Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad

Academic Year 2022-23 Batch: (2020-2025)

January 2023 – May 2023
BA/BBA LL.B COURSE HANDOUT (Semester- VI)
Course : Law of Evidence
Course Code : 010323501/010324501 No. of Credits 4
Catalogue Code : T1151 No. of Hours 60
Faculty Name : Dr. K. Shanthi and Ms. Ashika Pradhan
Consultation : Students can meet the faculty at any time during office
Hours hours
Mobile: : 8897604892 , 7908857218
Email id : k.shanthi@slsh.edu.in ashika.pradhan@slsh.edu.in

PROGRAM OBJECTIVE:

1. By Studying law in the particular context of humanities and social sciences the
students are groomed to respond to governance, administration and human behavior.
2. Student’s gain an edge over other peers to lead and shape social and public enterprises
such as the State, Community organization and Social Enterprises.
3. Course curriculum facilitates learning Law in a profound way in response to
contemporary development with hands on experience in legal knowledge and skills in
value frame work in a fast changing India set in a de-globaIizing world.
4. The Student will be groomed in intellectual integrity and ethics.
5. The Student will improve cognitive, problem solving skills, independent critical
thinking with research capabilities.
6. Students will be able to cultivate the ability to appreciate role of lawyers in justice
education in globalizing world, sustainability, poverty and vulnerability.

COURSE OBJECTIVES:

The course intends to focus on the following issues and achieve the intended outcome:

CO(1):- To introduce the substantive part of Law of Evidence and help the learners to
acquire a general understanding of the importance of law of evidence and consider its
practical application.

CO(2):- To identify and acquire a detailed knowledge and understanding of selected,

individual areas of the Law of Evidence and to enable the student to appreciate the concepts
and principles underlying the law of Evidence and identify the recognized forms of evidence
and its sources.
CO(3):-To explore issues of professional responsibility related to preserving and using
evidence and encouraging them to critically evaluate the modern law of criminal evidence
and its societal impact.
CO(4):- To impart the skills of examination, cross examination, re-examination
andappreciation and admissibility of different kinds of evidences in the process of finding the
truth and shifting the nature of burden of proof.

CO(5): To understand the concepts brought in, by amendments to the Law of Evidence..

RECOMMENDED ESSENTIAL READING TEXT BOOK:

 Batuklal, Law of Evidence Central Law Agency, Allahabad, (2018) Reprint

SUGGESTED BOOKS:
 Chatruvedi Gopal S., and Field C. D., Commentary on Law of Evidence, Vol. 1-5,
Delhi Law House, 12th edition, (2007)
 DheerajlalKeshavlalThokore and RatanlalRanchhoddas, Law of Evidence, Wadhwa
and Co., Nagpur, 22nd edition, (2006)
 Dubey Batuk Lal and Kumar Arvind, Law of Evidence, Central Law Agency, 15th
edition, (2010)
 Lal Batuk, Law of Evidence Central Law Agency, Allahabad, (2010)
 Manohar V. R., Sarkar Sudipto, Sarkar's Law of Evidence, Vol. 1-2, Wadhwa and
Co., 15th edition, (1996)
 RatanlalRanchhoddas, DhirajlalKeshavlalThakore, Y. V. Chandrachud, Ratanlal and
Dhirajlal's the Law of Evidence (Act I of 1872, Wadhwa and Co., (2007)
 Sarkar on Law of Evidence, Ashoka Publishing house, Bombay, (1996)
 Singh Avtar, Principles of the Law of Evidence: A Study of The Indian Evidence Act,
1872, Central Law Publications Allahabad, (2010)
 Singhal M. L., Woodroffe John and Amir Ali Syed, Law of Evdence, Vol. 1-4, 15th
Edition, Law Book Co., Allahabad (1989)
 Woodroffe, Amir Ali, Commentary on the Law of Evidence, 18th Ed., Eastern Book
Company (2009)
 Woodroff and Amir Ali, Law of Evidence Lexis Nexis, 21st Edition (2020) revised
by Shakil Ahmad Khan, set of 4 volumes
 K D Gaur The Evidence Act, Universal Law Publishing
  Dr. V Nageswara Rao, The Indian Evidence Act- A Critical Commentary Covering
Emerging Issues and International Development, Lexis Nexis, 2nd Edition (2019)
Reprint
 Ratanlal and Dhirajlal's The Law of Evidence, Lexis Nexis, Revised by Dr. Shakil
Ahmed Khan, Updated 23rdEnlarged Edn. Covering the Criminal Law(Amendment )
Act, 2013
 Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, The Law of Evidence with latest cases & Legislative
Amendments, 26th Edition, Lexis Nexis

 SARKAR, Law of Evidence Secs.1-100, Lexis Nexis, vol.1 18th Edition ( 2014)
 I. H. Dennis,The Law of Evidence,5th Edition Revised 2013,Sweet & Maxwell
 V. P. Sarathi, Law of Evidence, 7th Edition, Reprinted 2019, Eastern Book Company
 S. V. Joga Rao, Evidence: Cases and Materials, (2003), Lexis Nexis, page no 615 –
617.

Law Commission Reports:-185th Law Commission Report

ADDITIONAL LEARNING RESOURCES:-

Many websites contain very useful information on the Law of Evidence. The sites which
contain useful information relating to Case laws, Articles in Journals and Amendments to the
Law of Evidence are mentioned below:-

With particular reference to journals on online databases include:

SCC Online, Manupatra,WestLaw India, HeinOnline, JSTOR, Kluwer Database,

Ebrary, and EBSCO.

COURSE MAP
The following table shows how the Course Learning Outcomes relate to the overall
Program Learning Outcomes relate to the Overall Program Learning Goals and
Outcomes and indicate where they are assessed:
 Subject & Course Code: Law of Evidence
( 010323501/010324501 )

Course Description Learning Outcomes Assessments

At the end of the course, the Class test: Problem

student is expected to :- solving

LO(1):- Acquire a basic

knowledge of the Law of
Evidence and its important role
in the administration of justice.
LO(2):- Understand the structure
and interpretation of sections
relevant to the civil and criminal
proceedings.

