“domi oi vin Mas Een Ve! 4k Diretings true who bas ben report ora penn who B® ceased ibe a roe, 0 deliver tea propery init pose be feu posession of ny peron ened othe poset prope 5. ireting accounts ad inate, ru propery orf the ners hein sale alloca 1° 6. Declaring what proportion ofthe any peiular objet ofthe tas cote et ol mortgaged or exchan 1, puthoising the whole o any ps ofthe a POPS 8 Sexlingasehems or dhe or other elie ate ate of he cae may rie 9. Grating sch ‘Quenions of Mains Examinations Previous Ye fe Wiest sot on Compemstory Cot. ws 984] eysam 9 arrensci coin cmb stempmanion cto Oo? wrote Dizon nd ihe ces on Theat of Cini Poets hand wren Ci tapina bene Cl Actin or nea precaveCapty. (38 291] . wenn ptt Paice psn bin ein eens tT Soughina sie ays 2001 sesame by feng tthe eo ronson" sere Respond snving ital a efor ceca fe tnwhacansan AbveteGeen of Sa Laimedinmch esi mit bn nei andi ews proce for ining he core 2d no iin pac mbne urge urge Desens te ion of cunents «Dante ovo ofthe i rst Cade wih et «stamens Cou nab een PS inorder pee the endef use from being foe par.cj201] fags 2091 wri) © Discus docrne ofreitaton 1h and septing ose 'A won thet "Aree dot ean he pose que.cis.20 se. cy109, 105209 2 tortott on Cave even cour What ie purpose loins crea? ys 198] fe Toerewa i bem and so obsinel the poseion oe ue ld and appa and he woo in ape inthe powenion a of ihehowe 10 pine lep poctaret0 eboney fe Whencans ponders eee enamel Borie NDIAN EVIDENCE ACT1 Preliminary Introduction Substantive lw and procedural law : Law can be defined the role which dete sions and which regulate the behaviour of individual It ay be substantive law or procedural law/adec: ive The laws which peseribe our ight and duties ae called saatantve lam Theright to inhstance, the ight under contrat te the rghts which re contind in rules of eabtntive aw Fo x isn Penal ode, 1860, Indian Contact Ac, 1872 are sbrtaine ews ing our ight lites and duties Fortheenforeent of right and fer compelling the theo perform his dy, there ate rules prescribed bylaw. These rules re proedurl in nature and the lw which presses such ules is procera aw Tt provide the rules for proceedings in mater before the authorities and judiciay Fr exemple the rales, contained in Code of Cl Procedure, 1908 or Cade of Cisninal Procedure, 197, eae procedural tam ‘The lw of Evidence i procedural lew: The law of Bvdence under the Indian idence Ac, 1872 is procedural aw which lays down the following rales (6) Whae facts maybe ued in evidence, (8) How such fas arto be proved, (© By-whom and ia what mane the evidence io be produced aw of evidence, a2 procedural lw, dal with the may in which the pare will show existence non existence of facts and circumstance 0 tt etablish the existence or non existence of rights end labs given under soba li, Law of evidence i ex fri: The aw of evidence iter ithe law ofthe country of fru. It smverened by the hw ofthe mation where the proceedings are taking place and not where the case o action as taken place. For example ifan American cen stridor a reach of contact which took place in USA, the lw of xidence ain force in India wl be applicable and not the lw of evidence oF USA. Application of Indian Evidence Act Indian Evidence applies to ll judicial proceatings in or before anycourtincluding the cours of Court Mata It doesnot apply to any court marine convened under c) Army Act 6) Naval Discipline Ae, (2) At Fore At () Indian (Naval) Discipline Act. Ie alto oes not apply (i) Aida and (i) Proceedings before Arbitstor, ‘Sonar Ago Books 6ais soins: Yoo Api Gite So ot ie as ben eine unde! ely taken on oth “ame prove to set evidence Act eich the eines judicial proceedings sale ce ‘means any proceeding in c° section 26) of CPC. Proceetings in which on sy administve Evidence ee ct the effect of which ist Tie ide er of i fied as 209 0 ‘ pence of sone oer fa dein nin Seton 3 red rom Latin ter rs 0 Bentham evidence can bed ae ea ‘persuasion, afirmati renin dss shih ‘poem io siblshitse produce ina so sb Csi! : 1) Oral evidence and schydestwo Kinds of idence ‘pe anyother kind of evden: which sen idence. Te defisition utit doesnot mean th here cannot onl wus ae amar cs which all he statement of face under ina 26d se cour permis resis male emeans ses rasion vo ate (@) Ona evidence before ity wi idence : means and! ction ofthe Cour sronascc oy naar ere pata, Desa 4 star Pal Be pie oe tn Hadep Sa8h ieee ivche ha ce definition i aban the deetonie heal he documents inci | () Documentary produce forthe ise te vee cnuin sat S wt that the definition of Sot mote a ‘oppor #* ae sgpeana and includes : Ste of Punjab, 2014) 3SCC%, Se ses only he insrents fle of Samay be legally 1 rebrought before the coat inom evidence sii | s different from proof whic pore real which Ff vidence Acording ciel in order 1 PVE OF sebebe ora, oeumeIA se ‘el oi feed a ts sn 3 dom ee eat evidence: Definition i Frees jets produced Je bod stained cloths i co Fo i op vec 1 te a ey econ 1 provides tat FOP) conse by ot oe hing shrshan doses . any mnt sine a ea binge tan shine osineesion out 29+ an Bidence Act et al re 1381, Supreme the In Ink Eide t hl hat statements in afdait do not consti evden thin Seton 3, The reston for exsion of affdevite hatn fais there ca be statements based on information whichis hearsay. Afi be wsed as evidence only when the court putes order under Onder XI, Rule 1 and 2o Givi Procedure. When «court orders that particular fct may be proved by an affidvit then it becomes cvidence. The Coe of Girl Procedure (Amendment) Ac, 202 permis aiavit in the form of rden Supreme Couttin Ayaaub Khan Noorkhan Pathan v. State of Mabarashtre, (2013) 4 SCC 46S hat held that where the deponent can be salable for ros examination ad an oppo iven othe other pry to cos examine shen the fia be rein upon a evden idence of tracker dog Supreme Cour in Abd Razak. State, AIR 1970 SC. discovery ofa fc with the help of tracker dog sient evidence. Disec evidence: Direct evidence i evidence which proves the fet in dispute ively withou any Jnferene or presumption. The principal fice proved direct by witnees, document or things. Iris based ‘on precise point in soe, For example, in cate of murder if the witness the accused commiting the offence then the evidence of the witness wil be dre evidence. Circumstantial evidence: Cireumstantisl evidence isnot defined unde the Indian Evie re Circumstantial evidence that which relates oa rere of oher fet than the ict in issue. It means the eviences of circumstances When thee is nor evience vibe the he courts look othe cicumstaces hich can be inked to provide evidence Supreme Coun in Umedbha jadevbbalv. State of Gujarat (1978)! $S0C 28, Ganpat Singh v. State of MP, 2017) 16SOC3S, State Of U.P. v. Ravindra Prakash Mla, AIR. 1952C 2045 in many ober cases held that following athe ence which mute kept in mind wil dealing withthe canst evidence, 1 Thegeneral principle that the circumstances fom which an inference is dawn must be cogent andl etablihed. 2 Those circumstances shoud be definite snd uneringly point wwards the pil of acusd cumstances shou form achain complete that there is no eae fom he conclusion that within ll human probability the crime war commited bythe accused. Such circumstances shoul be incapable of ny hypothesis other than the ult oF accuse and it should be inconsistent with the innocence ofthe accused Direct evidence is based on witness personal knowledge orobseration of fact whereas, Grcumstantal evidences direc eridence of fact which eaxonaby infers the exten: exence of fit in nseIain Bide “pomp Cie oie Sere Mis Ezines: th the deceased, would have killed the deceased. Th posited the crime lies on the accused, — inference to asiveeibe cones doc not ee ay retning ot 2 Diner eviden ‘be dawn from the evidence, wheres i cs that inferences be made bewern 1 evidence being a indirect viene J dean fom it - owever, ich evidence ios rliehduene en el mpegs pee eee ‘State, (2018) 16 SCC 161 ee ae Ie evidence andthe conlsion 1 nin on the other hand, cosaborson Nat [Nevancethakrishnanv. face Circumstantial evidence rect cvdence i given 10 PTE 3. Generally i gto play when no direct evidence avaiable o prove fe. _ Lei ovis to the court. Supreme Court has held eras teeeds erie ere ss it eis worthy of credit and bis rey on the disc evidence of wit 4. TheCourtcn fe. But cicamtanial evidence basis of coavicon only dna Jadavbbal v, State of Gujrat, (978) 1 S08 (17 16SOC, stat OF UL. v Ravindra Prakash dr cases are fulfilled, it yoy with the hypothesis of inn the Be ao form the Hower, tr testimonies should nthe xt sigh sec te niet shou : cut righlyjeced hey st Harlan v. State of U.P. AIR 201261978) : is reibh principles id down n Ue feral corcbortd [Ramesh splden ‘ha, Ganpat Singh . State of MP ‘ital, ATR 1992 SC 2045 and varios of fulyeblished and of eonetuive natu t= ere mist be a complete ein of Injured wis tne In Suresh Sharma: uve v. State of Mabarashirs, AIR 2003 $C te crumssances must be (Court held tha evidence of ani jure wites cannot be dicaded on the sound thi he wll bee an seb in conform Grcustanees svpporting no ote ote uinode towards the ceused False witness Fle wits a oe se wines i «penon wh makes fle ci bes take (Courin State (Delhi A tbl Administration) v, V.C. Shukla, AIR1960 S138, h sl of accused and fpypotbei that of ul of the acu rdencein departmental inquiSuprere Cota SB. Na erent made in a departmental cog donot conse i condusions door bind the costs poston, Supreme jonal Housing Bank, (2013) Sa tionally makes alse statement cannotbe sled upon fo th Pon fo the parposeof bn ciation of evidence conven the accused SOC 538, bed that cannot be wed a cours ‘Tae analysis ofthe evidence by the cout a once the li Gilles appreciation of evidence. Ite the duty ofthe court acectsinw reer scan which part the evide veneCoun in Upal Da, Sate of West Bengal (0106S 93 hl re wed for comeboraig nd cont iting he FIR as evidence: Su hetruth and which puto lve v. State of Maharashe Sc06 i chp ofits fe In Ganesh K. G Z AIR 2002 Srpreme Cour held thatthe duty of the co tthe gaia fom thats ofthe court op separate the ria om the chal hat Ris nota sobtntve psec of evidence. mayo complainant rotereted witness A wines maybe led an inter NS only wha he othe derives som ligation. Therefore ‘elated Falous in uno, fats in omnibus: mes th vein one thing isa inll ote Ia. Jent interned wine ony = SOC 50 The eimonyof ines cnet eR asim ogee cha if the par of eidenc by 2 ira Prasad v. State of MP. 2008)7 SOC 8 na wens Fae he of thins 0 er word this seneft from heres ofthe {Ganapatht v. State of Temi Nad rd that ews ‘need witness ould be adjudged onthe touchstone Bd it must not into consideration by cour Supeee’ emus nthe taken i d imooy aby cour. Supreme Court Biba, 2018) 650433, ba el Kamesbowat Singh v, State of i thatthe maxi fie wa fa fis i faba omnibus nt appli in Ins nly on the ou conraiions and emis omissions in th eridence are toe ignored ifthe ig of ru rte that ceil of witness aust isan Snterested wine? seme Court in Sate of Mabarasbira v. Pref te or dcurentary or cleric: Iseron of is alo, Hens it supreme Co relnbily.Kshould not beret mel bs ce on record the court shoub oe shoulda adopt ype chi apronch. burt should not ect the evidence on minor contradictions. (Khurshid Ahmed v. Sate of ie : pe 2 conusditions State of ate Off, fines. When analyzing ‘Bridence through video conferencing SUP! the eden Desai, (2003) 4 SOC 61, held that ‘evidence’ ca ie agen a wins cate iva OY war Senne Proved, Disproved and Not proved Proved: Seton 3 ion 3 ofthe Indian Evidence Act defies ‘proved “des ince evidence trough video conferening sc rz waxes in the efntion of den ct, 2000 define ‘let asa According this Sastons fact is ie be proved when imba Rao v. State of A.P., AIR 2001 SC 318 Supreme ecto “(aX of Information Technology ‘econ evidence: The em‘ 2000 (wf 17102000). Section cord means dats, record