FIRST LAW

Evidence Law - No presumption can be raised against the accused either of fact or in evidence, whatever evidence is available on record, is to be read as it is.

Penal Code, 1860 – Ss. 363, 376(A), 302 & 201(II) - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 – S. 6 - Evidence Act, 1872 – S. 27 - Court cannot reject the evidence merely based on the fault of the Investigating Officer in not preparing the inquest panchnama on the spot, particularly keeping in mind the recovery memo which were prepared on the spot.

In Baldev Singh v. State of Haryana reported in (2015) 17 SCC 554 , it has been held: There is no legal proposition that evidence of police officials unless supported by independent evidence is unworthy of acceptance. Evidence of police witnesses cannot be discarded merely on the ground that they belong to police force and interested in the investigation and their desire to see the success of the case. Prudence however requires that the evidence of police officials who are interested in the outcome of the result of the case needs to be carefully scrutinized and independently appreciated. Mere fact that they are police officials does not by itself give rise to any doubt about their creditworthiness.

Section 167 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 which is reproduced hereunder:- 

Evidence Act, 1872 - S. 32(1) - A dying declaration cannot be rejected merely because the same is not read over to the declarant and the declarant admitting the same to have been correctly recorded. We hold and clarify that this can be one of the factors, if it assumes significance in the facts and circumstances of any case.

The general rule of evidence is that no witness shall be cited to contradict another witness if the evidence is intended only to shake the credit of another witness. The said rule has been incorporated in Section 153 of the Evidence Act which reads thus : 153. Exclusion of evidence to contradict answers to questions testing veracity.— When a witness has been asked and has answered any question which is relevant to the inquiry only in so far as it tends to shake his credit by injuring his character, no evidence shall be given to contradict him; but, if he answers falsely, he may afterwards be charged with giving false evidence.  Exception 1 .—If a witness is asked whether he has been previously convicted of any crime and denies it, evidence may be given of his previous conviction.  Exception 2 .—If a witness is asked any question tending to impeach his impartiality, and answers it by denying the facts suggested, he may be contradicted.  Illustrati...

Evidence Law - If prosecution witness is not supporting the prosecution case and such witness is not declared hostile, the defence can rely on the evidence of such witness which could be binding on the prosecution. 

Indian Evidence Act, 1872 -  Section 27 - A mbit and Scope of - How much of Information Received from Accused may be Proved.

Evidence Law - Indian  Penal Code, 1860 - Ss. 363/34 IPC, 377/511 r/w. 34 & 302/34 - Kidnapping - Unnatural Sex - Medical Evidence - Circumstantial Evidence.

Evidence Act, 1872 -  Section 153 - E xamination of a witness to contradict another witness -  the bar comes into play only when questions to shake the credit or credibility of a witness were put to that witness by injuring his character.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) AND (UDAY UMESH LALIT) JJ. January 30, 2018.     SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.)No.2302 of 2017 SHAFHI MOHAMMAD Petitioner(s) VERSUS THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Respondent(s) WITH SLP(Crl) No. 9431/2011 AND SLP(Crl) No(S). 9631-9634/2012 O R D E R SLP(Crl.)No.2302 of 2017 (1)  One of the questions which arose in the course of consideration of the matter was whether videography of the scene of crime or scene of recovery during investigation should be necessary to inspire confidence in the evidence collected. (2)  In Order dated 25 th  April, 2017 statement of Mr. A.N.S. Nadkarni, learned Additional Solicitor General is recorded to the effect that videography will help the investigation and was being successfully used in other countries. He referred to the perceived benefits of “Body-Worn Cameras” in the United States of America and the United Kingdom. Body-...

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) AND (UDAY UMESH LALIT) JJ. January 30, 2018.   SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.)No.2302 of 2017 SHAFHI MOHAMMAD Petitioner(s) VERSUS THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Respondent(s) WITH SLP(Crl) No. 9431/2011 AND SLP(Crl) No(S). 9631-9634/2012 O R D E R SLP(Crl.)No.2302 of 2017 (1) One of the questions which arose in the course of consideration of the matter was whether videography of the scene of crime or scene of recovery during investigation should be necessary to inspire confidence in the evidence collected. (2) In Order dated 25 th April, 2017 statement of Mr. A.N.S. Nadkarni, learned Additional Solicitor General is recorded to the effect that videography will help the investigation and was being successfully used in other countries. He referred to the perceived benefits of “Body-Worn Cameras” in the United States of America and the United Kingdom. Body-worn cameras act as de...