Filter by Date
Delhi High Court (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

KAMAL CONSTRUCTION CO. Vs DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

RFA(OS), 137 of 2012, Judgment Date: Sep 30, 2015

Full Judgment

Tags Evidence
Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. PRAKASH @ GAJENDRA

Appeal (Crl.), 1246 of 2015, Judgment Date: Sep 23, 2015

Simpliciter, it has been observed that a careful scrutiny of the entire evidence has been made but we find from the judgment that no such exercise has been done. Mere statement in the judgment to that effect is not enough. Evidence is not only required to be mentioned in the judgment but its evidentiary value has to be assessed carefully. Full Judgment

Delhi High Court (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

VEENA TULI Vs KRISHAN KUMAR TULI

RFA(OS), 56 of 2015, Judgment Date: Sep 10, 2015

Full Judgment

Tags Evidence
Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

NIZAM & ANR. Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Appeal (Crl.), 413 of 2007, Judgment Date: Sep 04, 2015

Case of the prosecution is entirely based on the circumstantial evidence. In a case based on circumstantial evidence, settled law is that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is drawn should be fully proved and such circumstances must be conclusive in nature. Moreover, all the circumstances should be complete, forming a chain and there should be no gap left in the chain of evidence. Further, the proved circumstances must be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt Full Judgment

Supreme Court of India (Full Bench (FB)- Three Judge)

V.K.MISHRA & ANR. Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ANR.

Appeal (Crl.), 1247 with 1248 of 2012, Judgment Date: Jul 28, 2015

Court cannot suo moto make use of statements to police not proved and ask question with reference to them which are inconsistent with the testimony of the witness in the court. The words in Section 162 Cr.P.C. “if duly proved” clearly show that the record of the statement of witnesses cannot be admitted in evidence straightway nor can be looked into but they Full Judgment

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

PREM SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

Appeal (Crl.), 569 of 2014, Judgment Date: May 29, 2015

Insofar as circumstances leading to connecting the appellant with the said murder are concerned, following evidence has come on record: (i) Brother of the deceased i.e. PW-9 had seen the appellant working in the fields which are adjacent to the fields of victim's family where Sunita had gone to collect Barseem. (ii) The appellant was keeping an evil eye on the deceased. (iii) The sickle, weapon used in the murder, Full Judgment

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

JAGDISH CHAND SHARMA Vs. NARAIN SINGH SAINI (DEAD) THR. LRS. & ORS

Appeal (Civil), 4181-4182 of 2015, Judgment Date: May 01, 2015

14. As would be evident from the contents of Section 63 of the Act that to execute the Will as contemplated therein, the testator would have to sign or affix his mark to it or the same has to be signed by some other person in his presence and on his direction. Further the signature or mark of the testator or the signature of the person signing for him has to be so Full Judgment

Tags Will Evidence
Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

Vutukuru Lakshmaiah Versus State of Andhra Pradesh

Appeal (Crl.), 2047 of 2008, Judgment Date: Apr 24, 2015

Dealing with the concept of chance witness, a two-Judge Bench in Rana Pratap and others v. State of Haryana[8], has observed that:- “We do not understand the expression “chance witnesses”. Murders are not committed with previous notice to witnesses, soliciting their presence. If murder is committed in a dwelling house, the inmates Full Judgment

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

RANBEER SINGH (DEAD) BY LRS. Vs. STATE OF U.P.& ORS

Appeal (Crl.), 205 of 2009, Judgment Date: Mar 27, 2015

The main contention is that when the case of prosecution has been believed and relied upon by the High Court and on that basis the main accused Shyamu is convicted, the present three respondents cannot be acquitted. Therefore, the only question before us is whether, in the given facts and circumstances the case, the role attributed to the present three Accused-respondents lead to Full Judgment

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

R.DINESHKUMAR@DEENA Vs. STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE AND ORS.