od neo econ I sates shat ‘leon image, or ound vd ar wnt in an electron form or mio fio COMPUT aa generated eat ico fice“domo ie oi evi es Ei Vt! co nei at proof does ok ean rot id aA demonstation bat such evidence 3 rable man come roa onclsion woul induce 80 Te depends upon dese of posi of tn ined ‘Manes befse it Section 3, while del sec arden tick om athe coun cnconie AVS ATE To pin nace yt cou. frre on NSD ws 3 oie at iio pel Wen SA 1 existence o probable tht = singh wa proved ed he cxpreion ‘ats OSS han evidence uch at demeanost of wits considering the maers Disprow befor i the cout ithe eee ex upon a supposition tat it oe) oo who wil judg ts exits igor consider it 9 att does nt x his andar of proof should fog the andar’ of| not exit Thus pradet man ought (©: be of ordinary praence in Pe ‘The definition ol Lr growed ony come open of drcumstaces before him. prove Cchaturbhiug Pandey v. Collector of} inproof of fact is © fof x prudent man, Thee i 0 srt that under alga, AR 1969 C25 Supreme Co roe of belief of the court o be teed on the touch Jn ofthe evidence of Sation 3 the proof andar by which the we probability o other iescan be sean the pat [Not proved: Seton 3 provides hut exis iw be not proved when ener Prove 2 ay pve ie bis inte Pre elies proved. Inher words ths tha it doe otc io ale’ What prone. The word ‘prove’ isi Avo be disproved, person avs chisnot “Toren adffrencebeween‘dprovel anno spec ay oly be en ob ibe ng When BE x On the other hand, fact ashe tea of el riding theaters be Touts rath The phate ‘not Prov soit centnty nerits non- Aay thing sate of things relton of things capable of being perceived > Anymental condition of wich, any perso fe? a Rebuttable presumption of aw Bean has caste facts into () Phys fc (exe) nd ()Pychologcl acts ternal P Tnrcutable presumption of law or concave proof i fact ae those facts which ae capable of being pereived through sense ore man heard or aw something, it fc. A man head eRebuabePesmpin of lw Under Section 4 itis provi that whee the ct deca tat internal act mental cond cou’ puna fic court sal ree tht ict ne ond ntitisciprove, Thus by wing Fe cscbnicdssiutiiatiniry scr Eee ee thewort alo rom fr dscns cout is ound to take the fit as proved wat evidence it Fact in iesue sur and its mandatory fort ase such presumption sles iis disproved by the othe party Th Section 3 define act in ae’ It means sue ny fc fom which, ther by isalf or ‘duced wo dsprove it The pat interested a dsproving the fact mast produc the evidence tence, nats xen of ey ris isl ordi. ened ot For example under Section 1158 of Indian Evidence Act where he question i whether person omnited dowry death of a womn the cour shall resume nbjeced to crusty. Otber provisions rating to such hue pron has cased the det fii evil by sh pats in it or ocean. nee fllows For example‘ istied for mde of I hse, Whether A murdered B? bows that soon before er death she had Bens ra eumpion ave contained under Seon 7988, 8, 1IDB and 14 A ofthe Bidens At 172 nen (e tebutable Presumption of lao conclusive proof Acoding to Seton 4 whee the At (9 Whetber Aa intention oil B2 shal, on the proof of wach fact, read the ep Wishart stot Weolet tad Indian Pel Code? ecare ay fc 10 be conclsive proof of ober, the court of the genera exceptions ment 3 mentioned in chapter IV oF saber fax proved andthe ther party wil aot be allowed to prove such fac. Th ce presumption anv it annot be buted bythe other pry ad he ater wil be ured to ade evidence 0 the Th tines dpe ction pon which determines thighs and MBalify to be ‘fact in issue’ only whem that fact (by itsel Tas yeas Brtermine the question of right. i Foreampleif ny cil is born within 280 day after dso the child is egtimatson ofthe men une ion of mariage between man and wife eee erate ct With othe fit) is rail to li. Thus ican lobe tated that facts which re cxetial for and wife remained unmatid twill be conclave proof that ee mining righ uy, diy, abi reac i shows (Seton 112 Idan Evidence Ac} Thus, once he presumption ire itcanoot in bitin question and sere by one pated dened es by one pry and deni byte ical reat by any evidence, a aa “There ae only three iastances of ach presumption under the Bridence Act which s provided unde Stent emis ne Section 41,12 and 13. Howee, ven ifthe at i concisely proved ican lb rebut om 8 e a : ; im isu! and ere of fact’ Explanatio f ound of fad paced up the cour For astanc Scion #4 ofthe Indian Bidens Ae rv Bes wre alee epee ae ne any issue of fae recon between the pares under Orde ‘ under Onder 14 Rue ofthe Code of sree puis alone show ht ie judgment elvan under Scion 41 sa proved by hearers A roca, 190, party was obtained by fad or collusion. i ~ anowe given by the panties in respons ouch sue off ical ict in fin ‘Sena Arve Books Seam Agawal Boke FFAcampo Gide ail Seve Main Esai Ve] ‘wae off i med when «mati prmorion ofr fit is si bone. plain prove 0 ied tech [Order 4 Ral (1), Ths it nina the ice ich he sam and the defendant proves to defend bis ase suppor his nase exinence of contract which was denied by Forenample'N sued’ for breach ofcontact 1S, the court recorded an issue offic ‘wheter cited and of that there wa 0 contact sch Relevant fact =a here was «contract betneen and B 7 Hes, the senion ofA thatthe contact consti fin ise 1s per Section 3 ofthe Indian Evidence Ac. seion 3 provide that on fact iit Be eran to another when ne isconneted with he oe say ofthe wp aed in the provisions of hs At lating sency offs Asonig ren of exience or nonexistence of canbe found from Sextions 655. Thus Seton 5 evidence can only be fs in issue and relevant cts. The tin of facts which are relent dence only on the fics and al oter facts il panes are allowed to aut not be relevant nd amine ot ive clear defniton ofthe ter butt merely ate The definition ofthe ter ‘elerant fat dos Seca vvheant to other when ones conoeced tothe othe in the manner provided under relevant ict are thowe ts which ae not hem ait in gesng tthe tut or filschod of fctin ia that one fat 69 $5 ofthe Act In genet connected withfctinsne o sped fc 3 0810 ‘cording to Sep ita certain degree of probative value it sreocasion case or ffect of actin ise i declared relevant unde ‘A murdered’ mks on the ground produce eves in ie but they a Section Forevample ts which 1 ofthe Ac and thus where the question is whether rg vor rte ple whe murder a commited eee fic haan) 0 Son f Mains Examinations Previous Years’ Quest Dice erwenFactin ie and Relat i 8 Witenstron Factinisne, © spin aniline Fria ad Reet Fat (ays, 2006; ys 994 UP. 20m, 202, MP par adn of pu is Wharisafctin ie Mase your sneer. sot ict and facie Poin the diene erent Deine le uot actin su? Whether Esplin the cicamstancr when he proceding beams ean sivingrefnnc othe nin Eien At es © Sobtamive lors diferent om procera a’ xplin by ‘Semarth Agrwal Books Wee srt crt desi cial his easing ead cope (03s 1980 techie but bi oon dct cut evidence wr, oe (UP. 205 2016 an cium evideoce Wht athe teil when ci enti ea (9 216) lin nd irate at ini nd Rl Ft 19 203) ‘What ae the diffe i aon Tener sue pr mys 2014332006 203) sent (ays 10,194) (Pret Dirt (a Noepoved (ays 201) inca of once rok ca theo anos decal wo under th ride 1952001 (sal proume oo I 2016, 48 195,201] ing eee bute and imbue prempton? tae (HS 199, UP. CJ 1986209) Dining bree hollowing igre nd ot rom (99,2015) Esplin tegen of peumpion of lw under the Evidence Ac with 2 z 9s 219) ites sho oto preumption of fit el premmpton of D3s 2008) you mei by presmpion? Dic the ind of preumption jur.cj2a] Interest and Relea [os m9} "Agere be en in cag rams dence and ifthe dence nia rascenl cpble of oinfenes te nein ou ofthe arsed mast be cepted ‘Sanh Agra Books 5“Aone Ge i Sie Mae sani Vie ry Sopteme Cour of pent ding Ges! aie (HRS 2019) Insight of interment wth helo decid ees. tod Subsanste you anower wih ihe = ur.g2is) ‘what do you undead by he wo ee dian Evidence 1 with emphasison he prvsins of he shal pres with em ae Disigushbewen'may peu 2 Aa re ising pempton om ve imporan pa fw of en”. bic wih eet oe prof wo dene Die elaig to peumption fo = provios fda Biden A, 17 Is 198 mys 1994 ys 203) 1 pemse sdilnrat ro mty runes eco al ress apn tephra th cou fonof aaa of ence Wie shor cit noteon Psu one 2 Relevancy of Facts Te primary function of cout of law i to ascertain cts end crcumtances of the case a onde lcerine the sighs and bles of he pari Ie herr morta that cout Wil aka conser tai sets oder to ind out the ruth ofthe contort before it In any controvery before the cous there canbe large numberof fits Iis nt poaible fo the court o take nto acount ll those Fes would ed 1 unnecesary wastage of ime becuse not ll facts ae important Facts of which evidence can be given Section 5 ofthe Indian Evidence Act provides tht suit ocproceding evidence maybe given to prove the existence or nonexistence of ©) Factinise and (Such other fact as declared tobe relevant under Section 6 t0 55 ofthe Ac. Apart fom the above Fics, evidence cannot be given o prov ny other fits, cven iti eentl for ‘scent oft, Thc evidence ofthe fat insu maybe pen under Section Sand the evidence of relevant facts maybe given under Sections 655 ofthe idence Act. Furthermore sper Explanation to Seton 5, if some provisions in Cade of Chil Proce, 1908 noite the person o give evidence oa fat, he wll note eid at Fight to ace that evidence Cox. ‘The flowing are the fics which are declared elerat under the Ac: Facts forming pr ofthe same transaction [Section 6. Facts which are oceason, cause or eff offic in ine [Section 7 3. Motive, preparation, conduct of pasty [Seton 8} ts necessary to explain fics in sue [Seton 9 Things said o¢ done by conspirators [Section 10 6. Facts inconsitent it actin sue [Seton 13} Facts helping in the estimation of damages [Section 12, Transaction creating ight, custome [Seton 13} 9. Facts sting of mind and body [Section 14 10, acs showing whether cts intentiona or scent (Section 15) 4, Existence of couse of busines [Seton 16 a Sn Somer cae eee Smart Agarwal Books si| _ACompndin ie el provides the mode of proving fit in ase o eles ‘Admissions and conesons [Section 17131) 1 or cannot be found [Sesion 32 and 3] evidence ar disse or art be exclu fer inne Seton 5 ofthe Act provides tht evidence for ‘Statements of perros who are des Satemeats mace under ertain ces [Seton proving only fc nie and relevant fat ae allowed opotition is further 439) strengthened by reading Proviso to Section 165 which provides that the judgment ofthe cout should be ba on slevan fit duly proved Jigen (Seton 4010 44] Cree of seme ana ee Further Section 136 of the Act provides that the court shall admit any evidence and allow it to be dy hance eon 521035) prove itis edly rove, woul leas Thus by eating the provision se Ginbx abr) idence fo ober a8 been apps tha alan fc ar nee lt. : i ions 655. The ot declared reat nde Ss sauna Adib pemppons relevancy. Admini evidence shold be ci bythe co 15 excludes eveying whi ae nia reer on the cout tec ineygn eee E 7 of cxpresion ‘and of thes impose an obligation 0 iss egal ress forts ejection. Facts should not be recived in evidence uns i i both celeant and 6 Bisinible The question oflcrancy ses with the question of ansiniiliy of erdenee lenny and Nii “The expreion ‘Relevancy offic snot defined weston would depend upon the quertion at to whether theft sought to row Fact an one fact is elevant to another when on is conntted to or not ad ater _ : later that relevant fact wl e adsl only iit has been duly proved. Ths, fess from 58 ofthe Act Thus tit defsition ao does aot cla so connesed with the nly define ‘eran rovided under Section 6 10 rc n genera leant ita hoe fs which re exinence or owexsence of fy what ae =e Sexton Sit sates he evidence can be given oaly of fc in tue eleven fact given rom Seton 655 sera fics and wha ele “gamed berwen the pris which suggest an inference a toe fhe Act. Thu if any eson withes to addce any evidence then