LO(3):- Case synthesis/problem Assignment: Case

solving Analysis

LO(4):-Independent research. Project: Case solving/

These skills will be central to the Research based
student’s success in completing learning
this course’s scheme of
assessment.
DELIVERY SCHEDULE
Session Plan Evidence of
Learning
(Mapping CO
with SO)
Session Topic/Intended Resources and References Intended Assessment/
# Learning Delivery Evaluation and
Process Weighting
S,M,W,NL
1-2 Topic1:Introduction to ESSENTIAL READING: Lecture& CO(1)&
law of Evidence: Batuklal, Law of Evidence Class CO(2)=LO(1)
Introduction, Meaning and Central Law Agency, Discussion Case law
Nature of Evidence Law, Allahabad, (2018) Reprint, presentation (S)
History and development, pg.1-16
Object/ Scope of the
 Study ADDITIONAL READING:
1. Woodroff and Amir Ali,
Law of Evidence Lexis
Nexis, 21st Edition
(2020)revised byShakil
Ahmad Khan,set of 4
volumes: Vol. 1 pg. no. 2-
9; 32-42;42-56;56-159
2. 185th Law Commission
report
CASE LAWS:
1. Ram Jas v.
Surendranath, AIR
1980 ALL 385
3-4 Evidence and proof, What ESSENTIAL READING: Lecture & CO(1), CO(2),
is Evidence? What is 1. Batuklal, Law of Evidence Class CO(4)=LO(1) &
Proof? Distinction Central Law Agency, Discussion LO(2) – Case
between Evidence and Allahabad, (2018) Reprint, law Presentation
Proof pg.1-16 (S)

ADDITIONAL READING:
1. Woodroff and Amir Ali,
Law of Evidence Lexis Nexis,
21st Edition (2020) revised by
Shakil Ahmad Khan, set of 4
volumes: Vol. 1 pg. no.222-
226
2. 185th Law Commission
report

Case law:
1. K. Venkateshwarlu v. State
of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 2012
SC 2955; (2012) 8 SCC 73
2.Pershadi v. State AIR 1955
All. 443
3. Jagga Singh v. State of
Punjab AIR 1955 SC 135
4. Mohammed Yunus v.
Emperor, AIR 1923 Cal 517
5. Harpal Singh v. Devender
Singh with Harpal Singh v.
State of Haryana, AIR 1997
SC 2914
5-7 Appreciation of Evidence- ESSENTIAL READING: CO(1), CO(2),
Corroboration, 1.Batuklal, Law of Evidence CO(4)=LO(1) &
Contradiction, Evidence Central Law Agency, LO(2) – Case
of Allahabad, (2018) Reprint, law Presentation
i) interested witness pg.1-16;;37-90 (S)
ii) approver as a ADDITIONAL READING:
witness
iii) accomplice as a 1. Woodroff and Amir Ali,
witness Law of Evidence Lexis Nexis,
iv) partisan witness 21st Edition (2020) revised by
v) biased witness Shakil Ahmad Khan,set of 4
vi) hostile witness volumes: Vol. 1 pg. no.279-
vii) child witness 323;354-590
viii) chance witness 2. 185th Law Commission
ix) person of defective report
x) intellect police as a
witness CASES:
xi) stock witness 1. Bishnu v. State of West
Bengal, (2006) 1 SCC (Cr.)
696 – Contradiction,
inconsistencies, exaggeration
or embellishments – few
discrepancies or improvement
do not demolish the testimony.
2. Baby Kandayanathil vs.
state of Kerala, A.I.R. 1993 SC
2275 - Competency - child
witness – value.
3. State of Punjab v. Harbans
Singh, AIR 2003 SC 2268 –
Evidentiary value of stock
witness.
4.State of Rajasthan v. kalki,
AIR 1981 SC 1390- Interested
or Partisan Witness
5.Amzad Ali@Amzad Khan v.
State of Assam, AIR 2003 SC
3587- Related Witness need
not always be interested
witness
6.Kalyan Singh v. State of
Rajasthan, AIR 1952 SC 54-
Independent Witness
7.Kuldip Yadav v. State of
bihar, AIR 2011 SC 1736-
Natural Witness
8.Prakash Chand v. State(Delhi
Administration), AIR 1979 SC
400- Trap Witness
9.Sat pal v. Delhi
Administration, AIR 1976 SC
294- Hostile Witness
10.Shrishail Nageshi v. State
of Maharashtra, AIR 1985 SC
86 -Eye Witness
 11. BhimshaSubannaPawar v.
State of Maharashtra, (1996) 1
BOMCR 212- Police Witness

8-9 Topic 2: Types of ESSENTIAL READING: Lecture & CO(1), CO(3),

Evidence: Introduction to 1.Batuklal, Law of Evidence Class =LO(1), LO(3)
different types of Central Law Agency, Discussion Case law
Evidence- Allahabad, (2018) Reprint, Presentation
Classification of evidence pg.37-90, pg.420-427, 428-483 (S)
Real Evidence, Personal
Evidence,Testimonial ADDITIONAL READING:
Evidence,Judicially 1. Woodroff and Amir Ali,
noticed Evidence, Law of Evidence Lexis Nexis,
Character Evidence, 21st Edition (2020) revised by
Opinion Evidence, Oral Shakil Ahmad Khan,set of 4
Evidence, Documentary volumes: Vol. 1 pg. no.205-
Evidence 217

2. 185th Law Commission

report

CASE LAW:
1. Hansia v. State of
Rajasthan, (1984) RLW
731, p7737 raj. (DB)
2. Sukhpal Singh v State
of Punjab in Criminal
Appeal No. 1697
of2009 and delivered
on February 12, 2019
3. Lucas v. Williams,
[1892] 2 QB 113, p 116
4. Dwarka Das v. Punjab
Waqf board, Ambala,
AIR 1991 P&H 89
5.
10-11 Direct Evidence, 1. Kalki v. State of CO(1), CO(3),
Circumstantial Evidence, Rajasthan =LO(1), LO(3)
Hearsay Evidence 2. Sharad Birdichand v. Case law
State of Maharashtra Presentation
(AIR 1984 SC 1622) (S)
3. Navaneethakrishnan v.
The State by Inspector
of Police, Date of
Judgement: April 16,
2018
4. Tarseem Kumar v. The
Delhi
Administration, AIR
1994 SC 2585
5. State of Rajasthan v.

