3 Crimes. _1e_Csa2> aa) a __ Sremet_ie Conclusive prof” Kembihor! vadey! vs state of Bihar. Pit See. Stt.D __ ___ The #en'ble supreme court has held that____ __ orffrence hefwepgn _adnu'stbility and _relevancy..__ a = Gentile Bap Nex Stale os Ack Set) Clesh . Cr iszeoeD 2 There_metee a “Derecenti —shich_means_preximily hime. place and occurance #2 Dremihe Qeee (elevaney g the — Beck Leming Dart of Same Trensectie CRes gestae) ° b Tannil Nadeks a Cap patos se 85 2 = hehe =—- Case weuld be Moti a ~ bided by Cirewnnstaactiat Fuience— clone —— ) Be eee1. Tag) selvan case Coos Lw teri) g. _£5.9)9 the Hentble NghCourk. of Mad tas held that Z How Co Condwel the "Testtcentitication Parade", 8+ Yifayakumar Case. C201acp MLsCO) 744 (3.0) = The Henble SC held that 'T1p’ Canbe in prperyale - 9... _Venkafeshwara Gage Chol (_Cnimes 40 Cou) The Hon'He SC. says Alibi sheutd be lax Carksinity 10.__Sarelar cose AIR I9ES S¢_ S07. Admission) re ——The Hon'ble SC. Says that Admission be Provetby ongecdy s Bat net by the person _astho made rt, i its in his favour. 1 Coinersrty kpaadins Vi. Suara _ shelly Cs-g0115, gee Ey pene age en, ee Sten bial Conditions for Lhe application of Doctrine of _Fatoppel.. 4 12. Sell Ve Stale of karnglake Op 2010 S094 Kenko Polygraph —_and_tnn meping test are. Untonstiktroral.. _Sahoo_Ve stale op u.p.CAle 4qbb_sc40 9 ____Ingredrence_of confessions 2 z _14..__ frakala NamyaiaSa, , Ve. Emperor (P.C. 1939.) (Dying beclaratin) eee CAIR 1939 Pes Ap.) 2» » 15. Bollukun'_kolaiya Vs. Emperor (Cs .21 = How michoe tn fermaben pe may be received From Accusei)) 1b. CLV. Abusaline ow ca sec_a2b. Cs.332) jay Mohan,Vs. Hin. Rai (AIR 2008 sc 80a Cs.40)) _AZ2 Ie. M. shah Vs. Stale of M.H- CAIR199b 13327 14 State ot fasthon, Ve.Kam, Kailash Cale 2016 sebaa C'S2 20. In katnaty 52, CAIR 19117. scllos> 6.51 The Nietss not exhastve . a harilal Myragke 1 Bs ura ya properties (p) Ltd Vy. Bo = oie Bc. soo. Cbecumentary eridence)? “22. Kaliya vs. slate, Gals (im) see 15¢.) : Yalidi Ly#Secondary evidence28. Babu ging ss Rain shai CAltuwog ae bate) Ss fe, ~Decument —atleast evidence of ene Shwelel be pyaverd by attesting cevtnese : Seg 3s wail hes fo prove &y Janek! parayanan CAR 2003 80 74/09 1 (Os ethesting witiess i Vs Naraya Manion kadar —— Mo attesting untnesses.are available » then the _erecubhon_ say. be proved by otherwitners a example. ss Bxcutors Cseller- bayer. Mertgager—morlgy WIL apaade_in chose favour) scyibe cele 25, Stake ys... Pali Ram CAIR (979 84 AD S18 ThE Court can Compare. the Signature, ——uriting seal. wrth ether admitted er praved Pele cumentss 3 26. Sheema Ve Asuinikamas Asunntkanat Chinaeeh se Neb) rh - Mamigge egisttation sa public document. 81 Sate BB ee clan Ronen 2 Ci) sce. 219) aS. I phocumption_as.to. 20 Years old document 28 Barpursingh Vi. shamshersingh GR. 2009s 1166 a ot _applicable to_willswi'll_shoutd be proved. f———_<“acky cis, bale b66_0f indian Succession Acé N92. 29. Addagada_ka.ghaVvamma vs. Adda gada chen CAla.1964._ se 136-5 " Burdenot_preot_as_to particular tact.” 0. Mardgan.._Vs. sla le cf LN.(2018 Go Crimes 31s. sD 106 Husband had Special knowlegge Ghoul. the Cleash- MUA oss aa LL Essakktammal Vs. State of. TM. Coes cay ms oD Znitialburdan of prooving onthe Sholder- 423 Of _pro.gecution.;siexpreving exception fhe MR Shaidav of Accused + CdlefonceD —a Ulcard ve skanney Cleon. english Caselaw") (One parby ts tn active pasition » No ene. shoud sleep over his night” Ficluctary relationship ceeute be established 33. Amu tha Ks, Manivanng thupalhy. CAR 2001 ba mad.) "Child untness'¢ aftlavit fs not admnfssible”. 4 Stabe ok Kejasttan.. Ws. Lbarshen fagh Cola @ see Gr. alb.> Sillq of JEA, Manner OF relording evidence of witness who can't Gmmuniéat Verbaly.. . as. kam _ Bhere sey Vs, shabe of WIR 1954 sce to4) 7 S122. In amather matrimonial Case'a Deposition — Gan be used as evictence_inanether_cae. —_ab. Shankar Vs. Stateor Tn. 994 Gbz B01tsc) —_ Mistress choash't has 8.122 privileges. # 7. _Kelacekaran Ns. State ge TN, (1992 Crht_ 2.168 CMady) 8.126 Communicatien -rnade_upons professional as —alone is protected but not personal Communication, — Ralmia_ vs. Delhy Administratign; CAle 1962. SclP2),) “Lakes. ahout that whois apprmr’ 34. Masalty vs, State of 0.2. (AIR 1965 6¢202) Sila lie Tee teense SE fron though itd 3.13.4 bakes thal~one untness ts enough Lo prove the case. In riok Case, atleast ze lum Witnesses are peeded. 40. fannayar 16 stale of T.y AiR 20/0.5¢ gs) — freathgh "AN admis) ble facts are. pele vant 2 bul all relevant facts ara nol admssy'ble.”, the. relevant fercts are te be adduced Uss. a what isthe important the.same? Al. Kamchandar vs. Stale HA GR 1991 sc. a SSA Tadge cheutd so Bou Recording machine. He musé fpoa Partierpatary Judge,