he has to prove tht th fx in ise fier he fin roo ita evant ft eae a fact ine ue mania 4 ts manifeacion is found in Para I of Seton 136 aio which provides tht whenever sty party io of two events cane many: According to Php, revancy denotes connect a he existence of one fact readers Boys to giveth evidence then the judge may ak that party to show that i what manner the evidence Meaning of rel relevancy denotes connection between to fs such th fact probable or improbable This tale logical i rlated to atin isu or reevant fact none oF the Be rors rif oval wolé be lent nd may lait elie hint edn i Pore, would be relevant. : me : f other 1 relevancy based on deductive Srey indian eA yeaa i a do ot Seattle [Fortean 134 provide ht it pty op peat idee oe BREE ie toni oer ped eho al gue a pe al facts which ar lolly leant. tall willbe el PRB that ther fc Git on which the fice red eleven under Section 610 55 ofthe evant it Horev the party to prove only thos facts which ar exp a ich he propose t give evidence, is depended. Fo plein cae, any penn wid 0 give evidence of dying declaration then be should Seton 5 ofthe Act maker it very lear hat ev sly leant facta allowed st may not be legally relevant. What of death ofA as dying declaration will ea relevant fit enly when A is dead Hence, een ofA cannotbe be proved then cour will acallow the evidence of ing declartion a thi fc wil not facts which are logically relevant may not be ‘bt ot vie sen. For example confesion made wo poli yn a question of Henne ifthe other at ifthe the fact cannot be proved. Though t permits the proving ofthe cond fc fet pon ic office may appear 10 be loge Bhdeakng [xe ihraion or) = sf law which is decided by he teleran bot i's not lealy relevant. Question of lean Pr 3 of Setion 136 judge and it canbe raise at any age inthe rocedings eee EGU 257 OF he eridence ob given fs. Ts enone Bowes iano hac taenecacbod Brads on other alleged fact, illustration (2) &()] = a ies hn the je may iis. a "Admiasibiiey of fc: alte eleancy of fact which explains what may be proved by the a hn the judge may in is discreson permit o cmsbiity onthe other and, rbased on strc legal rales rahe evn of he evidence wo prove parila tin any proce ‘Seman Aga Books a ad | Agrawal Books =_Acompotion ito Seis Mit aint: Vem st mun be based upon facts deere ren frter Section 165 proviso provides that nde nent canbe peg rrat and daly roe, Thiseion ds mandates tv eure Fate Fee tat only and eondly, ch relevant fact aut be dl proved. Thus, when vsechas pone tht hat viene ireevant ind matte then eis athe fact wil be taken ino scountinjument ony Jerany of fact tha fc cannot be ly ‘sed upon we pany eho propotes to ade evi Teined to dul prove that reevant fc. Thus that eleven wr tha eleva fic duly proved and even after proving ved then tha fc wil note taken nto account in judgment Relevancy and admisibility not synonymous “Coun in Ram bart Yada v State of Bar, TR 1998 SC 85, has id ha ‘The Supreme ld synonymous io cach other, Relevancy isa selerany i iferet fom admiiility nd they cannot be ens wl dibs specie 1 are not amis under the Act. For example # “Thee are facts which eventhough rerant ut inadiisble confound oa pic offic eeant at but Seton 25 of the idence Act maki ye decal prilege Sia, omamsieation bereen pou tough ean cra case ot by vee of Sevion 122 ofthe Indian idence Act. alu intances under the Act where thefts een shoughireleran are made tlw the acts tobe amit in courtinorde to impeach om even though these acts are no ated to fact in sue i urtermore, thereat dmisible for example, Seton 185 ofthe Ac the ceil of wines during cost exit saymannes, is fandamental ule of law that evidence must be relevant i ‘Cour in his cate has lo eld chat 1 aes of fica converse i not tue, Thus eleancy offic an onder tobe admissible, Butte probative force an logical reasoning either eoertensive nor synonymous the former being base on aaa tam bd on egal polyol ul Al adie are referent but alec a notadmisible Tes Gestae Seon 6199 ey down vaio wysin wich th i ax aed toca othe form coma uric uals down in England inthe terms 12 ofthe peicial act These sections enact the! acre jeation and ines wich conse or scompany and xsi fic or ance senate adil foro against either party as forming pars of reget ‘ing td and done in coun of Meaning of res gestae: This is a Latin phrase which means scion which ate in contin of aay be defined as thove circumstances, fs ota dered to beftly connected withthe main et gua conneced wih he fact in sue as teanmaton. Iticindes everyting which ca be cons vremorof doctrines that ac which though noi is, par of same transaction becomes relevant by ivel. a ‘Sena Awad Books These incidents may be separated fom the Fes by laps of time doings thing left uadone aswell things done, The et of edible fe is wheter the sy, delartion or exclamation is inn iy icerwoven orconacced with the priaciple foes so be regardd apart the transaction nel Pick Thendyig pine behind deine rps ha hen in issue, then evidence can be given of every fact which forms ra eer re gta oe te the ue transection, The doctrine of 1 court tke inc account all theta deals ofthe transaction, I seve the pros of completing the ising ink Seton 6 ofthe Indian Bridence Act sa direct mani de in Balan Thissection provide that ats thovgh provides that fc, hovgh notin ams, bu aeao connected with fines cm par ofthe same transition alsa. Th me time! i ns at They may ou fe ay orcr at sae time or plac ora and place. The rational in making cer certain statements or facts relerant unde Section 6 to spontaneity and immaiacy of ruck tatement rfc in rlaton to theft ‘Same transaction: The em se transaction’ has not ben defined inthe a transaction ita group of facts connected together to be refered to bya single rong. contaeor anyother obec of enquiry which maybe in eae. The tex for determin whether the fact forms the part of same the par of same ansacton or another depends upon whether they are ree ‘continuous action. [Sukh v. State of U.P. (1999) 9 SOC 507} . For exumpleifthe deceased has been killed by speeding ruck the witness had not sen the ini brut the speeding truck The deceased tated to him what ha happened with him nth Th ‘a thatthe natement ofthe devesed othe witness tobe amie trea [Rv Foster, (183416 ayia Foster, (183496 Paycholoicl facts oF words accom sca spanying physical acts: The words apoken by th doing the acto by the person to whom they were done or by bytnder are transaction, provided they are contemporaneous with transaction and ther i and opportunity for fabricatior 6 94a i a OPRE sk pe in DH) oxen is statement to be admissible under the rule of re gestae, oa ho exclimed Ais kiling'B: The exclamation sar much par ofthe transaction of made at ofthe blood from the wound ince on the nek ra ed ‘Seman Agawal Books =Indio Bide sm ait Sie Mai Emini Ve ACmpets Occasion: Ta Rv. Richerson the deceted gil a the ine of murder was alone at the home, This dee ones anne ie ep Te ere Te ore oo seater so a8 to form part of faci eleven because consid the occasion o commit mi pose en re een bel a to be eevantunder Scion 6 ves that te fc forming P= owt ach nformation the sae tans. te given of such circumstances which conntute the cause forthe happening of the act. fect In Rv. Richardson gil wat killed in the cottage. The scene of the crime showed that The watement Time and Space: Section 6speical FON time and place rifle ies 2 maybe completed paces Tas he aero tasction - rit ofthe forep which ogsted tha the cused must hae wor te shoes wich had ies ko coca in them. Tit was he eet ofthe fat nse ey weeks oF qe amomen of ie of if there ‘pay extend psi of re consecingcreamsancs i ‘When person die because of poisoning the roms of pion are relevant as they ae ees oes within which te eansacon mrpaon can beimosed to teil oun Ie breadth of cOUDIT ee von in charged for maging wor aint Ser iB PINS cf peat et reer beac were comida rent SF vn sch fats maybe proved BF BNE ied they ae par of theft inisue Hhstration (ithe comet illustration on hsp ve mont, Silay, ni Sam eran sien by bec mother The accused kw the rosie ofthe medicine and one dy he eps the bot oF For example Pe cea omnia oe sion. [I (b) to Section 6). The mite a diferent ine and plas PO Kaowiedge ofthe accused was eld o be releant ait served as an opportunity to commit he ci sur dey frm par of gener as oe dence even fits eray oF we i State of things In Ratton v. Reginam, the accuse shot down his wifeand took the de Sault acces. The fc thatthe accused was unhappy with hi wife and was having an afr wth the snot sa woman was eld tobe elevant ast constcated the sta of things forthe happening of the a eee ao sate of AP AR 996 SCT ltt Te ree saa acy vio is nt sini, Hee dent bute ahead t Supreme Courtin Gentela V2 ‘xcepton 19 neal rule ° een he arial pein oF edizet nd earsayevidene vo ai uregotar th In Ry. Foster, ‘Motive, preparation and previous or subsequent conduct embodied in Seton 6831 hat he pein a hing is not admin inthe cour. evidence “Meaniag of motive: The term ‘motive’ has not been defined in the Act, A motive is viene simply means psa genera ul evidence “pores man od spatial act Msi sould not be conf with mension wichita ef wl Seamer mt fon to the principle of hearsay Homer S parcnsine 0 me caren in ri eT we pene eae we evidence of what the deceased said because it a ci oom — i dee Tee Seesog nator delet omisin, shows he nate ofthe st which he an bie eis dog Supreme Coustin Suresh Chandra Bahr v. State of iar, 194 C1) 3271 (SC) held that mosis is toning which pomp psn to forte n opinion o intention todo certain acs, Nevers abe tf root of motive doesnot render the evidence untrserorthy or unclable. By ive motive doer no 4 formed he pat of sme tac 537 held tat for binging beara must be lst conemporne in Sukharv. State Of UP. Kenic ay crime but once the crn is commited the evidence of motive assumes significance cof Section 6 what 1d ot be an interval whieh In Rv. Palmer, acuted bortomed huge sum of money fey one day and died in suspicious circumstances after that. The fc that Pane ad strong motive to Winns his end was held to be relevant. In Parshwanath v. State of Kamataks, AIR 2010SC2916 om his fend His rien asked for hi cesuabishedisthatit vilallow bison ; F effect of facts in issue. Fest tat if the ais based on a circumstantial evidence the evidence of moive becomes material. [Bsrtins () and (of Section 8 are amples of mote v7 makes the felling fs reer 4 sco : vei (medio uberis) of fin ao 7 ie a ae + Facts which ate the asain ca 5 which the pare act ares uniform in heir operation that conclusion may suey be awn hati evant pesonacisin particular manner, he des so unde the influence of patclar motive. Thus facts which ch consiute the sat hid ‘pdr which they happened or constiate motive ae made relevent under Section 8 ofthe Act. > Fact ae + Fuca wbich forded sn appear a “Sonar pnw BOOKSInline At “Comps nia Sri Ms Enon: Forexample: Where the question is whether’ robbed theft fe‘ was robbed, "Cs A had murdered ‘Cand that “the plie are coming to look far the min who robbed BY and th Bit sanes from ‘A’ by threatening to make his knowledge publ _'B who was blackmailing him ae relevent they afeswads an aay, ar relevant asthe statement of'C explains and aft the conduct ofA om ‘Supreme Court in Amina v. Hasan Koya, (2003) 6 SCC3, held thatthe reson why eridence of show he motive of A fo ili ee, suse condoct sallow is because he mans conduct italy in uence by what eas been ding bel “he Sopeme cour in Babu ¥ opis .ce of motive and held as follows: afer tbe Itinerary thatthe conduct in queson sho byes, sera siti te cout inanaiing tevidence A rinses the herinflence the cto be itn i ; Be uence of moive nen in analysing the eden ce a In Queen v, Abdulla, the acute wat guilty of murder of young gr. The oa ofthe pl 1. Motivelsreerat : 7 uty court to become more crtou inser et ei dee thot the alae and the name of