12-13 CHAPTER II. –– OF
THE RELEVANCY OF
FACTS
Topic 3:Schematic
Arrangement
3.1.1. Interpretation
clause
3.1.2. Probability Test –
Presumptions
Introduction to Chapter on
Relevancy of Facts; Secs.
5-16
Sec.. 5- Facts , Facts in
issue, Relevant facts,
Evidence may be given of
facts in issue and relevant
facts,What facts can be
given?, Relevancy and
Admissibility, Facts not
relevant but becomes
relevant
14 Sec.6-Relevancy of facts
forming part of same
transaction
Hakam Singh, (2011)
15 SCC 171
6. SubhashThapa v. State
of Sikkim, 2021 SCC
OnLineSikk 193,
decided on 14-12-2021
7. Nagendra Sah v. State
of Bihar, 2021 SCC
OnLine SC 717,
decided on 14.09.2021
ESSENTIAL READING: Lecture & CO(1), CO(2),
1.Batuklal, Law of Evidence Class &CO(3)=LO(1),
Central Law Agency, Discussion LO(4)
Allahabad, (2018) Reprint, Case law
pg.23-36;95-98 Presentation
(S)
ADDITIONAL READING:
1. Woodroff and Amir Ali,
Law of Evidence Lexis Nexis,
21st Edition (2020) revised by
Shakil Ahmad Khan, set of 4
volumes: Vol. 1pg. no.591-
604; 607-611; 612-626
2. 185th Law Commission
Report Part II pg.6-29
CASES:
1. Dwijesh Chandra Roy
v. Naresh Chandra
Gupta, AIR 1945 Cal
1042
2. Sita Ram Pandey v.
State of Bihar, AIR
1976 Cr.LJ 800
3. Pandappa v.
Shivalingappa, AIR
1946 Bom 193
ESSENTIAL READING: Lecture & CO(1), CO(2),
Class &CO(3)=LO(1),
1.Batuklal, Law of Evidence Discussion LO(4)
Central Law Agency, Case law
Allahabad, (2018) Reprint, Presentation
pg.no. 98-108 (S)
ADDITIONAL READING:
1. Woodroff and Amir Ali,
 Law of Evidence Lexis Nexis,
21st Edition (2020) revised by
Shakil Ahmad Khan,set of 4
volumes: Vol. 1pg.no. 627-656

3. 185th Law Commission

Report Part II pg. 29-32
CASES:

1. Chotka v. State, AIR

1958 Cal 482
2. Hadu v. State, AIR
1951 Ori 53
3. R v. Andrews, [1987] 1
All ER 513
4. Basanti v. Stae of
Madhya Pradesh, AIR
2009 SC 2603
5. Kulamani Sandhu v.
State, 1991 Cr.LJ 599
6. R v. Beddingfield
15-16 Sec.7-Facts which are the ESSENTIAL READING: CO2,CO(4),
occasion, cause or effect 1.Batuklal, Law of Evidence CO(5)=LO(2),
of facts in issue Central Law Agency, LO(4), LO(5)- S
Sec.8- Motive, preparation Allahabad, (2018) Reprint,
and previous or pg.no. 108-128
subsequent conduct
ADDITIONAL READING:

1. Woodroff and Amir

Ali, Law of Evidence
Lexis Nexis, 21st
Edition (2020) revised
by Shakil Ahmad
Khan, set of 4 volumes:
Vol. 1 pg.no. 658-670;
671-742

2. 185th Law
Commission Report
Part II pg. 32-39

CASES:

1. Jainand v. rex, AIR

1949 All 291
2. Emperor v. Dhirajia,
AIR 1940 All 486
3. Paramjeet Singh v.
State of Uttarakhand,
AIR 2011 SC 3641
 4. Suresh Chandra Bahri
v. State of Bihar, AIR
1994 SC 2420
5. R v. Abdulla, ILR
(1885) All 385
6. Balram Prasad Agarwal
v. State of bihar, AIR
1997 SC 1830
17 Sec.9- Facts necessary to ESSENTIAL READING: Lecture &
explain or introduce 1.Batuklal, Law of Evidence Class CO(2),CO(3)=L
relevant facts Central Law Agency, Discussion O(1), LO(4)
Allahabad, (2018) Reprint, Case law
pg.no. 128-146 Presentation
(S)
ADDITIONAL READING:

1. Woodroff and Amir

Ali, Law of Evidence
Lexis Nexis, 21st
Edition (2020) revised
by Shakil Ahmad
Khan,set of 4 volumes:
Vol. 1pg. no. 743-841
2. 185th Law
Commission Report
Part II pg. 39-53
CASES:

1. Kirpal Singh v. State of

Uttar Pradesh, AIR
1965 SC 712
2. Rameshwar Singh v.
State of Kashmir1972
AIR 102, 1972 SCR (1)
627
3. Balbir v. Vazir, AIR
2014 SC 2778
4. Malkhan Singh v. State
of Madhya Pradesh,
AIR 2003 SC 2669
5. Navaneethakrishnan v.
State, (2018) 16 SCC
161,167

18 Sec.10- Things said or ESSENTIAL READING: Lecture & CO(2),CO(3)=L

done by conspirator in 1.Batuklal, Law of Evidence Class O(3), LO(4)
reference to common Central Law Agency, Discussion Case law
design Allahabad, (2018) Reprint, Presentation
pg.no. 146-152 (S)

