Topic
The Indian Evidence Act governs the admissibility and evaluation of proof in Indian courts, covering rules on witness competence, documentary evidence, and presumptions.
Delhi HC held that under Sections 101 and 111 Evidence Act, the burden to prove good faith in a fiduciary transaction lies on the party in confidence. It cancelled a daughter’s sale deed for inadequate consideration, restoring possession to legal heirs.
Section 90 of the Evidence Act applies only to original documents, not certified copies, the HP High Court held, leading to the dismissal of the redemption suit and underscoring the need to rely on original documents.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that a Section 27 statement is admissible only if it directly leads to the discovery of a new fact and is clearly linked to that fact. Applying this, the court excluded such statements in a murder-rape case, quashing death sentences and acquitting the accused, thereby tightening evidentiary standards.
A Punjab & Haryana HC revision set aside a lower court’s acceptance of a photocopied property verification report, ruling that under Section 65 the party must first establish why the original document cannot be produced. This clarifies that secondary evidence cannot be admitted on mere assertion, impacting litigants relying on copies in civil property disputes.
Allahabad HC reiterated that circumstantial evidence must form an unbroken chain under the Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda principles to secure conviction. The court acquitted the accused, holding that gaps in the chain of custody and forensic handling vitiated the prosecution's case, reinforcing strict standards for circumstantial evidence in criminal trials.
Karnataka High Court rules that belated filing of secondary evidence under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act requires explicit pleadings explaining the original document's unavailability. Failure to comply renders the evidence inadmissible, reinforcing procedural rigor in civil suits.
The Karnataka High Court has ruled that the absence of a Section 65B certificate does not permanently bar defence evidence in cheque bounce cases. The accused may file a fresh application to cure the defect, ensuring fair trial rights are not sacrificed over procedural technicalities. This clarifies that Section 65B’s certificate requirement is curable, not fatal, when applied to defence documents.
The Bombay High Court has ruled that prior criminal history, without evidence of flight risk or threat to investigation, cannot be the sole ground to reject anticipatory bail under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Food Safety Act. This reinforces the Supreme Court’s stance in Ayub Khan and protects accused persons from automatic denial based on past charges - even when facing serious non-bailable offences.
The Karnataka High Court ruled that a xerox copy of an agreement of sale can be admitted as secondary evidence under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act when the original is lost due to court staff negligence, provided there is no evidence of tampering. This sets a critical precedent for property litigants facing evidentiary loss through systemic administrative failure, reinforcing that procedural lapses by courts do not automatically bar reliance on authenticated duplicates.
Bombay High Court affirms that the 'last seen' theory, combined with DNA evidence, recovery of victim’s belongings, and medical testimony, constitutes a complete chain of circumstantial evidence sufficient for conviction under Section 302 IPC. The ruling underscores that concurrent sentences for Sections 302 and 201 IPC are permissible when the offences are interlinked.
Karnataka High Court holds that a photocopy of an unregistered partition deed cannot be marked as evidence under Section 49 of the Registration Act and Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, reinforcing the mandatory production of original documents for evidentiary value. The ruling impacts property disputes where unregistered documents are relied upon in civil proceedings.
The Supreme Court has held that a will is valid if proved by a single attesting witness, even if there is delay in producing the document or natural heirs are excluded - provided no suspicious circumstances surround its execution. This reinforces that procedural irregularities alone cannot invalidate a testamentary disposition, offering clarity to executors, beneficiaries, and probate courts navigating contested wills under the Indian Evidence Act.
Gauhati HC upholds conviction under Section 376(2)(l) IPC where victim has Down syndrome and IQ 40, affirming that mental disability does not equate to legal incompetence as a witness.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has ruled that refusing a party’s request to examine disputed signatures through a handwriting expert, when authenticity is contested, undermines the right to a fair trial under natural justice. This sets a critical precedent for civil property cases where documentary evidence hinges on signature verification, ensuring procedural fairness under the new evidence law.
Delhi High Court upholds robbery conviction based on the accused's conduct-including exploitation of trust and recovery of stolen property-under Section 8 of the Evidence Act, even in the absence of CCTV, medical evidence, or fingerprint matches. The ruling reinforces that circumstantial evidence can suffice for conviction where the accused's behavior aligns with guilt.