Abdulla (accuse) ws mentioned she made sus el hatin this case Secon 8s not appiabe and the cond mt be play and it seeds in rites in ease ntie has 20 roe © Sots 2. Where there is convincing 7 background. fluenced direipby the tsi isu/elerant fits and not by interpretation of word spoken bythe hid persons Tee the accuse 4, Mesieslnecanot be sole ound for cong ts ry diet evidence saab import when incase ofciecrstantil evidence rar held tobe rlevant at dying declaration under Seton 32 ofthe Acs 4. Motives Relevancy of tape recorded convertion that oie umes mote 7 fnen the crime is committed the a The probe cera: Section 8 ao lays dow mn eae yce was framed by the ota rime ba thatthe tape recorded convertion is adminible provided the conversation i leant to the mater in sna cise ia Ise and thesis identication of the oi eect eee stan intention to commit the off she ac of preparton. andthe accuracy f conversation i proved by eliminating the e ration rests on the presumption th = sein psi oF exasing the ape record Furth, in Yusuf v, State of Maharashtra, AIR. 1968 SC 14 ae Sopreme Court held that he court must be stfed beyond reasonable doubt thatthe tape reco ‘Conde of party when slant Azoring 0 Wier ones he fee and expesions of sD ampere wth ant Acorting . craven The sod ppp Scion makes conc + peron reheat. The condi as The seco of Sec . mn ; Seal xv statements, [Explanation 118) Jude the matementscompanvi Section 9 ofthe Indian Evidence Act makes facts which re necessary to slain or nto may soincide the rotconsute ‘conduc! unless ther x explain acts other ha Je and not of person who is 848 “cr ofa party alone is admisnble sn ar Bic rteant fc, s relevant insofar they ate necessary for that purpone. Ths, fics wich re Secon 8 est be ated that he coe fuctory or explanatory in nature can be proved if they have dz easing on Fin ie, of felowing pesons is leant planar acs Thee sme evience wich f cond spat nd slose fom oh sprig the at Cond nm pay proses ny itor proses in es Js sit or proceedings oi gest any sit or presi party, ois aie The fact that shortly after the alleged crime wae aise q ve ncs ude which andthe tsi mich DOME pins him and not against is cose would not amount anything but ftaken nto consideration with ome ober facts proved in the explains and loses them and such facts ae rlevant under Section 9 of Indian Evidence A reference wo any fet in of explanatory ict ate 2 eleven inl if hey are considered separately. For example‘A sues for inducing to break contact of ervce made by im with‘A."C 00 a accused is relevant a8 planation 2: Explanation 2 to him or in is presence OF any statement made toi rr fact si eplins Cs condvt which relevant afc in ie tration Section 3] seas made ae relevant Conduct f 8 wo Seton 8 Brea person ie tid fr leading certain peopl by marching them, there ofthe mob ay incidence as explanatory ofthe nature ofthe transaction, UBaraton (0 Scion 9] statements afeting conduct of 8 PAE that when the conduct of any person er Irae such conduct isa eles ‘Sear Aral Books — wil“A Compile el Seria Mai Ein Vee sons for makin introductory fits elevat under Section 9 that it ducting autor proceeding to jump dre onthe min fact A in incident Introductory Facts The rs would be practically imposible in con Tre ves ome intent mater in order'o know teams ining? 0s mE ra ec at llow Sch nod acts ae of get ein oping he mining Hk es etmpe'A sus fo bel imputing digas conduct oA fms ca ts mae cs the ime when the ibe was 1 and relations ofthe patie alleged to be Iibelou tue, The posi ac in ise lation () 0 Section 9 published may be relevant facts at introductory to 1 inferences: fact inne ora relevant fact ugg be relevant or example if shorty after a: ‘conduet, Now any fact which ter acts which supporto reba say inference henall hove facts which support or rebut suc ferences wou ccime'A abaconds hen ths act wl be relevant under Section der Scion 8. afer absconding hes rexel inten suppor or rebut thie conduct wil bereevat ut ving te inference tat ep. Ihe is able wo show ‘itboutticke then this fi wil be ean 8 oppor vDhehe left home becuse of ome urgent work then alo che fc wil el thatthe court needs wo now the deny of evant as rebuttal of his i entity ofa peron: I the circumstances 30 arse eva hen ty ct ich cbse hires ecant Theo onder ison ee enna ‘of West Bengal, AIR 1963 $C 1074, Supreme Cot farae become relevant In Ram Lochan y. Stat over the skeleton of husnan body was amisible ted that superimposed photograph ofthe decease prove hu the skeleton was that ofthe dere ‘est identification parade Ter denifcion parade of th acu is provided unde Seton 54 of he Code of Ci row are ich van add by Amendment of 205-Thisproron enables he poli ofc n ch ts prmision dre! the peson arrested or commit ey the cour ks the police ation sek the court ining on offence subject imal 0 identification by any pion ot persons in sch mann rae is taken under Seton 9 of Evidence Ac ‘fidence of tet identifi ps Test Mentifeation parade Nees: Such tt is conducted to et the veracity of he wits incopy inden ti nkncwn pera Teton Pai pinay men or ior veces Spee Cou in Kemanathan tate of TaN AIR 978SC 120 hash aout whether the accused te perpetrator ofthe sig prrpos of tet identification parades 0 vr ithe name ofthe offender x pot mentioned by the ewes ‘State of U.P, AIR 2010 SC214, Supreme! es then in such cecumstanes vridence becomes more important (x Ram Babu ¥ sds 1 et edn and trustworthies ofthe evident shan Singh v. State of Bhar, AIR 1988 S&S cation parade, identifiation ld that purpose oftet identification the wtnest in cour. Supreme Court in Hare Ki the witness ld to defy the accu at theen ingh v. State of MP. AIR 1970 SC 1619 Si sree seered shat TP serves tro ppt (0 atte investing authors that STAN vwhereone of ‘fake accused inthe come is sles. In lar Nath Si not previously known to witness ws iavol lve inthe offence snd (ito farish evidence to corzobort th tctimony which the witness concerned tenders bef. Whether holding of TIP is exsental? Test deni Test identification parade i not ascesery where all he witness sae that hey other know scised persons andthe ae no sanges othe seknow secused pects and they ae ie accused they ae noe sangeet them nd the i “ r vas they leaty 02 SC 305 In R. Shab. Sate of Ren, AIR Ps S06, spre — AIR 651, Supreme Cour eld that where ner raced wih hse and te ‘test identification parade was not essential = sev a holding of Bridentiary value of TIP: The evidence of tet identifica ie ha obo site tnt ha eee San ADS Sat ut the identification parades belong to the stage of investigation. They di ries reco In Gore Sn offal ATR 98SC 7s et ‘he teimony of the witness nd the identification of the accuse, roberts Delain ling TP resol be made ee Ton seein ty obi one ove sarees sci epi iF See an 8.20901 te y ase the conviction of the accused on the sole ground of such ic feral isn inten ches eon ad item oh dven eed Precaution and Procedure tbe adopted: tis necessary to cond fe proper precaution to cely upc nee yop ach ie Thefowng = precuions mare ake while conducting Te mstbe conducts be conducted in the supervision of Maitre who shall en pear elerpaealaaia that the identification is [No poli officer shouldbe presen at the sme wh 7 en parade conducied te ni ini pe now ‘witnesses does not fade with time. eae cane cere Ge eam ei inp th obey si nhl 8 pal One en il aac accused without any aid or support. If REESE 3 ‘the test is conducted after taking due care and precauti Le ea iincreaed an sed and ican be used by inventgating igang gency to establish the identity ofthe accused ‘Things said or done by a conspirator in reference to a cor desi 4 aon Sa ‘Seon 10 ofthe Indian idence Act ae down the elerany of thins dod inference other com ane of things dor done by consi smonitetion, Tis scion ia x seinen as ception the eer tat one cannot sponsible fo the sc atements of ober. memes SE aii >Iki Bn ination: Yoon sa ei Mai Bs Jolt In ee itcan be summed tha the eux of thie decison ws A conpenis ie je beh the policy 4 evidence ofan at ofa conspirator secon nthe or 85% Prlan aptin another th act ws done to principle The base snc the offence svcnon and eoring the 2 Section 10 uss the expresion a sfseaco ts common nes In Miran Akbar v. Emperor onset abe eset Tg Fre en sein Cone bed hat the word commen inten’ ssf comnon tne exiting we ine onto peeent blr RESIN pcre compas when the hing wat id, done or writen by on of them. Any satemeto confion made to semantic uate he common nation othe comspicacr ha cated to exe i ot amie pst he ther sb filles aro belie that 0 SS qsvenonsle pond or 2c ot part under his provision, In hie case MizeaAKbar and one Mehar Tan were charged with conspiracy omit murder of ene Ali Asks. Ali Askar wi usd of Mebar Tae but she ms in Tani Bas; re persons are members jac evidence oi of «consi jrence thir nut be in iar. Pini evidence of onic was the let which were exch pitas ms il Mac Ts leas aoe one of suc oF ween Mire Akbar and vying sit done ort that ters were elevnt under Sesion 10beceuse their erms were consent with 4 . — xing mous be made after ‘the time when Gj. Sch actor semen oF by any oe of the sch invention 8 fit conspiracy betwen the conspirators to cae deth of Ali Akar, Ie ust be mension bere that af ing ered ah Ta ao made tents bore Magitu on the hare of conti Piatements before Magistrate were held not to be relevant under Section 10 as they were made 1 Bef hon al eal en tie, Telr, ny Coe in Mia barca bel sor willbe elernta8 afl act by us SL esersine ofthe consi sateen and iti esc a =< " 1 use condans cose todo an vain on Olas down een of prsspe ai down ia. . 4 Tye. In Sa ra scons ena opens 2008 nh ca ion 0s down sf pcp il down aR. Blake and Tye n Sate of Gor sein hie i omg on TSN exec i 1989 1 gree oe et omen sn i “pean Conspinit0< ‘oinvkeissecion ol rine oxouel ment made by former consist, tees ould not be ead ene dein ference the ria faci eines CANTO angio} AIR oa pinenice in Rebar Singh ¥ Se conc on : ; ee eee al oe rim oe OT SN of Tul Nac AIR 1 State of Bombay, AIR 1957 SC77 snd Supreme Cour hl ha Secon 10s bed onthe from the family and fien Jjayendet ‘seraswadl Swasnigal ¥ i, acy befor ple of agcacy. Further, Supreme Court in Bad Ral v. State of Bihar, AIR 1958 SC 953, beld the cous ay roe coe See eat the pron ws 10is based on sme in of English aw ae expounded in Bake nd Te ce ‘When facts not otherwise relevant become relevant Sexton 11 ofthe Indian Evidence Act deals wth aes when face not other releant become a ima facie F800 uate esterit scan be wed sin i the dary of 4 PEON create prima forthe a 0 seb ay ne oF ECO ka, (998) reme Cour i fc whe names of Fac eden of conspire. COO others This sesinn prone 2 pins i uit consist SP sowing on tn a were made were held insufficient comet eden “uae “ey nem peers i” enn tegen bY fray their costome charged with 0 reed forcing ot re was ssl ama recivable as ita court eld tha idee easly of he formes <7 reid not have been proved BY 2°Y means, The cou . could nt ave been Ps ote ror an x done bi “This section is based on the principle thatthe bjt oft to prove or disprove byeride ar claim or charge and thus, any fact which ether diprovs or tends to disprove that claim or hat an oe stlerant Section 11 contains two clauses which ae dncused ss under acts inconsistent with any fact i ieee or relevant fact: On fic i dt be inconsitent a oh hes when it cannot co-exist with the other. The inconsistency with the main fact i suficient 0 rox nthe ati peer aud a Blake bot not yin of alibé The ere ‘lita Latin term which means ‘acwber’ The plea of alibi ows rom 0 del sity wo books One of em wa oreo _ vs ed that entries in the record. 