ADDITIONAL READING:
 1. Woodroff and Amir
Ali, Law of Evidence
Lexis Nexis, 21st
Edition (2020) revised
by Shakil Ahmad
Khan,set of 4 volumes:
Vol. 1 pg.no.843-872
2. 185th Law
Commission Report
Part II Pg. 54-62
CASES:
1. R v. Parnell (1881) 14
Cox CC 508
2. Mirza Akbar v. R, AIR
1940 PC 176
3. State v. Nalini, AIR
1999 SC 2640
4. Mohammed Ajmal
Mohammed Amir
Kasab v. State of
Maharashtra, AIR 2012
SC 3565
19 Sec.11-When facts not ESSENTIAL READING: Lecture & CO(2),CO(3)=L
otherwise relevant become 1.Batuklal, Law of Evidence Class O(1), LO(4)
relevant Central Law Agency, Discussion Case law
Allahabad, (2018) Reprint, Presentation
pg.no.152-162 (S)

ADDITIONAL READING:

1. Woodroff and Amir

Ali, Law of Evidence
Lexis Nexis, 21st
Edition (2020) revised
by Shakil Ahmad
Khan,set of 4 volumes:
Vol. 1pg.no. 873-900
2. 185th Law
Commission Report
Part II Pg.62-77

CASES;
1. Ambikacharan v.
Kumuk Mohan, AIR
1928 Cal 893
2. DudhNath Pandey v.
State of Uttar Pradesh,
AIR 1981 SC 911
3. Vijay pal v. State, AIR
2015 SC 1495

20 Sec.12-In suits for
damages, facts tending to
enable Court to determine
amount are relevant
Sec.13- Facts relevant
when right or custom is in
question
21-22 Sec.14- Facts showing
existence of state of mind,
4. Dalel Singh v. Jag
Mohan, (1980) CLT
324 at 326 (Del)
5. S K Sattar v. State of
Maharashtra, AIR 2010
SC 3217
ESSENTIAL READING: Lecture & CO(1), CO(2),
1.Batuklal, Law of Evidence Class &CO(3)=LO(1),
Central Law Agency, Discussion LO(4)
Allahabad, (2018) Reprint, Case law
pg.no. 162-173 Presentation
(S)
ADDITIONAL READING:
1. Woodroff and Amir
Ali, Law of Evidence
Lexis Nexis, 21st
Edition (2020) revised
by Shakil Ahmad
Khan,set of 4 volumes:
Vol. 1 pg. no. 900-
929;947-955
2. 185th Law
Commission Report
Part II Pg. 77-98
CASES:
1. Rangayya v.
Innasimuthu, AIR 1956
Mad 226
2. Ram Ranjan vs. Ram
Narain (1895) ILR 22
Cal. 533 – 22. IA 60
3. Dinomoni vs.
BrojoMohini: (1901)
ILR 29 Cal. 187 – 29.
IA 24
4. Collector of Gorakhpur
vs. Ram Sunder Mal
(AIR 1934 P.C. 157 =
51 IA 286)
5. Sital Das vs. Sant Ram,
AIR 1954 SC 606
6. Tirumala
TirupathiDevasthanams
vs. K.M. Krishniah
1998 (3) SCC 331 ;AIR
1998 SC 1132
ESSENTIAL READING: Lecture & CO(1), CO(2),
1.Batuklal, Law of Evidence Class &CO(5)=LO(1),
 or of body or bodily Central Law Agency, Discussion LO(4) (S)
feeling Allahabad, (2018) Reprint,
Sec.15- Facts bearing on pg.no. 173-188
question whether act was
accidental or intentional ADDITIONAL READING:
Sec.16-Existence of
course of business when 1. Woodroff and Amir Ali,
relevant Law of Evidence Lexis Nexis,
21st Edition (2020) revised by
Shakil Ahmad Khan,set of 4
volumes: Vol. 1pg.no. 956-
1002

2. 185th Law Commission

Report Part II Pg. 98-101

CASES:

1. Edington v.
Fitzmaurice, (1885) 29
ChD 459, per Brown
LJ
2. REGINA v Richardson
[2004] EWCA Crim
2997
3. Raghunath v. R AIR
1919 Cal 188
4. Jag Mohan @ Birju Vs.
StateILR1995Delhi165
5. Emperor Vs. Yakub Ali
and OrsIR1917All251;
(1917)ILR39All273
6. ChandrakantJha and
Another Vs. State and
Another, 229 (2016)
DLT 398
23-24 Admission & ESSENTIAL READING: Lecture & CO(1), CO(2),
Confession: Sec. 17-31 1.Batuklal, Law of Evidence Class &CO(5)=LO(1),
What is admission? Central Law Agency, Discussion LO(4)– Case
What is confession? Allahabad, (2018) Reprint, law Presentation
Judicial confession, Extra pg.no. 188-284 (M)
Judicial confession, ADDITIONAL READING:
Confession before Police 1. Woodroff and Amir
when admissible and Ali, Law of Evidence
inadmissible, Retracted Lexis Nexis, 21st
confession – value, Edition (2020) revised
Confession of co-accused by Shakil Ahmad
probative value, Khan,set of 4 volumes:
Discovery of fact as a Vol. 1 pg.no. 1049-
result of confession 1130; 1130-1247
Vol.2 1249-1421
 2. 185th law Commission
Report Part II Pg. 101-193

CASE LAW:

1.Pakala Narayanaswamy v.
Emperor
2.
SwamiKrishnanandGovindana
nd v. M.P. Oswal Hosiery
(2002) 4 SCC(Jour)9
2.Pulukuri Kottaya v. Emperor
AIR 1947 PC67
3.State of A.P v. Kanda
Gopaludu, (2006) 2 SCC (Cr)
121 – Extrajudicial Confession
– Value
4.State (NCT of Delhi) v.
Navjot Sandhu, (2005) SCC
(Cr) 1715 – Confession made
in police custody under special
statute. Confession to press &
TV in presence of police –
inadmissible.
5. Dr. Sunil Clifford Daniel v.
The State of Punjab, (2012) 11
SCC 205
25-26 Sec 32&33-Statements by ESSENTIAL READING: Lecture & CO(1), CO(2),
persons who cannot be 1.Batuklal, Law of Evidence Class &CO(3)=LO(1),
called as witness Central Law Agency, Discussion LO(4)– Case
Allahabad, (2018) Reprint, law
pg.no. 284-355 Presentation/
Research
ADDITIONAL READING: Project
1. Woodroff and Amir Ali, (S)
Law of Evidence Lexis Nexis,
21st Edition (2020) revised by
Shakil Ahmad Khan,set of 4
volumes: Vol. 2 pg.no. 1425-
1667
2. 185th Law Commission
Report Part II Pg. 193-223
Part III A Pg. 224 -239

