Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
EVIDENCE PROJECT
SUPREME COURT ON APPRECIATION OF
EVIDENCE
Submitted by:
TUSHANT SHARMA
(2012 /BBA.LLB /058)
Table of Contents
Index of Authorities....................................................................................................................1
Introduction................................................................................................................................2
What is Evidence?..................................................................................................................2
Appreciation of Evidence...........................................................................................................3
Proof beyond Reasonable Doubt of the Court........................................................................4
General Rules on the matter of Appreciation of Evidence.....................................................4
The Doctrine of Benefit of Doubt in the Appreciation of Evidence.......................................5
Appreciation of Evidence of Solitary Eye-Witness as a chance witness- Benefit of Doubt. .5
Burden of Proof in a criminal case.........................................................................................5
Standard of Proof in a criminal case.......................................................................................6
Theory of last seen relating to circumstantial evidence......................................................7
Appreciation of Evidence of an Eye-Witness............................................................................8
Appreciation of Evidence of Eye-Witness Related to the Victim..........................................9
Appreciation of Evidence in different categories.....................................................................10
Murder..................................................................................................................................10
Abetment..............................................................................................................................10
Insanity.................................................................................................................................11
Conclusion................................................................................................................................12
Bibliography.............................................................................................................................13
Index of Authorities
Cases
Abdul Rashid Ibrahim Mansuri v. State of Gujarat.....................................................8
Akhilesh v. State of Bihar...................................................................................8
Bageshwar v. Khandari.......................................................................................5
Bodh Raj v. State of Jammu & Kashmir..................................................................9
Chanan Singh v. State......................................................................................11
Chet Ram v. State.............................................................................................7
Criminal Trials, Practice and Procedure, Vinayak D Kakde..........................................9
Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar v. State of Gujarat................................................13
Dalim v. Nandarani...........................................................................................5
Darya Singh v. State of Punjab...........................................................................10
Faguna Kanta v. State of Assam..........................................................................12
Jabbar v. State..................................................................................................5
Jailal v. Delhi Administration.............................................................................13
Kanbi v. State of Gujarat.....................................................................................5
M. Narsinga Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh............................................................8
M.G. Agarwal v. State of Maharashtra....................................................................7
Macchi Singh v. State of Punjab...........................................................................7
Narayan Ganesh Dastane v. Sucheta Narayan Dastane................................................6
Prithvi v. Mam.................................................................................................5
Raj Kishore v. State.........................................................................................10
Raj Singh v. State..............................................................................................5
Rangaswami Gounder v. State..............................................................................4
Ratanlal v. State of Madhya Pradesh,...................................................................13
Sakharam v. State of Madhya Pradesh..................................................................12
Shivaji Sahebrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra....................................................12
State of Maharashatra v. Chandraprakash................................................................8
State of Maharashtra v. Wasudeo Ramchandra Kaidalwar,...........................................8
State of Punjab v. Jugraj Singh...........................................................................10
State of U.P. v. Babu........................................................................................10
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Babu Ram.....................................................................12
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Sarju Prasad...................................................................12
State v. Sashibhusan..........................................................................................5
Vijayee Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh...................................................................6
Yakub Ismailbhai Patel v. State of Gujarat...............................................................5
1 | Page
Introduction
Law of Evidence governs the means and manner in which a party may substantiate his own
case, or refute of that of his opponent.1 The necessity of applying law of evidence
presupposes two things-2
(i)
The existence of a court in the nature of a court, which has the duty to ascertain
(ii)
facts.
The determination of an issue.
WHAT IS EVIDENCE?
The word evidence in the Evidence Act signifies only the instruments by means of which
relevant facts are brought before the court, viz., witnesses and documents and by means of
them the court may consider whether certain facts are proved or not. 3 Evidence may be
defined as that which demonstrates, makes clear or ascertains the truth of the very fact or
point in issue.4
The law of evidence is the system of rules and standards regulating the admission of proof at
the trial of a lawsuit.5 It can be termed as equivalent to proof on the basis of which courts
come to a conclusion about the existence or non-existence of non-disputed facts. 6 It is defined
as all documents produced for the inspection of the courts.7 It also includes electronic
records. All these documents are called documentary evidence.
