man said certain words is a fact. (@ That a man holds a certain opinion, has a certain intention, acts (© That a man has Law has not merely to which are'so hidden as to be beyo: or condition of ‘The fact sought to be proved (factum probandur) is called “principal facts”, the facts which lead to establish it are called ‘evidentiary facts’ {fctum probs). Facts in Issue “Facts in issue” means and includes - (1) any act from which either by itself or in connection with other facts, the existence, non-existence, 4. Give an example of fact which is not capable of being perceived by the senses, 1L-Ci-2006) 5. Write a short note on ‘Facts in issue ILC.H94m6 1 Ciednn_s 28) wenoyeu, Uo OU VONS © WAND eav6-1971'96-1971 souapiaa yepumestnauf wey porou aq Aeur a sayR0 at Jo 2ouaNsTx2 TO do apuaasixa oqp apqeqoud sxapuar xo soaosd size} sotpo Tptas wonDanTOD ut 10 sppsut Aq wo9fea 240 sit2982.J0 exp satpo Yes 02 porepey Os a7e survou ueA7[9s, PHOMk 2H,” snoey aqp spi daqswone[es Hos paw “pure ur ayrory poureas pooyg spies Sanz uuaas sem aq tops aqp saype 40 “239 “ayruy e Burdng Aq suonegedasd apeur poy 94 “GTI 02 Aarumazoddo pay axniom © per y ~ 276 noe ‘ajdurexa x03 daeaopos, ayn ‘,g Jo F9pmuT aqp Jo posnaye sty WOH, i sronews jediourad oyp 30 ansst u ajqetoseas Suprogpe yo aqqedeo are Azernuaptas 10) sioej wreAspex ‘StU "9A “rorpoue 01 aueAgppx souto3: + queaoyax, wi191 aq SuYap 20 “sg) suosiad paya jo su se9 soto Ut woud (ge-b¢ °86) sooueastanost> yersads xopun simu sassoumation Aq siuamareas (ti) “(Le-L1's9) suorssoqtoo pure suorssrumpe “(or9 °86) ansst my story Lm parsous09 Aqeos8o] 3%} aa ‘stony Jo Aoweaayax amp 03 Sunes soy simp jo suosstsoud amp uy on pazsayar she aya jo Aue Uy s2qp0 27 (si) “ys poroatraoo st ato axp way somo 02 gunRz24 24 OF PES SE PEF SHO, estes qweAsjoy ‘ uoronposyut “sioej asoup Jo siseq xp Uo auaMiSpal v soumouosd 2 uoda pojfes aq we> moo ayp az0j9q 1unoD ay Jo uOKDE;sHES aq on ponoud aq ot sey aouontxa says ‘nse, uy sznj ag 2q ADIEU, “py ouaprag ayp Jo ansst ur 298, 2% on nbs 97g Japon on jo aes, ag san Senay wm ansst ur sioty Suruentaose yo ssoa0ad ap ‘szo1 ‘i np amunsuo> noqsoBkeyp agp wr suoneSoqe aya ‘Sroxtem et -umpurqoud umn 10 ney y sBumpeold sensed amp so ze upg ag ea 8 aindsip ur ase yoryas 20498) agp ‘9jdtaexe 205 4 “souayo aq 01 ajquoridde ase] 2a% ssuosysosd ayp wodn puodap fas onsst uy size “Onsst Ut 398} ¥ su10209 § ‘2y2 2eazap 01 aaoud Leur arepusyap v Yor 10 “Ino! ; >a se UT WONReDEpn ‘amaeu sit Surqous, Jo afgedeout pur jo ssoupunosun jo wosear Aq ‘seat ‘yneap sq padneo yaryas 198 1emp Sutop jo ou A 2eyp £q woyy wonesoxosd wappns pure asey8 paatsoas pey y 3eq sa eno 01 pope W201 Speap 6,q pasneo y rey ~ ansst ut aq Ae story Suymoqfoy ays en sty ay ",g Jo s9psmur aya yo pasnaoe ty, -amod. map Seas women BROT} AL, ‘at uodn puadop pnoys see Je onsnb aq wi ns oq Prods 5 2p oquing "ened mp 3908399, ‘sindspp 40 Asrasonaoo ur aze yorqas size] 01 souar9jo1 Ut Aquo Aressa90u somosag souapiag ons using} are ayndap ware Yorqus oe 20 snpeold Ia pn Paps0.9s 198} Jo ansst ue 03 sonisue tr Porsp 20 paar 2 hae ‘smoqjoy Aquessooou Smmpaooosd 20 ams Are rf Pattap 40 paussse “Aamgesip 20 Aamngen ‘ayBus Aue jo 1warx9 10 amsew eaueping yo meq a