CASES:

1. Pakala Narayana
Swami vs. Emperor
AIR 1939 PC 47
2. Kulwant Singh v. State
 of Punjab, AIR 2004
SC 2874
3. Ratan Gond v. State of
Bihar, A.I.R. 1959 S.C.
18
4. Uka Ram v. State of
Rajasthan, A.I.R. 2001
S.C. 1814
5. Shudhakar Vs. State of
M.P. (2012) 7 SCC 569
6. K. Ramachandra Reddy
And Another vs. Public
Prosecutor(1976) 3
SCC 618 , 1976 SCC
(Cri) 473
7. SampatBabso Kale vs
State of Maharashtra
(2019, 4 SCC 739)
8.

Articles:
The Real Point Is To Ascertain
Which Contains The Truth: SC
On Divergent Dying
Declarations

https://www.livelaw.in/news-
updates/divergent-dying-
declarations-and-truth-147837
A Dying Declaration Is Not
Invalid Merely Because It Was
Not Certified By A Doctor: SC

https://www.livelaw.in/top-
stories/dying-declaration-
voluntary-sc-144679

DYING DECLARATION- Its

Applicability in Criminal
Cases
https://kjablr.kar.nic.in/sites/
kjablr.kar.nic.in/files/11
27-28 Sec 34 to 38: Statements ESSENTIAL READING: Lecture & CO(1), CO(2),
Made Under Special 1.Batuklal, Law of Evidence Class &CO(3)=LO(1),
Circumstances Central Law Agency, Discussion LO(4)
Sec.34. Entries in books Allahabad, (2018) Reprint, Case law
of account when relevant. pg.no. 355-366 Presentation
Sec.35. Relevancy of (S)
entry in public record ADDITIONAL READING:
made in performance of 1. Woodroff and Amir Ali,
duty. Law of Evidence Lexis Nexis,
 Sec.36. Relevancy of 21st Edition (2020) revised by
statements in maps, charts Shakil Ahmad Khan, set of 4
and plans. volumes: Vol. 2 pg.no. 1668-
Sec.37. Relevancy of 1781
statement as to fact of 2. 185th Law Commission
public nature contained in Report Part III A Pg. 239-261
certain Acts or
notifications. CASES:
Sec.38. Relevancy of
statements as to any law 1. Uttam Chand v. Hakim
contained in law-books. Md., AIR 1932 Lah
Sec. 39: How much of a 417
statement is to be proved 2. State of Bihar v. Radha
Krishna singh, AIR
1983 SC 684
3. Ramadas v.
Hanumanthu Rao, ILR
36 Mad 364
29 Secs. 40 to 44: Judgments ESSENTIAL READING: Lecture & CO(1), CO(2),
Of Courts Of Justice 1.Batuklal, Law of Evidence Class &CO(3)=LO(1),
When Relevant Central Law Agency, Discussion LO(2) &LO(4)–
Allahabad, (2018) Reprint, Case law
pg.no. 366-379 Presentation/
ADDITIONAL READING: Case analysis
1. Woodroff and Amir Ali, (S)
Law of Evidence Lexis Nexis,
21st Edition (2020) revised by
Shakil Ahmad Khan,set of 4
volumes: Vol. 2 pg.no. 1782-
1890

2.185th Law Commission

Report Part III A Pg. 261-280
CASES:
1. Sitaram v. Amir
Begum, ILR 8 All 324
2. B N Kashyap v.
Emperor, AIR 1945
Lah 23, p 26
3. Ranjan Rai v. State of
Bihar, AIR 2006 SC
433S
30-31 Sec.45 to 51: Opinion of ESSENTIAL READING: Lecture & CO(1), CO(2),
third persons, when 1.Batuklal, Law of Evidence Class &CO(3)=LO(1),
relevant Central Law Agency, Discussion LO(2) &LO(4)–
Allahabad, (2018) Reprint, Case law
pg.no. 379-406 Presentation/
ADDITIONAL READING: Case analysis
1. Woodroff and Amir Ali, (S)
Law of Evidence Lexis Nexis,
 21st Edition (2020) revised by
Shakil Ahmad Khan, set of 4
volumes: Vol. 2 pg.no. 1894-
2099

2. 185th Law
Commission Report
Part III A Pg. 280-299
CASES:
1. Shankria v. State of
rajasthan, AIR 1978 SC
1248
2. Babloo v. The State of
Madhya of Pradesh,
1995 CrLJ 3534 (MP)
3. Hargursharan Singh v.
Lt. Col Hargobind
Singh, AIR 2017 P&H
3,8
32-33 Sec. 52 to 55: Character, ESSENTIAL READING: Lecture & CO(1), CO(2),
when relevant 1.Batuklal, Law of Evidence Class &CO(3)=LO(1),
Central Law Agency, Discussion LO(2) &LO(4)–
Allahabad, (2018) Reprint, Case law
pg.no. 406-411 Presentation/
ADDITIONAL READING: Case analysis
1. Woodroff and Amir Ali, (S)
Law of Evidence Lexis Nexis,
21st Edition (2020) revised by
Shakil Ahmad Khan, set of 4
volumes: Vol. 2 pg.no. 2099-
2131