Appreciation of Evidence
A witness may be believed in part and disbelieved as to the rest. 8 The court has to scan the
evidence with care in each case and on full consideration of all the relevant material
circumstances come to a decision as to which part of the testimony of a witness to accept and
which to reject.9 There are instances that the courts have to separate the truths from
falsehoods. But where the two are so intermingled as to make it impossible to separate them,
the evidence has to be rejected in its entirety.10 When a prosecution story is disbelieved as to
its material part, it is not safe to rely on the other part.11
Evidence of every witness is to be judged on its own merits and if there is nothing in his
evidence or in the evidence or in his evidence of other witnesses examined in the case to
discredit them, it cannot be disbelieved on the ground that there is only one witness on the
point, and no other witness has been examined to support him. 12 Court can disbelieve a part
of the evidence and disbelieve the rest.13
In each case, the court has to appraise the evidence to see to what extent it is worthy of
acceptance, and merely because in one respect the court considers it unsafe to rely on the
testimony of a witness, it does not necessarily follow as a matter of law that it must be
discarded in all other respects as well. 14 The court must be careful to examine the entire
evidence and must distinguish the chaff from the grain and must not take any easy course of
discarding the entire prosecution case.15
Evidence which is not completely reliable cannot be accepted when corroborated by reliable
evidence.16 For example, an injured witness who has blows on his head is not expected to
count number of blows given so as to correlate them mathematically to post-mortem
certificate.17 In the same way sole eye-witness cannot be branded as related or interested
witness.18 Post occurrence conduct of witnesses cannot be ground to discard their evidence.19
However, it must be the doubt of the prudent man who is assumed to possess the capacity to
separate the chaff from the grain.22
On the other hand, only ordinary human possibilities should be considered in such cases and
not the imaginary ones. If any of the said circumstances are consistent with the innocence of
the accused or the chain of the continuity of the circumstances is broken, the accused is
entitled to benefit of doubt.26
dealing with the evidence of a person who is interested in the outcome of the charge levelled
by her....If for some reason the court is hesitant to place implicit reliance on the testimony of
prosecutrix, it may look for evidence which may lead assurance to her testimony short of
corroboration required in the case of an accomplice.....If the totality of circumstances disclose
that the prosecutrix does not have a strong motive to falsely involve accused, court should
accept her evidence....The degree of proof required must not be higher than is expected of an
injured witness.30
Further, the word proof should be understood in accordance to the Evidence Act as proof
depends upon the admissibility of evidence. A fact is considered to be proven when the court
believes it to exist under the circumstances of a particular case.31
But in a leading case the Supreme Court held that even if a suspicion is strong, it does not
constitute a legal proof, and further stated that if the charge is graver then the standard of
proof has to be greater.32
In the cases of circumstantial evidence, the standard of proof required to convict a person is
not well settled. The circumstances from which the guilt of the accused can be derived should
be conclusive and consistent with the conjecture of the guilt and at the same time it should
not be explained by some other conjecture.33
In a leading case the Supreme Court held that the last seen theory comes into play where the
time gap between the point of time when the accused and deceased were last seen alive and
when the deceased is found dead is very small and as a consequence the possibility of any
person other than the accused being the author of crime becomes impossible.35
ABETMENT
A person abets the doing of a thing when he instigates any person to do that thing, or engages
one or more other persons in a conspiracy for the doing of that thing, or intentionally aids, by
act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.47
A person will be liable for aiding the commission of any offence of abetment if he does
something in order to facilitate the commission of that act.48 However, an unintentional aiding
does not amount to abetment within the meaning of section 107 of the IPC, as intentional
aiding and active complicity is the gist of the offence of the abetment.49
44 State of Uttar Pradesh v. Babu Ram, AIR 2000 SC 1735.
45 Shivaji Sahebrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1973 SC 2622.
46 Sakharam v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1992 SC 758.
47 Faguna Kanta v. State of Assam, AIR 1959 SC 673.
48 State of Uttar Pradesh v. Sarju Prasad, 1996 Cr LJ 3833.
11 | P a g e
In the case of Joseph Kurien v. State of Kerala, the Supreme Court held that when direct
involvement is not established then the accused cannot be held guilty of abetment without a
formal charge, as the roles of the perpetrator and abettor are different.50
INSANITY
When a reasonable doubt is created in the mind of the court relating to the evidence produced
by the prosecution or the accused in the court regarding the mens rea of the accused, then the
accused is entitled to be acquitted in that matter on the ground that the general burden of
proof resting on the prosecution was not discharged.51
In the case of Ratanlal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the Apex Court, regarding the plea of
insanity, held that the crucial point of time at which unsoundness of mind should be
established is the time when the crime was committed.52 Further, the mental state of the
accused must be destroyed to an extent where he is not able to recognise the disposition of
the act.53 The disorder or disturbance in his mind must be of a degree which would affect
perpetual or volitional capacity of the accused.54
Conclusion
There are observations made by the judge in a case and these observations play a role in the
deciding the final judgement. But it should be noted that there is no alternative of evidence in
a case and the observations should be kept aside and it should not be included in the
judgement as a replacement of evidence. If the judge decides a case and convicts a person on
the basis of his observations instead of considering evidences then the judgement will not
meet the ends of justice and the final judgement can turn out to be a bad law. This can be
elaborated by the fact that in the case of circumstantial evidence, only one conclusion can be
derived from the evidence and set of facts that points towards the crime committed by the
accused and consequently holding him guilty. On the other hand, several observations made
by the court can influence the outcome of the case the judgement.
Referring to the documents part, it is attractive to allude to them with their point by point
depiction including the way of the report. As it would be awkward to allude to the documents
comprehensively, with reference to their claim over and over, suffice it if the imply of the
documents is expressed at one spot and the record may be alluded to from that point.
13 | P a g e
Bibliography
Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, The law of evidence, (Lexis Nexis, Butterworths Wadhwa, 23 rd
edition, 2009).
Vinayk D kakde, Criminal Trial, Practice and Procedures, (Universal Publication,
2009).
Sarkar, Law of Evidence, (Lexis Nexis, Butterworths Wadhwa, 17th edition, 2010)
H.K. Saharey , M.S. Saharay, Law of evidence, (Eastern law house, 2008).
Phipson on Evience, (Sweet and Maxwell, 16th edition, 2007).
Kesava Rao, Sir John Woodroffe and Syed Amir Ali Law of Evidence, (Lexis Nexis,
Butterworths Wadhwa, 18th edition, 2009).
14 | P a g e