1 Ths pies is commonly ken bythe aczuedin order to make at eleven under is section. of abence ofa perio charged with an offence from the plc of occurrence atthe tine of ofthe offence. In Doodhnath Pandey v. State of U.P, 981 SC911 Supreme Court held re inaeby one ome this provision. Coneseie Soe Mas : Any transaction by which the right or custom ing es in quation wes reacted, modi. seo A Compe thar he wars fir oF sve rit ead evidence 10 show In tate of ized. asd. or denied or which was incon the a pave committe the ofence 1 etl this le, i ust be proved with . the place of occurence irao AIR 1984SC 6S SUP ade the possibility ofthe preset that in nde momen of erm om Maharashortv. Nasi recersinty 0c absolutly ex that he could no ee Court bed that plea of 1 ofthe conc estance in whch thei loc exerised or in wich J peton abe i cacti ws pein, or depried fro The purpose of Section 13s book beh ba prone Wy Sn place of ecurenct. he presence of the ace at the eee of which te rght or castor om in qvetion wa anterior posi whether ‘A commited “The ple of ai ne es pron oO FE Forum he rain day Te stat’ sae Sate of .Suphar Singh AR {19795191 Supreme Cost Faerie penne tp i ATED re lai ence become rar en charpedatisicton sd were mde by penton who would hae ban or are brn iy thee ben wae of the eri pomalates psi im ‘Apart fom the above, 2 = ctor may alto be proved by felling een om ht ysl EY AN00 enone. 1. By opinions of peas likey to knwo aon) 85 thereof [Seton 48 ly when the B ysatement of pertont who ae dead or whos eee by ‘ime in Caleta 084 ce or having speci me 7 special meune of knowledge ace cannot the les 165 Supreme Cour bt ‘burden which ie on the prosecutor sonable dey or expente provided they very at ich ctor 2900 a he ist POV of ch astm if tom fit ern [Seton 32] ther examples ais Judgment, ower and dees ae ab rl other pron on 6th ALE he fact elvan under Section 12 3 urdering 2 tt prove custom though not concise ‘where a person sacar of ie il Ist Aug, 2000, ha sch anche person wa a [econ 4} sh murder of B.'8 8 POT ssiconinnt wih be fa tha'® made i FA hme prot ont ome cs fa penn ischarged with murder of ii ise of relevant fat ighlf eee aking the eine or scsi of 7 verte ince oroonceee MS [Fats sowing existence of eae of mid of of body oF of bodily Rstings | oT Ee taal abe yo of bodily Feings ecb orimpobable Under Secion 1G) 8 any facin ins levantat E probable or improbable. The words “highly probable point ot wa bev immediate sto render es nm sion M4 ofthe Indian Evi fence Act provides that thefts show showing the existence fate of i a eseeneio rc be crn snd cai caience ofthe two highly probable «wailed by who shot i buen mack near the oC murdered 8 8 ‘Whether the judgment ie transaction? T rdgmentins previous sit (though not ine partie inconsistent witht pat one’ ude B's the davis in evidence ke any other fc Is noth isnot the cores ofthe previous dein which a relevant 1p incharged axthe Fiche thee hat there has been previous previous decion it eablibed fom the judgment [leumal Devasihanams v. Ki, ‘risha‘ab, AR 198 S112] bach s intention, knowledge, god 6 somdedg. god th, bl sh sashnet, good wil or nel eigen oF existence of tate of Body or bil eng a sae eleant when existence of euch state of mind or boy el ily fing is in issue or sida un 3 wines i ha he pn was EE ed when gun wa se round which ean Be at Fb eidence are rendering essence of Ag _— ment of the person whose mental condition condition iin pute, ot Forename a 15 ec ot metic evience sow ‘leva. This scion dels with th the prof of paychological fics which more lose. Thi fs canbe proved either by jase improbable ros of Section 1 are no dosbt dom mst 0) Bridences of othe acter mere tee Sine cf ope um mn exit he provision of te Ae . Le SE Gann ae sion 14 makes adil sir cs inode to PY rosin sve show he sat of mind of pon bu 2010 Fe x example'A accused of aud of fraaleny dlverng to another pessoa. counterfeit coin, which tthe Tete ‘Actand hereon the ti ‘be proved in acon scion 1 prone at we hens of SHALES ueion, the following ine he =a llivered ithe knew tobe counterfeit The fat tha a the ime of delivery, ‘A’ mas posted of « ‘Sema Aprwal Books ws » Samar Aga BooksA Cones ie uel See Mixon: Valen] ‘number of other pices ofcounefit consi relevant atthe posession of many counts coins almost ‘acude the pouty oFhis having ther by hance cent orn good ih [Msation () to Section 14) Simiaty, where ‘As accused of defaming ‘by publishing an imputation intended to harm the reputation of, theft of previous publications by’ respecting showing illwill onthe pat ofa towards Bis relevant a proving A’atention to harm B's reputation. lusration (2) (0 Section 14 Explanation 1 to Section 14: According tothe Explanation 1 of Seton 14, fit relevant at showing existence of levant state of mind mut show tha the sate of mind exists not general bu in refrence to particular matter in question. Tit Explanation, dus arows the application of Section 14 dfs showing mena sate in reference tfc under inquiry ae relevant Foreramle‘A is accused of murdering a woman tis sought o be proved that wo Years ap, he cnurderd his wie and so hehad mens ro Kl X, Howeres this at cannot be prove and isieeevan for proving As intention toil beaut doesnot eae othe fact under nasi. In Reg v. Prabhudas the question before the cour was ofthe intention to committe rime of onging the promisoy note. The court el that theft that a pestn is found in posession of aumber of documents apparently forges not elevant to prov extenceofintenson to commit particular crime Sich fact can only prove the tendency ofa person to comait rime Explanation 2 to Section 14 Tis Explanation provides that where previous commision by an cused of ay offence is elevant under Sston 14 the previous contin of uch person will ab bea ‘eer ct ‘What are similar facts and whether they can be taken in evidence? 7 ‘tsi ob iia to anoher when it iss oa ft nse Ia pon is prosecute or ‘ef the similar fat wll be commision of theft on oter occasions. The questions wheter the evidence of similar facts shoul be allowed? That is to 13, if is require to be proved thatthe accused has commited thet, whether the evidence of pas hfs can be given? “The general principle of law i tat the evidence of similar fs is not allowed This broad principle ‘masdevloped by the cout in Makda v. Attomney-Genera for New South Wales The rues tht ery case must be red onthe bass ofits ow facts and ccumtancs Therefore, evidence of similar aes is of Postion under Indian Bridence Act Tndlaa Evidence Act does not mention the words ‘similar ict There is nothing inthe Act which provides that evidence of similar facts cant be given, Howere, in Queen Empress v. Abdullah the court pointed ou that Section 5 ofthe Act neff probit the employment of any kind of evidence > ‘Seah Agrwal Books ieee the panicle stieseiental or intentional.” rich is ot specifically authored by the Act. In Evidence Act ‘similar fet? not pcifaly authorized ‘therefore he potion is that evidence of iirc no eleva ception: The exception to this ul recognized by English Common Law ae covered by some ofthe other sections of Evidence Act Following ae ceraia exceptions (0) Section 15: tis the most important exception ecognied by the Act. Tie section ie invoked following so When the question i whether the at with whch the person is charg intentional and the defence of cident a beens ps When the quertonirwhether th Act was done with pnclar knowledge or intention, In Makin v. Attomey-General for New South Wales, sews husband and wf, were prosecuted for murder of child whom they erie adopted. The child wis found buried inthe yard. They ook he defence thatthe child died f natural cuss, In nde to rebut thie defence the evidence war offered tha in previous ocsions alo they had adoped bie and the bodies were found in the houses they occupied. The cout held that che mere fact cha evidence ade! tendo show the commision other crimes doesnot endeit inane Fis elevant oan issue. Te maybe leant oa sue i sce lleged were intentional or accidental Horever this exception int applicable where the actin guetion invention an these sno suggestion of n accident ft). Section 1: Evidence of similar facts can be sven when tx proposed to enablsh «tat of id or mer Section I senders sch facts relevant ifthey tend to proves particular sate of ‘mind which essential toa libily. For the applicability ofthis section tis not ecesry hatte accused must take the defence of cident. (@) Section : This section i elated wo facts which eaublith identity of anything or person whose identi is rlevan. Pace showing identity wil be reevant een ifthe rl to the evidences of similar offences o the part of the accused on the ober occasions, House of onlin Thomp- sn ¥ Radice evidence of similar iets to exablh deny. (Court in Harris v,.P.P observed thatthe exlsin of sini fst no rl of lam bite smaner of practice Section 1 and 15 Ie mut be noted here that Section 14 and 15 arto be read together, Section 15 it only an application of the general rule sid dowa in Section 1, Section 1¢ ea general ection dealing with allcats in which mental tate is involved wher Seton 15 desl with only tho cte where the queson ‘Sear Areal Books erA conpenin Guin i Sia Ma Bains: Vee! Tnincace of course of business is relevant sion 6 pois ta when ee ie gon whether eprom existence of which it aural would hve bern done i erat eos of busines, acorn ‘psn has great eeniany vari the eef aw Irina ttbown to lw wl presume thatthe hing must ave Been fare ys that he cour may Presume “The gener courte of have been done in «general course of busines then the Seton 14 ilsetion done a that general course of busines. ra of busines has ben followed in particule sn taken may nyt dat he common cou This presumption showers, tebutable They pty against whom tis resumption Previous Yea ‘Questions of Mi ide hin tenet “elena Amine be ganmon nari (js 209) sch levi provisions ofan jail deo vest cone tothe ae in ie xin nd tebe xno ces 200) (as 994 © Bie sat, 06, 51996199, UP. 90) © Wharsdininaton wen rics fe Espn ais offic and reer fof i 2p “Hala eicisdonbut lentes etc il Come, owing cv thefts ough be proved area (8) Point out wher thf 6) Aish ih boning 8 whine to ilhim n orders neat prove the aha A ate st one enti or sing si poeta bare machete fhe ocrion i hehe ob mas souig fe Wiaeashot oon lnc. minty and creo tens fe "Reece ible Fluid his ee ru.cy20 doyou undetand by wean i? el he deat qur.cz0l owen aropinons of hint etn lean? isin fe Whovinmennby ela of? urg “sph ery th fwing ft dette rors of iin Eide 072 tad pep hough te wie sified vo by eat oon tf the alg made by AC es Theft xine! ook Ait sining ip tort Saar wal Books Indio Ee lacy cone edn pat os m0) nn ct we isi, 96 1 190,196, HIS 1988, 2015] ‘rect wich eh oon cate fet of ft in ia de hat [ur.cyis) ‘Under wt prvsions ofthe vdene Acta th flowing fit ee eta Awa sboning on afer the lege rine (35 198) ia thelr othe fallowing it nde rvs fhe ain vides At The fic ha B as sen coming ou of the howe Adit and bing 000 ae er alee ape 19 200] pansion snd condos ofa pny ae rean? (MP. 2003, S200) esto weber A robbed wheter tea thats fore ero ins pouenion nd hath ord itor mentioned the fac that ditt thid pros arr ; HIS 1964 pin‘ and ‘xan fc’ nde Indian viene At, Wha he eer ae Seniesa? * (ass 2016) Espn stout he athe lant isd te ly ori aden (ays 2017 ‘Whether pretrilTt Indesiston Prd conducted before « Mevoplian Maitre eae nace befor te eons Cou. (Ds 201) ‘Wi shor note on Te denifcion Pde a (bys 206) In wha cst rey ol on idenfiction ade, Dc he precaosobetae,th procdare to Seadopted for holding nd thease of eideniaton, [Dys 190) Yat se ft saya xpi tind eee ac Discs ad iat your ste ur.ciisey Dic the sap of tion oF Evidence ct 172, Why iti cl rida cae fen? Whe atemeat whichis othervite ot reer under any ofthe other provisions of Evidence At 1672 maybe ‘Sah Aga Boks =“ACompntin ie Srv Mais [ms 208) permite be adds ie Scioa ena «ewamcanbe nay stent and eng ofxconper beeline haute yousare. q2.c19 fe Whenar fics ptosis sore tur.chi9s} 2 wpa fics ae en te your a fe When sight orca isin question? Wa 8 AWiwieneienloantto povescton? son kollel, o/ “tac shovig the existence