2.185th Law Commission

ReportPart III A Pg. 299-307

CASES:
1. Narenderkumar v. State
(NCT of Delhi), AIR
2012 SC 2531
2. BhagwanSwarup v.
State of Maharashtra,
AIR 1965 SC 682
3. Habeeb Muhammed v.
State of Hyderabad,
AIR 1954 SC 51
34-35 Topic 4: ON PROOF ESSENTIAL READING: Lecture & CO(1), CO(2),
CHAPTER III— 1.Batuklal, Law of Evidence Class &CO(3)=LO(1),
FACTS WHICH NEED Central Law Agency, Discussion LO(2) &
NOT BE PROVED Allahabad, (2018) Reprint, LO(4)– Case
Secs. 56 to 58 pg.no. 412-419 law
 Standard of proof in civil ADDITIONAL READING: Presentation/
and criminal cases 1. Woodroff and Amir Ali, Case Analysis
Facts which need not be Law of Evidence Lexis Nexis, (S)
proved 21st Edition (2020) revised by
Shakil Ahmad Khan,set of 4
volumes: Vol. 2 pg.no. 2135-
2195

2. 185th Law Commission

Report Part III A Pg. 307-322
36 Topic 5: ESSENTIAL READING: Lecture & CO(1), CO(2),
Part II: CHAPTER IV 1.Batuklal, Law of Evidence Class &CO(4)=LO(1),
—OF ORAL Central Law Agency, Discussion LO(2) & LO(4)
EVIDENCE Allahabad, (2018) Reprint, Case law
59. Proof of facts by oral pg.no.420-427 Presentation
evidence. (M)
60. Oral evidence must be ADDITIONAL READING:
direct. 1. Woodroff and Amir Ali,
Law of Evidence Lexis Nexis,
21st Edition (2020) revised by
Shakil Ahmad Khan, set of 4
volumes: Vol. 2 pg. no. 2197-
2266

2.185th Law Commission

Report Part III A Pg. 322-324

37-39 CHAPTER V— OF ESSENTIAL READING: Lecture & CO(1), CO(2),

DOCUMENTARY 1.Batuklal, Law of Evidence Class &CO(5)=LO(1),
EVIDENCE Central Law Agency, Discussion LO(2) & LO(5)
Allahabad, (2018) Reprint, Case law
pg.no. 428-511 Presentation
(S)
ADDITIONAL READING:
1. Woodroff and Amir
Ali, Law of Evidence
Lexis Nexis, 21st
Edition (2020) revised
by Shakil Ahmad
Khan, set of 4 volumes:
Vol. 2 pg.no. 2267-
2584
2. 185th Law
Commission Report
Part III A Pg. 324-428
CASES:

1. BhimaTimaDhotre vs
The Pioneer Chemical
Co. (1968) 70 BOMLR
683
 2. State (NCT of Delhi) v.
Navjot Sandhu alias
Afsan Guru(2005) 11
SCC 600
3. Anvar v. P. K. Basheer
(Civil Appeal 4226 of
2012)
4. Pravin vs Ghanshyam
on 23 March, 2018
5. Tomaso Bruno and
Anr. v. State of Uttar
Pradesh, (2015) 7 SCC
178
6. Shafhi Mohammad v.
State of H.P. (2018) 5
SCC 311

ARTICLE:

Electronic Evidence — The

Great Indian Quagmire by
N.S. Nappinai [(2019) 3 SCC
(J-41)]

40-43 CHAPTER VI. –– OF ESSENTIAL READING: Lecture & CO(1) &

THE EXCLUSION OF 1.Batuklal, Law of Evidence Class CO(2)=LO(1) ,
ORAL BY Central Law Agency, Discussion LO(2)Case law
DOCUMENTARY Allahabad, (2018) Reprint, Presentation
EVIDENCE pg.no. 484-511 (M)

ADDITIONAL READING:
11. Woodroff and Amir Ali,
Law of Evidence Lexis Nexis,
21st Edition (2020) revised by
Shakil Ahmad Khan,set of 4
volumes: Vol. 3pg.no. 2585-
2818
3. 185th Law
Commission Report
Part III A Pg. 428-453
CASE LAWS:
1. MangalaWamanKarand
ikar v. Prakash
DamodarRanade, AIR
2021 SC 2272, (2021)
6 SCC 139
2. Roop Kumar v. Mohan
Thedani

44-46 PART III ESSENTIAL READING: Lecture & CO(1), CO(3),

Topic 6: PRODUCTION Batuklal, Law of Evidence Class &CO(5)=LO(1),
 AND EFFECT OF Central Law Agency, Discussion LO(3) & LO(5)
EVIDENCE Allahabad, (2018) Reprint, Case law
pg.no.512-524 Presentation/
CHAPTER VII. –– OF Case Analysis
THE BURDEN OF ADDITIONAL READING: (S)
PROOF 1. Woodroff and Amir Ali,
101. Burden of proof. Law of Evidence Lexis Nexis,
102. On whom burden of 21st Edition (2020) revised by
proof lies. Shakil Ahmad Khan,set of 4
103. Burden of proof as to volumes: Vol. 3 pg.no. 2847-
particular fact. 3305
104. Burden of proving
fact to be proved to make 2. 185th Law Commission
evidence admissible. Report Part III A Pg. 453-463
105. Burden of proving
that case of accused CASE LAWS:
comes within exceptions. 1. Bhupendra Singh
Achudasama v. State of
Gujarat, 1998 SCC
(Cri) 668 - Burden of
proof in general
exception cases.
2. ShambuNathMehra v.
The State of Ajmer
AIR 1956 SC404
3. State of West Bengal v.
Mir Mohammad Omar,
(2000) 8 SCC 382 –
Burden of proof –
Within special
knowledge.
4. State of M.P v.
Ramesh, 2005 SCC
(Cr.) 1443 – Right to
private defence –
burden – standard
5. Narain v. Gopal AIR
1960 SC 100
6. Harendra Sarkar v.
State of Karnataka,
AIR 2008 SC 2467

ARTICLE:

