Criminal evidence
Confessions, dying declarations, circumstantial and electronic evidence.
15 of the 34 judgments in our library on this topic: the ones other judgments here cite most, oldest first.
0 of 15 read
Start: Hanumant v. State of Madhya PradeshYour progress is kept in this browser. Sign in to keep it on every device and count it in your reading streak.
23 September 1952 · cited by 1 judgment in this library
Hanumant v. State of Madhya PradeshThe Court acquitted an Excise Commissioner and a contractor of forging a tender and an antedated letter, holding that circumstantial evidence must exclude every hypothesis but guilt and that an admission must be used as a whole.
On this path for: Section 45, Indian Evidence Act, 1872; Circumstantial evidence
4 August 1961 · 11 judges · cited by 3 judgments in this library
State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu OghadTaking specimen handwriting, signatures or finger, palm or foot impressions from an accused does not violate Article 20(3), and Section 27 of the Evidence Act is valid unless the information was obtained by compulsion.
On this path for: Section 73, Indian Evidence Act, 1872; Section 27, Indian Evidence Act, 1872; Section 139, Indian Evidence Act, 1872
3 August 1988 · 3 judges · cited by 1 judgment in this library
Kehar Singh v. State (Delhi Administration)The Court upheld the convictions and death sentences of Satwant Singh and Kehar Singh for the conspiracy to assassinate Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, acquitted Balbir Singh, and held that the trial in Tihar Jail was a valid open trial.
On this path for: Section 145, Indian Evidence Act, 1872
21 March 1990 · 2 judges · cited by 2 judgments in this library
Raj Kumar Karwal v. Union of IndiaOfficers of the Department of Revenue Intelligence invested with police station officer powers under Section 53 of the NDPS Act are not 'police officers' under Section 25 of the Evidence Act, so confessions made to them are not barred.
On this path for: Section 25, Indian Evidence Act, 1872; Confession to police officer
14 May 1993 · 2 judges · cited by 1 judgment in this library
Goutam Kundu v. State of West BengalCourts in India cannot order a blood group test as a matter of course; the husband must first make out a strong prima facie case of non-access to displace the presumption of legitimacy under Section 112 of the Evidence Act.
On this path for: Section 112, Indian Evidence Act, 1872; Section 4, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (conclusive proof)
11 March 1994 · 9 judges · cited by 1 judgment in this library
S.R. Bommai v. Union of IndiaA Proclamation under Article 356 is open to judicial review on the material behind it; secularism is a basic feature; the Karnataka and Meghalaya Proclamations were unconstitutional, while those for Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Himachal Pradesh stood.
On this path for: Section 123, Indian Evidence Act, 1872
13 September 1999 · 3 judges · cited by 1 judgment in this library
Paparambaka Rosamma v. State of Andhra PradeshThe Court set aside convictions under Sections 498-A and 302 IPC that rested only on a dying declaration, because the doctor certified only that the injured was conscious, not that she was in a fit state of mind.
On this path for: Dying declaration; Circumstantial evidence
4 August 2005 · 2 judges · cited by 1 judgment in this library
State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot SandhuIn the Parliament attack case the Court held a POTA confession inadmissible against co-accused, upheld Mohd. Afzal's conviction and death sentence, convicted Shaukat only under Section 123 IPC, and upheld the acquittals of S.A.R. Gilani and Afsan Guru.
On this path for: Section 10, Indian Evidence Act, 1872; Section 27, Indian Evidence Act, 1872; Section 30, Indian Evidence Act, 1872
9 January 2008 · 2 judges · cited by 1 judgment in this library
Kanhaiyalal v. Union of IndiaAn officer acting under Section 67 read with Section 42 of the NDPS Act is not a police officer, so a voluntary statement made to him can be used as a confession against its maker and alone sustain a conviction.
On this path for: Section 25, Indian Evidence Act, 1872; Sections 24 to 27, Indian Evidence Act, 1872; Confession
9 July 2008 · 2 judges · cited by 2 judgments in this library
Noor Aga v. State of PunjabSections 35 and 54 of the NDPS Act, which place a reverse burden on the accused, are not unconstitutional, but the prosecution must first prove the foundational facts strictly; as recovery was not proved, the conviction was set aside.
On this path for: Section 25, Indian Evidence Act, 1872; Confession to customs officers
18 September 2014 · 3 judges · cited by 2 judgments in this library
Anvar P.V. v. P.K. BasheerSecondary evidence of an electronic record is admissible only with a certificate under Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act; Navjot Sandhu was overruled on this point, and the election petition based on uncertified CDs failed.
On this path for: Section 65B, Indian Evidence Act, 1872; Section 65A, Indian Evidence Act, 1872; Section 59, Indian Evidence Act, 1872
30 January 2018 · 2 judges · cited by 1 judgment in this library
Shafhi Mohammad v. State of Himachal PradeshA party producing electronic evidence who is not in possession of the device cannot be required to produce a certificate under Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act; the requirement is procedural and may be relaxed in the interest of justice.
On this path for: Section 65B(4), Indian Evidence Act, 1872; Section 65A, Indian Evidence Act, 1872; Section 63, Indian Evidence Act, 1872
29 January 2020 · 5 judges
Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi)Anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC need not be limited to a fixed period and may continue till the end of trial, though courts may impose conditions, including limits on time, where the facts of a case require.
On this path for: Section 27, Indian Evidence Act, 1872
29 October 2020 · 3 judges · cited by 1 judgment in this library
Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil NaduBy majority, officers invested with powers under Section 53 of the NDPS Act are police officers for Section 25 of the Evidence Act, and a statement recorded under Section 67 cannot be used as a confession at trial.
On this path for: Section 25, Indian Evidence Act, 1872; Confession to police officer
15 December 2022 · 5 judges
Neeraj Dutta v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)If the complainant's direct evidence of a bribe demand is unavailable, demand and acceptance can be proved by other oral, documentary or circumstantial evidence, and guilt under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act inferred.
On this path for: Section 154, Indian Evidence Act, 1872; Section 114, Indian Evidence Act, 1872; Circumstantial evidence
Test yourself: 170 practice questions on landmark judgments, with explanations.