of any ete ind ch et exec fay acy obs Sig “heir od ow ay tina aon or sows ‘mind or by ool ating into et sence hein ofan such tate an jit deion, ——(HIS 208] ein and xpi hi tenet whe ap ot ey he ecu fh nt of ind iti [pys 1989] ind erat ao/ How acs showing te eine of a = ferocious, Whether the facts thatthe dog had oper for damage done 2 dg which 8 aor — yen XY and thy made compat 1B ei . : sllwill onthe pat of ‘A tomas Bi (ur.ama sig of B. Whee te seh beeps fac of rvs publication yA npn 8 show deed feesin sich th ime whe «e‘hinazundt fale deen ste pon oto ih ‘Whether i ta tie in diver A ws pened ofa nome of ue.2 the new tobe couse \ pies of cot in iat sie pone (bys 2s] “e_Howean ‘Books of Account in repr oun obs sine thence fice fate bi OP fe Acbonts of acount maint nth ois 7 i 1 dekendant in ast ft zoey ener? NO OY? comin ct ajo own Respond ths eaten nd (ms 203) ays 208) eleifend mine l deinen of heidi fe / Wie ntson ple fai ra rete song Relay Aili eee 3 Admission ‘Seton 17 ofthe dian Ei 1 Ac, 172 provides the definition of admison. I defines admision 1s fellows Adesison is sateen sor documentary or sons fom > Which sugests an infrence so any atin sss or leant fac and > Which i made by any ofthe perton refered tin Sesion If 020 of indian idence Act end > Which it made under the circumstances mentioned in Scions 18 9 30 of lian Bidens. Ast Soin simple words, admision ia statment which sugges an inference at tothe eitence. {nis ortslerant fact Section 17 wes amended in 2001 to inludetatement recorded in etre ‘Admission isa postive act of acknowledgment. This formal at of acknowle proceedings dirpene withthe production of evidence by conceding forthe purpae of Itgation proposition of facts a tr, For example iA" sue‘ fr recovery of money and there ean entry i scountbookt of that he owes certain amount of money oA’ then it ian admision onthe part" relating this ibility toward In Sita Ram Bhan Patil v. Ram Chandra Nog Pat (1977)2SCC-49 Supeenie Court hl hs statement ination o factor cumstances which notin ate o relevant tno an adi, Fo statment to qualify a admision ite alfcet that ntement amit fact which gg an inference ss tobi il, ____ When and by whom admission is made ‘All he statements madeby the persons ae not admision une they are made by ellowing pesons in following ireumstancer a provided der Section 1 10 20 ofthe Evidence Ac: 1. Pary or is agent According to Section 18, party the proceeding ris agent wm the court, reps, unde the circumstances ofthe cata expres or imply authorized to make adision may make then. According to lw of apeney,a statement made by an ant inthe ordinary cours of business of pracy isa adaision puns the principal 2. Perso suing or ued in representative capaci Seton 18 even allows paris to sity, ung o¢ ‘cd in representative capacity to make adminion i the panty making the statement is hong chat ‘epresentative capacity while making the statement. ta rents made by person in his personal capacity ‘aan fecha in epresenttv capaci ‘Seman Areva Books“congenial Sis Mi Borin ee! econ tr Secon 1 fre re tat Pn 8 mater of the proceeding horng the coins so beld to be amision 4. Person haviag proprietary oF itr in the subi vo interned and the proceedings a ts xarrorpecunian nak adminioasif ther i thee characr of PEO eof the ints. snake the statement hough not ze paris © “Thus statement of persons wos te above condition i si se the consignors well 8 consign reconsigned for cig. this aiemeat by vd he consign ses cate then 0 “in evidence, dough consign mas no tDE in gods et ate the gods eo iy stowed canbe recive Forenample nignor hat the gods were proves pasty tothe procestings ‘pen om wnat oA Ue ecin 1 Pes whom the pasts t0 pes have drive thir ineetin she abies mate Le aiinsion ifthe sateen’ are nade during the continuance of the interest Town as ‘prdesesoinsi’ A statement ma is relevant gains the pa ofthe suitean ma fhe pestons making the statement. THis serum abot the propery whe he was ling eh ind of peson it ies who have acquted sie fom Bil he statement made by former he queton is about te tenancy ofthe POP pint prevent me For example, ey reading ancy sleet 23 asa prove: Seton 19 provides th ry tothe sit may Be ‘owner ofthe prop spon we poston sn aii ation ton pion wpe ein orp mise Teil se joey oT ip nme in pe adiminion aginst he paris. 8 employed’ axis agent cll Such contractual obliption de ‘C thathe owed cent t0"B wil amount © in eat su te ain tis neces pon which hittin sb st Tabiy wold ot fast collet et fom CB Bled ut pes on wntber'C is able Forename rath for breach of oneal lio ha cae tbe atatement ae BY Bhd filed separate suit aint C ld have amounted to admission wi to pay sen t0°B or not. In : admin asin A because foc areas fet vraement of°C that he owed ent 0B" WO 46: Person refered by party tothe st cehom apart to the wit has expres refered vais adision agains the person refi ion a whether a hose sold by admission aginst ible? te Sron 20 ofthe Evidence Act provides hat pens rr afortation in efeence toa mate in put AY ‘Gouk'C,'C For example he ques o'B issound ‘A ays 0" weit, Cs saterent in sch ace knows ala Why admissions are made admiss seen ysis ema oil we i of TO “Admissions are ements agaist hein Frllowing# statment against the interest eres the ‘Admision isa highly improbable thatthe prion wil Sar Aga Books ‘oak. el itary make ails state inners The party can prove self serving statements only under exceptional on caceptional circumstance mentioned under Admission at waver of proof ci sted law thatithe pay ba admited afc th Boe, the court may in certain cases, upon its discretion, call for proof of such facts. - ee aay aT RT Seton 2 of te et provide twinned api Ge inte of ore ego uh Tessin itn di uty who has made the admision and therefore, it can be proved azaos ims Th sdaieioas ‘statement against his own interes, it means that statement must be true. In Br one ta statement ofa living penton cannot be crved unl they CBI v. V.C. Shukla, (1998) 3 SCC 410 held that admission is not an eviden . inst theperion who make it. Adaision may become evidence ptnet other onh confession then it maybe used ether under Section 1003 or example the question betwen ‘A and‘ it whether a cern dedi. 8 i mae et eed is orien forge, ‘A firme genuine and that iti forged’ may proves tatemencby 5 hat the ded ign e prove astatement by'A that dedi forge Exception to Section 21 hen seluerving admisone ae relevant Statement ofthe existence asbetween third sons of any sate of mind or body otherwise than under Section 32 and maker ofthe statement ie ded atthe time and compre by conc ception the gee re eon 2 fare ht dni lle he psn eh mks einen ren unde tht ection ste aos a selfharming admissions are relevant under Se tee nt dr Secon 21 of te idee At and ot se ‘Section 21 lays down three circumstances where ata a Ie he statement made by the penton mould be adminible under Seton 32 ofthe Acts asinst th hid pon ifthe alr we dad ch ater may spo in fr ch yerson. Section 32 deals with stater ae . dei ih semen of pons wh he lwo vi nt come before cour. ‘Snare Books =(A Conon ie diel Seve ais sont: Vane! he ship for casting te ship away twas com For example shipowner sued captsin ofthe ship for casting ship wi taken out of coun. Captain mantsine a tended on behalf of shipowner that e “iri eguar cour of ur and mace near in is fvou. Now, in any ligation ithe i loa eto negenceo thers and the captain was dead or ‘question whether the ship cannot be found then the enti inthe diary wil be eleant inmas made when so 2 Whee the statement relates to any state of mind body andi iedbythe conduct whch render itibsehood improbable emus noted that mere Lh ate of tnd or body exined, ccompan ‘gules the pron to prove his statement so stat of mind or body not adinible Sach statements must be accompanied by conduct rendering the falsehood of the statement improbable Following conditions ae require o invoke the exceptions the nate of mind or ste of body Statements should have ben made tthe tme when the exineds @ _Satemens should be accompenied by conduc. Force neuf cing kn pods tnoing hen en. He fen to prove that efi tol hem low tira ‘A may prove tes ates hoa nflenced by Sct in ise, (Mas ‘hey are sdmisions,beesus they ae cplanatory of conduct sion) Seton 21] fran than a admission, For example where the statement SC Where admission is otherwise ; forms prof me wansction, willbe relevant unde Seton 6 and ths admis “Admission in evil caves Section 73 provides that amsions in ci eases relevant nls itis made upon expres ot implcd condition that evidence oft shoul! not be given that onl contents of documents and electronic records: Section 22 prow L Bassstion of Ghoson to prove contents ofocument ar not relevant unless “A _paryis lowed to give secondary evidence in proof oft s ther provides that oa admision 219 155s of document iin uetion Seon 2A fate prvi ntent of electronic record ate not elevant ules genines of such record isin question adic Bees At Sesion 8 provide thst ics dined ed no be proved. Adminon cas miner of prot What a pry himself has adie wo be ei cenly preset be true une iti sored ia Bharat Singh. Bbaginth, AR. 1946 C05 Sopreme Court bl ht anion btn idence sod admision duly proved ae almisibl ierpetve of wheel ain arty making hem ea ata wits or no Sepreme Coun Thru John v Returning Office AIR 197756 73h ‘Hat its well ete that part's admison Gling the requiemens of Seton 2 is substantive dene ‘A sdnison if deal snd wncquivcly madi he be evidence agaist te party making though not ‘onus on the maker on the principle tht what party hz conclusive, sified sda to be seasonably be presumed to beso and unt the presumption iebuted the fc admit mst be taken to be enablahel! . Adminion can only be made ao point offic sp not pont of lw Adasion by ples print of aw in court doesnot bind the pars. Admission by guardian ale dost no bind the minor ‘Admission san exception tothe rule of erey Admision ennot be se in pars a whole on rected asa whole [EL G. Narain v. State of MP.) Whee sence may amount o adios may amount o smiso, n cue whee uty to speak Thus, where duty imposed upon ay ny peion fo anwer he question and he abs nowering the same, then adverse inference canbe drawn and hi silence maybe treated at admission, The abe illustrated by refering to Hlastation gto Section 8 of Indian idence A ‘Where he question before the cours whether ‘A mes‘ Rs, 10.000, the Fc that ‘A’ asked 'C olen ‘money to him and ‘D old'Cin A's presence, ‘Doo lend him money a healed owes Re 100000 8 tnd‘ remains sent and without ying anything went yn such cae A's iene snouns oa of the fact tha he owed Rs 10,000 "Sa it wat his dy to peak and rebut what was suid by file do Dut Formal or judicial adminsions An sdmistion which is made spr ofthe proceedings so heii ‘scoded in the file ofthe cour is ald Formal or adil adnsion, Supreme Court ia Nagindes ‘Ramdas v. Delpatram (1974)! SOC242 eld ht adinion in pleading ojaticialsdnnons adie under Section $8 stand on higher footing than evidentiary confions Casal or informal admissions: They occur in ordinary couse of if inthe courte of basins o eS 1} | “Wichout ei anions | Sesion 3 fh iene provide dha anions acon sf en tM cccnc nu = eee ———— oe Pe essere ceciieeeteiesentege) ine Si aaa | oe“A compntio io i evis Mai BiatioYbt! om ar cle ‘without sinc? adnixions This scion is -Adminions covered under this ein ae called ith nat. emetic pate aac o see tei dispute dough ted on pubic poi. pivepe and conden. Som een Ths nen pen ou cou: he sateen mate ASA allowed 1 be Princes ominin ten tb paren fom tinge SE ouside court Sin aaron pier ay pertinent mae ine rion il 2 sed a aan aaa cerings Pali poly see when he apts ee aie planation appended Sein 2 provides tht hitvecton wilt SS soya tora or nom pring evtenc yar of oh ema be cOBPe! OT evidence under aera mena that faring te cour fenggement tan arene ere 90 koow ea prt connie yi czt alr incense eros