Appeal (Crl.), 454 of 2015, Judgment Date: Mar 16, 2015

The question before the High Court was whether the Sessions Court was justified in declining to summon PW64 in exercise of its authority under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. as an additional accused in Sessions Case No.73 of 2009. It is the settled legal position that an offence of conspiracy[3] is complete the moment two or more persons agree to do an illegal act, or agree to Full Judgment

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

D. VELAYUTHAM Vs. STATE REP.BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE

Appeal (Crl.), 787 of 2011, Judgment Date: Mar 10, 2015

He has admitted the receipt of the bribe amount. The only effort at proving his innocence has been the submission that receipt of the entire sum was on behalf of Accused 1, no part of which was demanded by Accused 2 for his own keeping and consumption. This Court has ratiocinated in significant length and detail on the nature of evidence commonly encountered in trap cases Full Judgment

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

DHIRENDRA KUMAR @ DHIROO Vs. STATE OF UTTARKHAND

Appeal (Crl.), 1848 of 2008, Judgment Date: Feb 26, 2015

As far as reliability of evidence on record is concerned, we are of the view that re-appreciation of evidence is not called for in an appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution in absence of patent illegality or perversity merely because a different view could also be taken. Question whether a case falls under Section 302 or 304 has to be decided from Full Judgment

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

TEJRAM PATIL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Appeal (Crl.), 1330 of 2009, Judgment Date: Feb 26, 2015

  The decision of this appeal will rest on the answers to the  following two questions : (i)   Reliability of DD Exhibit 45 recorded by PSI Sunil Eknadi  Wanjari  PW 4 made by deceased Savita; (ii)  Admissibility and reliability of DDs made  by  Prabhabai  recorded  by SJM, Rajiv Babarao Raut Exhibit 41) and PSI Bhila Narayan Bachao (Exhibit 43). ​ However,  the Court must be satisfied that the deceased was in a fit mental  condition  to make the  DD  and  that  the  statement  was  faithfully  recorded  and  was otherwise reliable.  Full Judgment

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

SUBHASH @ DHILLU Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

Appeal (Crl.), 1375 of 2010, Judgment Date: Feb 25, 2015

To make out the offence under Section 120-B of IPC, the prosecution must lead evidence to prove the existence of some agreement between the accused persons. There is no specific evidence as to where and when the conspiracy was hatched and what was the specific purpose of such Full Judgment

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

GHUSABHAI RAISANGBHAI CHORASIYA & ORS. Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

Appeal (Crl.), 262 of 2009, Judgment Date: Feb 18, 2015

The singular issue that requires to be scrutinized is whether there was such cruelty by the husband and his relations that could have driven the deceased to commit suicide. - ​​ "Marital relationship means the legally protected marital interest of one spouse to another which include marital obligation to another like companionship, living under the same roof, Full Judgment

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

BHIM SINGH & ANR. Versus STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

Appeal (Crl.), 2146 of 2009, Judgment Date: Feb 11, 2015

  -The demand for dowry can be made at any time and not necessarily before marriage.- -Unlike as in Section 304- B where the court "shall presume" dowry death, when the prosecution has established the ingredients, under Section 113A of the Evidence Act, discretion has been conferred upon the Court wherein it has been provided that the Court may Full Judgment

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

DASIN BAI @ SHANTI BAI Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

Appeal (Crl.), 827 of 2008, Judgment Date: Feb 11, 2015

  -This Court has observed in a number of cases, that there is no reason to doubt the veracity of the dying declaration especially, since there is consistency between them. In the case of Ravi & Anr. v State of T.N. (2004 (10) SCC 776), it has been held by this Court that if the truthfulness or otherwise of the dying declaration cannot be doubted, the same Full Judgment

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

SANJAYSINH RAMRAO CHAVAN Vs. DATTATRAY GULABRAO PHALKE & ANR

Appeal (Crl.), 97 of 2015, Judgment Date: Jan 16, 2015

Whether the High Court is within its jurisdiction to direct the investigating officer to make a request for sanction for prosecution from the competent authority? Cognizance is taken prior to commencement of criminal proceedings. Taking of cognizance is thus a sine qua non or condition precedent for holding a valid trial. Cognizance is taken of an offence and not Full Judgment

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

VINOD KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

Appeal (Crl.), 1401 of 2008, Judgment Date: Jan 08, 2015

An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court Full Judgment

Tags Evidence
Chhatisgarh High Court (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

Mithun Gendre Vs State of Chhattisgarh And Santosh Kumar & Anr. Vs State of Chhattisgarh

CRA->CRIMINAL APPEAL, 556,766 of 2009, Judgment Date: Feb 25, 2014

Witnesses called by prosecution could be contradicted by defence or with the permission of court by prosecution by reference to their statements made to police under Section 161 of the CrPC. Witnesses called by defence or court could not be contradicted by reference to their statements recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC. Full Judgment

Tags Evidence