DIVINE INSTITUTE FOR JUDICIAL SERVICES

APRIL 2022

1. Jafarudheen vs. State of Kerala (2022 SC)

Held:

i. Section 27 is an exception to Sections 24 to 26. Admissibility under

Section 27 is relatable to the information pertaining to a fact discovered.
This provision merely facilitates proof of a fact discovered in
consequence of information received from a person in custody, accused
of an offense. Thus, it incorporates the theory of confirmation by
subsequent facts facilitating a link to the chain of events.

ii. The onus is on the prosecution to prove the fact discovered from the
information obtained from the accused. This is also for the reason that
the information has been obtained while the accused is still in the
custody of the police.

iii. Mere delay to send FIR to jurisdictional magistrate cannot be sole factor
to reject prosecution’s case.

2. Devender Singh vs. State of Uttrakhand(2022 SC)

Held: The expression ‘soon before’ is a relative term and it would depend upon
the circumstance of each case and no straitjacket formula can be laid down as
to what would constitute a period of soon before the occurrence. It would be
hazardous to indicate any fixed period and that brings in the importance of a
proximity test both for the proof of an offence of dowry death as well as for
raising a presumption under S.113-B of Evidence Act.

3. Venkatesh @ Chandra vs. State of Karnataka (2022 SC)

Held:
i. It has become general tendency on part of the Prosecuting Agency to get
the entire statement recorded rather than only that part of the
statement which leads to the discovery of facts. In the process, a
confession of an accused which is otherwise hit by the principles of

SCO No. 209, 1st & 2nd Floor, Sector 36-D, Chandigarh, Phone: 0172-4024244, 7087878746
 DIVINE INSTITUTE FOR JUDICIAL SERVICES

Evidence Act finds its place on record. Such kind of statements may have
a direct tendency to influence and prejudice the mind of the Court. This
practice must immediately be stopped.
ii. Accused's statement recorded on a DVD and played in Court - Such a
statement is in the nature of a confession to a Police Officer and is
completely hit by the principles of Evidence Act. If at all the accused
were desirous of making confessions, the Investigating Machinery could
have facilitated recording of confession by producing them before a
Magistrate for appropriate action in terms of Section 164 of the Code.
Any departure from that course is not acceptable and cannot be
recognized and taken on record as evidence.

4. State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Subhash (2022 SC)

Held:
i. Merely because the weapon used is not recovered cannot be a ground
not to rely upon the dying declaration, which was recorded before the
Executive Magistrate, which has been proved by the prosecution.

ii. There is no absolute proposition of law that in a case when at the time
when the dying declaration was recorded, there was no emergency
and/or any danger to the life, the dying declaration should be discarded
as a whole.

5. Union of India vs. Major R. (2022 SC)

Held: Extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence. Unless such a
confession is found to be voluntary, trustworthy and reliable, the conviction
solely on the basis of the same, without corroboration, would not be justified.

6. Ravinder Singh @ Kaku vs State of Punjab (2022 SC)

Held: The Supreme Court bench of Justices UU Lalit and Vineet Saran has
observed that the certificate under Section 65B(4) of Evidence Act is
mandatory to produce electronic evidence and that the oral evidence in the
place of such certificate cannot possibly suffice.

SCO No. 209, 1st & 2nd Floor, Sector 36-D, Chandigarh, Phone: 0172-4024244, 7087878746
 DIVINE INSTITUTE FOR JUDICIAL SERVICES

7. Neetu Tripathi vs. State of U.P. and anr.

Held: Once the witness is in the witness box and is being cross examined, every
endeavour must be made to ensure that the cross examination is completed
on that day.

8. Mohd. Firoz vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2022 SC)

Facts:Appeal against Madhya Pradesh HC judgment which confirmed Death
Sentence of man accused of rape and murder of 4 year old girl - Conviction
upheld - Death sentence commuted to life imprisonment - Imposed the
sentence of imprisonment for a period of twenty years instead of
imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life for the offence under
section 376A, IPC.
Held: Five Golden Principles discussed, rarest of rare doctrine discussed.
9. Venkatesh @ Chandra vs. State of Karnataka (2022 SC)
Held: Circumstances on which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn, must be
fully established. (Principles discussed).

SCO No. 209, 1st & 2nd Floor, Sector 36-D, Chandigarh, Phone: 0172-4024244, 7087878746