cn Alon TE a eh old Inch cnet cznnotke ple acres mae the advocate Tp ar undrtunding at ny sl orbedslsein cour 9° Wiesboraoteon Admin. [ays 07, J 198,199, P2081 city oc cmb eoas making en? yaoi ecinont When mein sntehn anh oron fof en = 1s 2000) eomesdisin? (ws 1984) se wWhendote teens may pry inepseniae chan in exceton othe gee 2 sionsannae rove y he eons making thm. WHat eal = (HIS 2003] qur.cve 0 so Siexe me oie sno! ys 17 fo Whacserideiry ae of ainion? (as 1971 catenin rote coon cot trie of eee heroine (ogs20071 . ae dtaindn Bc , tinine tconde ro m ot [asz0r7 {gs 2091 ‘ont ey pene rit xin «etapa timp of adminion nd connion ude he Ens A “Westboro on ean fein inci eh (osama) ner. p2016,2019), wena pon can prov sinon nis four? span wih ep eee ™ “Sean Agron Boos ae 4 Confessions “the wor’ ‘confeon’ i ot defined under the Indian idence Act. Ac oring to Sper i i spe of edaivion whic sade a anytime bya person chara wth re tating or ug a x Defiaition of Coafevion = ofeace ‘Tete ‘conkes on ws define by Lord Atkin in Pala Narayan Swamnl v. Emperor, AR 1949 C47. The definition given by Privy Coun wat approved by Indian Supceme Cour in Palvinder Kaur State of Puna, 1953 SCR 64, The court held hat confesion muscitheradmitinsems heofence, rant ae sbtanslvalibe fsa which oni ffs. Aszement made bythe ecunetis ot ‘confession it doesnt contain a diet adminsion in ems of commision of offence ‘confessions astatement made by the peton charge with rime suggesting a nfrence at ny fees in nue or relevant fc This inference should sugges thatthe person is uly of cme (State of “Maarasbera v. Kamal Ad Md Vakil Ansari AR 2013SC 1481] “Only voluntary and diet acknowledgement of ult canbe defined as confession It fils short of ivctacknowldgement of pil it may the lobe ued ata evidence guns the prion under Sein 2 inform of admision, Supreme Court in Veere Ibrahim v. State of Maharashtra, AR 1976501167 inld hata statement which does not amount to confession may il erelevant aa admis et Tian Evidence Act. The nculpatory pat of etement of accused ie that which incriminate thecexculptorypatofthe statment absolve him fom teil. Taeulpatory and Exculpatory statements “The erm ‘nculpatoy statements and ‘exculpatory statements of confess Tn Paivindar Kaur v. State of Punjab, IR 1952354, Supreme Court held tbat the confesion must be aken ara whole. A mised up statement which contained inculptor ax well x easultor pats ‘anno be tat x confsion in this case the Indy stated that her husband took poison by make and idan tht she out of fear ut his bodyin a unk ad hte it into the we, The ial cour eid upon theater part of her statement and convicted her under Section 201 of LPC for destroying evidence But ‘Suma Agra Books aCompo Gi aie evi Mis uit: Vie se prt ofr aenent nt th dnt of band was eet ener tom er ro offence under Seton 20 is made out The Supreme Court st aside she dif taken ito comieration, jedgment of il Cou 2nd tht the confovion mube uke ts whole supreme Courtin Palvinderscne red upon mperor Balukund, AIR 192 (3) in ich was held that where sh is no oter evidence to show afimatvely that any porson ofthe von eet of hens ile, the our ms actors te cofeon as mol a ‘anor avert only he fnclptoy cent while etn the eaclptry pane ine ‘Under aglaw the whole statment if to he uy and the jury may atch iret weg sen pars of teres Ths principle wa elie in Rv. Miregar nd Storey. Theos viol atement cannot be rejected in Elis iw because ital cate exculpatory semen |Z Shit in aan approach In Nii Kant r,t of Bar, 189 SCR 193 Spree Cou fl Supreme Court ying par fhe confessional watement 2nd ting hee Frater thing wong ‘eco ovr Poin es Elmhurst i i oT fiom tory ptt and incuptory parca find support fom rhe evidences then here othingwronginreying on inculpatory prt and discarding he exclpsory here evidence to ret the ero be accepted the exculpatory portion is found tobe inherent improbable pare Incalpstory potion an rc ATR. 2009 SC 1901 el tat whee the ecalpaony Supreme Coutin Jayaseclan v. State of Tamil Na ven inher impobable andi contradic ote cdenc ten he courcan cee nso ] port and et excepto H] Relevancy of confession oe ce Aer because it \) Confession isa pei of admision ad is relevant under Section 21 ofthe Evi sa eatement mace by the scused sins is own interest. Such confession may be ———. \ (nade before court or (ade outide cour to magus) any peron ober han [section 164 CPC] magiate ssh cons of convention o ones [Sabo v. State of U.P, AIR 1966SC 40 CConfesion ca r _ 1 relerny/Inadminible Relevan/Adaisible — obtained by thet indacement or po prom euch thes, indocemento promise ine by some pessonin authori ope moved [Seton 28) etting some worldly benefit [Section 29 Ads ifmaden police cay fade If made o police offices [Seton 25] inthe immediate proence of maps Se Conon equal implicing another cor — Cofesionleding to discovery off [Se Aitfeens fences (Seton 30] CConesion when ireevan ‘ade the ollowng circumstances confesion becomes relevant and cannot ep 1. Confeationobisined by threat inducement or promie [Seton 24 Aecondngo Section 24, where the confson ofa accused is obtained by racing any ind threat or promis in telerence to any charge or proceeding aginst him and soc thet or promise 0 fnducement emanate from thé psson jn authority which causes resonable apprehension in hemi the acs hat he wll gin certain advantage raid evi femoral ature in reference to charge agaist / im, then such confession cannot be proved m1 7 nnot be proved aginst hig: Therefor, follwing ae he eset frinvo io : Section 24 @ Theconfesson mut beat a rel ofiaducemen, heat or promise (@)Suchinducement, threat or promis should proceed from the peson in authori (@eshould bein ference to any charge or proceting esos him (Gx) temustnase an epprebension thatthe acid wile geting some worl bene from making For example wheres police ofcer sy tothe accused “Twill drop certain charges against you ify telthe rth, and he accused makes confesion upon such inducement willbe inamisibe ‘Samar Agoval Boas a“ACompndons ie ail Seva Mas Bain: ee! sewn The son behind making sch statement fed namie adr Seton 24 hate wayne nace y presse ofp ofa conf te ui without reo es whet serene to avid the threstend dengr.The coneion mat be ie ad vol SupeneCoutin Mod. hal v. State of West Bengal (2082)? SOC 1 able tet for deciding the cept of cofeon i. () wheter the confesin i perely ri. Stsfction of the fs et iinet on frit 4 held thatthe cout it cape voluntary and) ifs, whetheritistroe and rs by inden thconfesion span bx aly inducement her promi azmeninne in Section 24, t mst be exluded and ejected Tadacenent, heat or promi The inducement mos be in reference othe hae asian the secon The secu shoud ble that by aking the confesion he would escape fom te Sen “Fascia sinus oc mora inducement will ot ae she conesion Fo amps confsion vpesnd i he name of God amisble, Confession obtained on 2 promi fe the pon fom senor allow him to mec hit wf wil not be bat ais of confession. ta desting whether parca confi sity Saion 2 the queton which to be consered inbismind. In Reathu v. State Of UP, \ sas how sach inducement, threat or promise would oper 194 SC56 th Sopeme Cour held st the brden ison the promcton 0 roe pst sa the ‘poten wt eand volun Thecorhat tsa hat wat made ey nd ona © recase eon tis ot nceay the the person who aks te confession hou ave een 28 ext the ime when he made te confesion. Wht is een isha be shoul ave been made a0 i seer ue inept ofthe care rearing which he made the confession In Aghnoo Naess Staeof Bar, AR 965519 Supreme Cou held thatthe weds includes a penton accused of \ we ene at dhe age of wal whether of not be was acuned atthe time of making confeion i “Peron in etbority The dhreat, promise o inducement shall rans fom person in sthon The enon nator stepson wh the pve tate he chao rosin ones pein who wid ome kindof nlunce ae naa Bugea. Sate of Ratan R96 91 el ha 1 aon cate fre mae. For cane pe mao oa 4 we Tif canons made pon einen fie president of wil viglance commit, emu, wil nt be bit by Secon 24 Hwee, f ich thet, promise or inducement cae pert conesion mde bythe acu thereafier can be proved [eon 2 should be under the influence tha i In reference to the charge or proceeding: The acused selena ochareor proces in quesin hi poston wil beter or wo depending pon whe he confessor not eee ry his removal from the caste or village. Such confession was het oe the care in question. [Empress v, Moban Lal] Benefit of temporal atture: The inducement, ‘would give accused a reasonable ground to believe that by making ae spit mature Mere moral o spiritual enefs wll nt vine conesons. 2, Confession made t police off + [Section 25] degree methods would be involuntary. : sightoway hit by Seton 25 Police officer: Seton 25 provider healthy protectin guns toreare the hands of police of peeemteretheenemeneaeeers police ‘tho not ony powses the power to make investigation of crime but alo oes report against the criminal depen ee held that expression ‘poi ofcer should pot be contued in. arow sens andi would nc enon whois clothed with the powers ofa police offices. Tove ofimeigton scone oe motinpran pore which bhi eon ‘with prohibition enacted in Section 25, Supreme Court in Stare of Punjab v. Barkat Ram, AIR 1962 2 216 and Surjeet Singh Chhabra v. Union of India, (1977) 1 SOC: i a et ple fees rth pgs of Son, held tha tom ofc ec ta ete i ae er ie cer or not it whether the concen ocr hat ben conferred the power of investigation of of = istion of offences ing the power to initiate prosecution by submiting ck io by submiting charge sheet under CPC In Ram Si E cam Singh ¥. a: oF Tavestigation, AIR 2011 SC240, Supreme Court it eld tht fcr under Nareoic rps and Pychotropic Substances Act, 1985 i ar not poli offices. In Ra Kumar Karwal v. Union of India, AIR.1991 SCS Supeeme Court eld that nomenclature is notmmportant, the content ofthe po terized ia determinative itor “San Agrwal Books aA Compenin nie Sei Mains zis: Va] Povsion i Boglsh I: As matter of le Eog aw does no discredit the ements mae fo he pf th thinks that tbe statement oun fe and inspires confines hen bt may admit Other statements not bared: Section 29 makes oni confeinal statements mad 0 «police hitby Section 25 even if made vo police, -TFsuch satements are made dung the cour of imvesigation. then Section 162 of Cr wil fo der Section 145 ofthe Indian ocr a inlevant Other non confessional statements a fie cr pl and ican ol be wed forthe pupa of onraicin un cea and 32 of th yidence Act or wode Set Bridence At ‘Statements made before investigation: As ears semen ma ty Section 25 andthe are non-confesional fe bfore investi, os incase of FIR, sch statement if confesiona in nature willbe bt » natz and ely an anion of ezain cs avnga being on question toe determined hy the cur whe ai abe kt by Secon 28 and wil bexmisblein cout. [Aghnoo Nagesia State of Bar, ATR 1966 SC 119} For expe where penon'hils unt snd himuelodges LR artnet he oie “fcr oly no confeavional statements can be admitedincridenee an nt the inculpwtor part. othe canekcon ofthe accused’ merely onthe bats ofisconfation made inthe FLR. it eroneou and bad i the ey of lw i ot supported by other cides Gutements made before sccstion: It is not neces tha ste time of making confesion the be mates nn on ze Bat he ust ba sed atthe ine hen ch onion 0 the sarement the atement cannot be prove “Proved agaist him. Thus evn if accusation subsea (Bhi Singh v. State of Rajasthan, (1994) 290C467 police estoy [Section 26] 3, Confession mad ‘Seton 26 ofthe Evidence Act provides that any confession made by any person (to any pean) in he castody of pic ofce il ot be proved unl itis md in immedi presence ofthe Map aaa opine bene pen inca olisinconmeraion wih en peentht than oiler san cnensin of pincple lat dor in Seon 25..n Ra Kumar. Union offal TAR 1991 $C 4, Supreme Court observed tat the ban imposed by Seton 25 and 26 designed wo erent he prc