Interpretation Of Reverse Onus

Clauses by Juhi Gupta
http://docs.manupatra.in/
newsline/articles/Upload/
9B9D0261-BB3F-477F-AB44-
08FE66780A93.pdf
47-48 SECTIONS: ESSENTIAL READING: Lecture & CO(2),CO(4)=L
106. Burden of proving
fact especially within
knowledge.
107. Burden of proving
death of person known to
have been alive within
thirty years.
108. Burden of proving
that person is alive who
has not been heard of for
seven years.
109. Burden of proof as to
relationship in the cases of
partners, landlord and
tenant, principal and
agent.
Batuklal, Law of Evidence Class O(3), LO(4)
Central Law Agency, Discussion Case law
Allahabad, (2018) Reprint, Presentation/
pg.no. 524-564 Case Analysis
(S)
ADDITIONAL READING:
1. Woodroff and Amir Ali,
Law of Evidence Lexis Nexis,
21st Edition (2020) revised by
Shakil Ahmad Khan, set of 4
volumes: Vol. 3 pg.no. 3306-
3832
2. 185th Law Commission
Report Part IIIA Pg. 463-298;
Part III B Pg. 224-273
CASE LAWS:
1. Chairman v. State of
Uttarakhand, AIR 2016
SC 1912-Sec.106
2. Gurdayal v. Maltidevi,
AIR 1993 All. 90-
Sec.106
3. SubhashRamchanderW
adekar v. Union of
India, AIR 1993 Bom.
64- Sec. 108
4. GautamKundu v. State
of West Bengal, AIR
1993 SC 2295
5. NandlalWasudeoBadwi
k v.
LataNandlalBadwik,
AIR 2014 SC 932
ARTICLES:
Notes on the Presumptions of
Death and Survivorship in
England and Elsewhere by
H. A. de Colyar
Journal of the Society of
Comparative Legislation
Vol. 11, No. 2 (1911), pp. 255-
277
Published by: Cambridge
University Press on behalf of
the British Institute of
International and Comparative
Law
 https://www.jstor.org/stable/
752521

49-51 SECTIONS: ESSENTIAL READING: Lecture & CO(1),CO(4)=L

Batuklal, Law of Evidence Class O(1) & LO(4) –
110. Burden of proof as to Central Law Agency, Discussion Case law
ownership. Allahabad, (2018) Reprint, Presentation
111. Proof of good faith in pg.no. 524-564 (S)
transactions where one
party is in relation of
active confidence. ADDITIONAL READING:
111A. Presumption as to 1. Woodroff and Amir Ali,
certain offences. Law of Evidence Lexis Nexis,
112. Birth during 21st Edition (2020) revised by
marriage, conclusive Shakil Ahmad Khan, set of 4
proof of legitimacy. volumes: Vol. 3 pg.no. 3306-
113. Proof of cession of 3832
territory.
113A. Presumption as to 2. 185th Law Commission
abetment of suicide by a Report Part IIIA Pg. 463-298;
married woman. Part III B Pg. 224-273
113B. Presumption as to
CASE LAWS:
dowry death.
114. Court may presume 6. Kantilal v. Shantidevi,
existence of certain facts.
AIR 1997 Raj. 230-
114A. Presumption as to
absence of consent in Sec. 110
certain prosecution for 7. Shyamlal v. Sanjeev
rape Kumar, AIR 2009 SC
3115- Sec.112
8. GautamKundu v. State
of West Bengal, AIR
1993 SC 2295
9. NandlalWasudeoBadwi
k v.
LataNandlalBadwik,
AIR 2014 SC 932
10. Arvind Kumar v. State
of MP, AIR 2007 SC
2674- Sec. 113
11. Rajbabu and another v.
State of MP, AIR 2008
SC 3212- Sec. 113

ARTICLES:
Notes on the Presumptions of
Death and Survivorship in

52-53 Topic 7: CHAPTER
VIII –– ESTOPPEL
115. Estoppel.
116. Estoppel of tenants
and of licensee of person
in possession.
117. Estoppel of acceptor
of bill of exchange, bailee
or licensee.
England and Elsewhere by
H. A. de Colyar
Journal of the Society of
Comparative Legislation
Vol. 11, No. 2 (1911), pp. 255-
277
Published by: Cambridge
University Press on behalf of
the British Institute of
International and Comparative
Law
https://www.jstor.org/stable/
752521
ESSENTIAL READING: Lecture & CO(1) &
1.Batuklal, Law of Evidence Class CO(2)=LO(1) &
Central Law Agency, Discussion LO(2) – Case
Allahabad, (2018) Reprint, law Presentation
pg.no. 565-608 (S)
ADDITIONAL READING:
1. Woodroff and Amir
Ali, Law of Evidence
Lexis Nexis, 21st
Edition (2020) revised
by Shakil Ahmad
Khan, set of 4 volumes:
Vol. 4 pg. no. 3835-
4231
2. 185th Law Commission
Report part III B Pg. 273-286
CASE LAWS:
1.R S Madanappa&Ors. v.
Chandramma&Anr., AIR 1965
SC 1812
2.A.P. State Electricity Board
and others vs. M/s Saroda
Ferro Alloys Ltd., A.I.R. 1993
SC 1521 - Promissory
Estoppel.
3.M.P. Sugar Mills v. State of
UP AIR 1979 SC 621
4.Sanatan Gauda v. Berhampur
University and Others AIR
1990 SCC 0199
5.IFC v. Official Liquidator,
High Court, Calcutta, AIR
1993 SC 1524
54-55 Topic 8: Trials ESSENTIAL READING: Lecture & CO(1), CO(2),
Trials in Civil Cases, 1.Batuklal, Law of Evidence Class &CO(4)= LO(4)
Trials in Criminal Cases Central Law Agency, Discussion & LO(45)–
CHAPTER IX— OF Allahabad, (2018) Reprint, Case law
WITNESSES pg.no.609-648 Presentation
Secs. 118 to 134 (M)
• Witnesses ADDITIONAL READING:
Competency, 1. Woodroff and Amir Ali,
Privileges, Law of Evidence Lexis Nexis,
Immunity: Secs. 21st Edition (2020) revised by
118-134 Shakil Ahmad Khan,set of 4
volumes: Vol. 4 pg. nos. 4233-
4558
2. 185th Law Commission
Report Part IIIB Pg. 286-427

