Topic
Evidence in Indian law governs the admissibility and evaluation of proof in civil and criminal proceedings, including oral testimony, documents, and electronic records under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
Unchallenged WhatsApp messages alone can prove mental cruelty under HMA Sec 13(1)(i-a), the Chhattisgarh HC ruled, overturning the Family Court’s denial of divorce. The decision confirms that uncontested electronic evidence suffices for matrimonial relief, impacting spouses seeking divorce on cruelty grounds.
The Gauhati High Court set aside NDPS convictions because the trial court did not make an inventory of seized narcotics nor have the samples sealed before a magistrate as required by Section 52A, making the evidence inadmissible. The decision mandates strict compliance with the inventory-and-sealing rule for all NDPS prosecutions, safeguarding accused where procedural lapses occur.
The Supreme Court set aside a life-sentence conviction where the sole evidence was an uncorroborated child witness, reaffirming the double presumption of innocence. It held that independent corroboration is essential in serious criminal trials, reshaping how prosecutions rely on child testimony.
The Delhi High Court affirmed the trial court’s power to recall a witness under Section 311 CrPC to examine a promissory note, rejecting the Section 482 petition. This clarifies that procedural objections cannot bar recall when the evidence is vital, affecting parties in ongoing criminal trials.
The Calcutta High Court acquitted the accused, ruling that an unexplained nine-month FIR delay destroys the statutory presumption of guilt under Section 29 of the POCSO Act. The decision limits the presumption to promptly filed FIRs, safeguarding defendants from automatic liability.
The Jharkhand High Court ruled that Order XVIII Rule 3A of the CPC is merely directory, allowing a party to be examined as a witness after other witnesses if the court grants permission and nominal costs are paid. This discretion lets elderly or infirm litigants testify later without derailing the trial, benefiting parties in civil and probate suits.
The Allahabad High Court set aside a life sentence because the FIR was lodged after the incident and key eyewitnesses were not present at the time, rendering the evidence unreliable. This ruling stresses that a contemporaneous FIR and credible witnesses are essential for upholding murder convictions, offering relief to appellants facing similar evidentiary deficiencies.
MP High Court rules that courts must grant one last opportunity to lead evidence under Order 17 Rule 1 CPC when delays stem from unavoidable circumstances like stay orders, transfers, or personal emergencies. The ruling underscores judicial discretion in balancing fairness with procedural efficiency, imposing costs to deter frivolous delays.
The Chhattisgarh High Court denied specific performance of an oral land sale agreement, ruling that vague testimony, uncorroborated payment claims, and absence of written terms fatally undermine the certainty required under Section 10 of the Indian Contract Act. This reinforces that oral contracts in high-value property transactions demand concrete, contemporaneous evidence - not just witness accounts - to be enforceable, impacting buyers, developers, and litigants relying on informal deals.
MP High Court rules that trial courts cannot reject Khasra records or other public documents solely on grounds of delay under CPC Order 8 Rules 1 and 3. The judgment reinforces that public documents must be admitted to ascertain truth in land disputes, irrespective of procedural delays.
Uttarakhand High Court grants bail to an accused under UAPA after two years of custody, ruling that mere presence at a riot without specific evidence of violent acts or terrorist intent cannot sustain detention. The judgment reinforces that bail under UAPA must be grounded in tangible evidence, not general allegations.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court upheld that land compensation for coconut and palm oil trees must be based on verifiable market transactions, not speculative yield estimates, and barred the submission of new evidence after the reference court’s decision under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC. This sets a critical precedent for landowners and acquisition authorities across states relying on the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, ensuring compensation is grounded in actual market data, not conjecture.