of curing cofeonl tenets of eons pic csoy by meant of rs {nducerent, ort coetcon et /, Neate lic cy ict haste unetoo incon fol A Hak “eau sander the control ofthe pie officer he wll be considered being in oli custody. Aue hie pene of lio iano edd along a the accused sin fee pli sol The ree euody doe ot ean formal carey nly. includes rch cecumstancer in which the acute a seca have coment hands of police fer or can bed to hae Benin ome so of surelance a ‘Sema Apa Books alien ei dt coc testicton, I maybe noted here thatthe term custody and ‘ate ate tthe sme thing. Inver srest, hee i custody bu 0 wea CConftion made to anyone es except Magitrte while in a police custody it namie Police ‘contol canbe exsed in an open place, and in courte ofjoarney. need not neces be confine for walls of prion Forexample police officer ares a pert ad proceeds to take him to police ation, On thew be leaes the ested pion with ome vllges and goer ou for some work In this ease pace uso ‘email “hues dination bewen If nd unawl poie uody The tod alo doe not ni thief race ofpob fen. Sch cutedy maybe cual or contuciveie,aple fe night or igh ot in immediate presence ofthe arsed Suprene Corin State oF AP. v. CangulaSatya Murthy, (1997)1SCC772, hel tha the wo cod under Sesion 26 isto be understood in pragmatic sen I theses within te gener survelane ofthe pol, then it canbe regal at castodal eurelac. fhe make ny cote dhsing hat prod any poo whois nota pli office the uch confexon willbe iby Son 26 ‘Thecus need ot neces be pot ae cst Foccample whee the cused at handed to vile radhan nde to gt some wok dons, hough the cased sot in acu peenceof police office but ew be ld oe in hi onerucve custody and any confesion ade by hm village Peadban wil ot be proved agit him, [Kishore (Chand , State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR 1990 SC240} In Sate (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjoe Sandu (205) 1 SOC 60, Supreme cour ed that he statements made to TV and pret by the accused persons in presence of police and ia police custody were, inndoinble Presence of Magistrate Ifthe confesion is made in the police cutody bt in che immediste rssnce.afMapitat the uc confsion wile adminiblePrence of ora cnsres fie and it confesion, Immediate presence means presence agitate rls out ore Foam For ample iF conlsion s made oa police fie in pretence of mainte then it would come under the capping of Section 25nd would become otal inadminibleIn such case Section 26 wll ot ppl, However itis made to ‘any other person’ other than police afi in prsnce of Mapstate then Seton 26 would 4 Confession of cos cused [Section 30] According to Seton 30, confeion made by on coscased equally implicating another coacesed sil not be relevant if thy ae tried eparately o fo dent offences. [dscused in detail) ‘Seah Agron Books =“Compa ie ie Series Mi Erin: ome! Confession when relevant eric onion big ievt in sve icons tin flowing i nor bm seclerat and canbe aited by the Court 1. Confession leading to discovery of fact econ ofthe Indian videos Acts an xeption to Scions 241026 ofthe Ae hich impos he accused eter othe police or in custody of complete ben on admit of any confession made Dy weve Seton 2 ifthe bn ifthe statement i inet reated discovery of ‘etn sified under Section 27 isbn discovery sures the rath fhe oval ofthe tatemens are wae ff when he statement ads the Reason: The season why sazeents Al the objections aa tome an Mukesh, Sate of NCTof Del, AIR2017 S216), Sepems Cou a nde nr Sein 27 cs ar foundation ton foriavetigton and alo pn comping ‘he chin of ecumstanee. sepeme Coun Sate of. ¥-Deoman Upadhyaya, AIR 96050 125 obsess SS siete ona pil ht eventhough the eee elaig oth confinement mS sn ote cody sine, fhe rth ofthe information sie hm tel rd herefore, declared probable iso police office oF H the dncovery of fact then it maybe presumed to be ntsned a judisiney rates to thefts thesey discovered | ‘What is discovery statement?: A statement given by the accused while in police custody wherein he doppia sbseuety on teas fhe staement an bes | dixloses the place of ae a Charade Swan, Sate of Gur AIR 2017 SC176 Supreme Cor el hn i Cerne woe Scion 27 ot inte oa phys mil obit Th ine Gen by he used eibited knowledge rhe | entials of discovery statement Following are the event of a covery statement (The pron svn the information must be acd fan oes (Hemost be in the susody ofa pois offices Ga) The fact ut ae been cond in te cone fh nfrmason se om - accused: (0) The object must have been discovered from place of ide mone Scion 27 may opp he prsecason manta ha the information He 7 A pose by him. riden thatthe covery must be of ome edi sine ex which he poi had not previously lat from othe sources and that the knowledge fhe fic wat fst dvved fom the information given byte acre tn State of Rajsthan v. Bhup Singh, (197) 1000675 Supreme Court held hat statements ma ty the sewed in connec withthe iavestpaton in so erase which ede to the discovery of fe irl relevant. Sopreme Court in Mustakeen v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2011 SC 2769 bed tba promsn bas esl owen berween he mal bj corre anise in she commis oence Mer dilsur does at connect the sessed wit he cme. In Digamber Vaishnav ¥. Sts of Chhattisgarh, 2019) 4 SCC 522 Supreme Court he sdisible bt the discovery of leant ict is alone admin ‘What is admisibte under Section 272 Only that much of information which lates dsinly theft discovered sadminble In Aghnoo Nagesiav. State of Bihar, AIR 1966 SC119 the Suprem ‘Court eld thatthe staterent that the accused had commited the offence or that he ad hidden the obi ome place ate not adsl, What is adisble is only that portion ofthe statement hat reves the {information abou the pace of hiding ofthe object. Place of Hiding: la Mohd. Inayatullah v, State of Maharashtra, AIR 1976 SC 43, Sep CCoureheld hat is sential to prove that the bint was discovered fiom 2 place af hiding If ispingin an ope place, thee ar chances tht others may know about end wil be fic tp jee was discover at instanceof information provided bythe accused, The cour held tha an exception to Seton 241026, tn Panduranga Kall Patel v. State of Mahsrashre ne Suprerme Could that Soon 27 ception wo Seon 25 and 26. Consittiona aby of Seton 27 ma upheld in Deoman Upadyay suate of UP. ‘Accused of any offence Supreme Court in Md. Destagie v. State, AIR 1960 $0796 held that sedofssy snot necesary that the prion should have been a accused wen be mde the confession, A ‘pence means accused ache tme ofr ee must be an accused when discovery statement 009 be proved against him te Palukur Kottaya v. Emperor, AIR 1947 C67 Privy Counc ld thst Seton 2 wil ot lity the pnp of Scion 26. ‘act covered embraces the plc rom which he objet is produced an the knowledgeof the ace, The information given mus ate distinc this fact Court el cht his ection is based on the viw that facts actuslydigcovered in consequence of information, thea some fuaraner afforded thatthe information itr and acordngy canbe given in evidence In State of UP v. Deoman Upadhyay, AIR 190 SC 125 the Court observed that Section 27s aception to the rules lid down under Sections 24 to 26 ofthe Indian Evidence Act and if he ft ‘aformaton depoud to by the aecued leads to dover of any fact then so much of uch information which led to discovery can be proved against him, hich edo dicovey cn be provedapins him ‘Sena rol Boas asection 27 and Article 2(8) of Constitution: Supreme Cour in State of Bomb ¥. Kathi Kal Coghac, ATR. 1961 SC 1808 held hat wher the selFinesiminatoy hasbeen ven bye ace without oe or compulsion then that wil be admisiblein cridence an twill not be ity Artic 20G) becuse thee ino compulsion Tis therefore held that Section 27 wil notit Article 203) uns complsion has eco wen btnining the information. are “Selon 27 and és Sections 27 and 26 do not del wit the evidence of sme characte. The ban imposed in Section 26 against he poof of consionsl atement Section 27 is concerned with he proof ofthe information whether t amounts to confsion or no 2 Confetion after removal of influence [Section 28} Sesion 28 pn the mature xeon thea down in Saion 2 prove ta fons el win Sesion sade ere impresion cae ch inducement teat or promise as 3. Confession made under promise of secrecy. te. [Section 29] Section 29 provides that fconfsion isoterwte relevant twill nt become ireevant merely to Following factors Ab that eas taken by giving the accused promis of sce, oF (6) tacts taken by decvng he aco o 7 AD that as taken by making the aecued duh ot on it mad in answer queton he nes ot have ame oc % eerie inher ot tru ou uying clini nl teed spins in 7” This ction ised onthe Engl law tha the amily of idence notated bythe tego te meane by which tis obtain. The expen fac a coneion i thers reat indicus thatthe contion should ot be vite by Scions 24,25 and26,confeion is vitae by these provisions then Seo 29 cannot moked Thus tse provson gover he elvan fone in acini ia ening that ich confsion is made volun by him and at under ay threat or pres Evidentiary Value of Confession Supreme Cost in State (NCT of Delhi v. Navot Sandu, (205) 1 SOC 60 held hat confesions are reared highly reliable Because no ational peson would make an admision asiost hime. For ahadkng the evidentiary valu of onfeion theres no igi formas of univer pplication. The ones ‘oul areflly examine the confession and compare with est ofthe evidence in ight of nding te Seon Aga Books Indien Eide At CContesion have been divided by Bagh ext writs into two ease (a) Jaca confession: Judicial conFasions those which are made before the Meistate or in Cour in due course of ea pe ceding. Thteconfesons ate presumed tobe tre and comet record of nha tated in it [Section 80, Evidence Act] and itis asubtantive pee of evidence, evidentiary valu In ae oud coneion Supreme Cou in Shankara v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1978 5C 1248 held that if the confeson i recorded under Section 14 G-P.G the the courts mu ppl doublet ‘Whether the conson wa voluntary, fs, whether is tre and trusty. ne confesional statement made bythe accused before + Mapsae isa god evidence and scused «an be convicted on the basis of (@ Extra judicial conFsion: tis made bythe acusedadmiing his uit any penon ober than she courtor a Magitete. Thus itisa contin made ouside the court judicial procteding It nay also incdeconfsion made in soliloquy [Sthaoo v. State Of LLP, AIR 1966540) ‘An extrac consign can be prove by che (0) Examining he person to whom confeion is made orally, or (b)_Inspecsing the document in which che confession seared if cofewon it made in writing “Thus extra judicial confer is required to be proved before the Court to the entet tht 0 confevion was made to such person but hats tue and coret record of wha is wated hee videntiary vale: As eegarscrideniany value of er - ud coneson, in State of MP. v fala, (2005) 3 SOC 16, the Court bed that itis a pod pice fev Palean M 1 nd heer 0 aa Farlyng on such confesion if found tratworthy. Howeer, a ule of prodene, sine exe judicial confession sot made afr taking due precautions tit detous that sch conesion shouldbe conoboratd ‘rth ter independent evidenees Supreme Court in Pancho v. State of Haryana ATR 201250 523 bald iat extrjudicalconfesion i weak kindof evidence ad tis prudent forthe cout to ir sera whether itinspres confidence and then find ou whether there are cogent cumstances to support it Devi Lal v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2019 SC 68 Supreme Court bel tht itis advisable forthe court look fr cortobotton wit other evidence on coed. Extra judicial consion has ee evidentiary rae than judicial onfoions Retracted confession “Meaning - When person once baving recoded «confession, goes back fom it atthe sag fra saving either tat bedi not mak the confession or made it under fear or misconception i known as erated confession. ‘Rana Agra Books =