CASE LAWS:

1. 1.State of Maharashtra
and P.C.Singh v. Dr.
Praful B. Desai and
Anr AIR2003 SC 0268
2. Rameshwar v. State of
Rajasthan AIR 1952
SC54
3. DayabhaiChaganlalTha
kker v. State of Gujrat
1964 AIR 1563
4. State of Bihar v.
LalooPrasadaliasLaloo
Prasad Yadav and Anr
2001 CriAppeal No
943.
5. State vs Rahul on 15
April, 2013
56-57 CHAPTER X. –– OF ESSENTIAL READING: CO(2),CO(4)=L
THE EXAMINATION 1.Batuklal, Law of Evidence O(1), LO(4)–
OF WITNESSES Secs. Central Law Agency, Case law
135 to 166 Allahabad, (2018) Reprint, Presentation
pg.no. 549-701 (M)
• Examination in
Chief ADDITIONAL READING:
• Re-examination 1. Woodroff and Amir Ali,
• Cross examination Law of Evidence Lexis Nexis,
• Further 21st Edition (2020) revised by
examination - Shakil Ahmad Khan, set of 4
permissibility - scope of volumes: Vol. 4 pg. nos. 4561-
cross examination 4892
• Leading questions 2. 185th Law Commission
• Refreshing the Report Part III B Pg. 427-531
 memory
• Privileges,
Immunity
• Right against self
incrimination
• Incrimination of
spouses and others
• Legal professional
privilege
• Affairs of the state
• The Course of
Testimony: Sec 160
CASE LAWS:
1. State of Punjab vs.
Sukdev Singh, AIR
1961 SC 493 -
Privileged
Communication – state
2. S.P. Gupta v. UOI AIR
1982 SC149
3. State of UP v. Raj
Narain AIR 1975 SC
865
4. Municipal Corporation
of Greater Bombay v.
Vijay Metal Works
AIR 1982 Bom. 6

58-59 CHAPTER XI–– OF ESSENTIAL READING: Lecture & CO(4), CO(5)=

IMPROPER 1.Batuklal, Law of Evidence Class LO(3), LO(5)–
ADMISSION AND Central Law Agency, Discussion Case law
REJECTION OF Allahabad, (2018) Reprint, Presentation
EVIDENCE pg.no.702-703 (S)
a. Power of Courts:
Sec 165 ADDITIONAL READING:
b. Court
management. 1. Woodroff and Amir Ali,
c. Power of the court. Law of Evidence Lexis Nexis,
d. Improper 21st Edition (2020) revised by
admission Shakil Ahmad Khan, set of 4
e. Rejection of volumes: Vol. 4 pg. nos. 4894-
evidence. 4916
f. Improperly 2. 185th Law Commission
obtained evidence and its Report Part III B Pg. 531-534
rejection
CASE LAWS:
167. No new trial for
1. ZahiraHabibullah Sheikh v.
improper admission or
State of Gujarat, (2006) 2
rejection of evidence.
SCC (Cr.) 8 – Role of the
judge during trial – power.
60 Topic 9: Practical Class CO(1) &
Problems Discussion CO(2)=LO(1) &
LO(5) – Case
law
Presentation/
Case Analysis
(S)
Tutorials
Self Learning including projects, presentations, moot courts, simulation, exercises, film review, news
review, field visit, experiential learning, guest lectures, Case law Presentation, Revision

EVIDENCE LAW PROJECT: -

The project entails individual topic/section/caselaw from the course given by the instructor to
each student well in advance. Any student if he/she wants to change their topic, shall be given
4 days of time after receiving their topics( Date of topics being uploaded) to change their
topic, in case of any problem related to the research of that particular topic. The guidelines of
the project will be discussed in the class. Every one shall have 45 days time to research and
submit their project work which will be predominantly technology enabled.
EXPECTATIONS FROM STUDENTS: -
 To participate in the class exercises and activities
 To be present in the class on time specified by all means.
 To be sincere in doing the assignments and class preparations
 To maintain the dignity of a classroom and cooperate for the class and restrain from
using mobile phones
 To actively participate in case analysis and incorporate the theories into practical
phenomena
 To be consistent in preparation for the class and tests which enables continuous
learning
 To have parallel awareness on the current amendments to the Law of Evidence and
events to get associated with the theories learnt.
 To read the relevant articles in the newspapers and keep updated with the recent
changes.

EVALUATION TIMELINE: -

Keeping in line with continuous evaluation at SLSH, the following schedules has been
drawn. Students are expected to go through the dates / sessions mentioned and prepare
accordingly.

Marks
Component Expected slot /
Component declaration Weightage
Number due date
by

1 Written Exam 23/02/2023 04/03/2023 20

2 Retest 09/03/2023 19/03/2023

3 Research Project 01/04/2023 10/04/2023 20

 End exam At the end of the semester 60

Total 100

QUALITY ASSURANCE: -
The SI(DU) is actively monitoring student learning and quality of the student
experience in all its programs. A random selection of completed assessment tasks may
be used for quality assurance, such as to determine the extent to which program
learning goals are being achieved. The information is required for accreditation
purposes, and aggregated findings will be used to inform changes aimed at improving
the quality of SI (DU) programs. All material used for such processes will be treated
as confidential and will not be related to course grades.

BRIEF PROFILE OF THE FACULTY MEMBER: -

1. Dr. K. Shanthi has been working as an Assistant Professor in SymbiosisLaw School,

Hyderabad Campus since March’2015. Over the past four years she has been
associated with the academic circle, mainly teaching courses on Law of Torts, Law of
Crimes- IPC, Special Contracts, Law of Evidence, Health laws, Trademark Law,
Consumer Protection Laws, Constitutional Law and Foundation of Ethics.
2. Miss Ashika Pradhan has been working as an Assistant Professor at Symbiosis Law
School, Hyderabad Campus since 2022. Her area of interest lies in criminal law and
women-centric laws. Over this period of time, she has been teaching courses on
Administrative Law, Jurisprudence, Law of Torts and Interpretation of Statute.