Direct evidence

Unless direct or substantive evidence is brought on record, a conviction cannot be recorded on the basis of such evidence, howsoever convincing it may be.

Insufficient, contradictory, discrepant direct evidence is deemed inadequate to hold a criminal charge as not proved but where direct evidence remains in the field and is natural and confidence inspiring then the requirement of independent corroboration was only a rule of abundant caution and not a mandatory rule to be applied invariably in each case.

Unless direct or substantive evidence is brought on record, conviction cannot be recorded on the basis of any type of evidence howsoever convincing it may be.

Conviction could be awarded if the direct oral evidence of one eye-witness was found to be reliable, trust worthy and confidence inspiring.

Conduct of the accused had strengthened the case of prosecution, who despite murder of his wife kept mum and had not lodged report against any one and even had not held responsible to any third person for such brutal murder of his wife, who received more than eleven deep wounds on her person

Besides, it had also been established through record that at the time of said murder, the accused was present in his house and the crime weapon was also recovered from his possession

Accused also not disputed the unnatural death of his wife

All the said facts suggested that actually it was the accused, who had committed the murder of his wife and injured his mother

Direct, circumstantial and medical evidence was fully implicating the accused with the murder of his wife and circulation of such information to landlord of accused as well as receipt of such information to the Levies Control Room had further corroborated the direct evidence

Circumstances established that the prosecution had successfully proved the charges levelled against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt

Appeal against conviction was dismissed accordingly.

Civil Court allowed an application, moved by the defendants, for sending the deed to Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) for comparison of thumb impression of the plaintiff

Appellate Court maintained the order of the Civil Court

Objection of the petitioner/plaintiff was that respondents/defendants were required to establish the authenticity of the deed through direct evidence

Held, that the objection of the petitioner/plaintiff was misconceived as it was the direct evidence as well as confirmatory evidence or any other material/evidence which could help the Court in reaching correct decision

No interference was made out in impugned orders and judgments passed by both the Courts below

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Civil Court allowed an application, moved by the defendants, for sending the deed to Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) for comparison of thumb impression of the plaintiff

Appellate Court maintained the order of the Civil Court

Petitioner/plaintiff invoked constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court contending that respondents/defendants were required to establish the authenticity of the deed through direct evidence

Validity

Petitioner/plaintiff, for issuance of writ of certiorari to declare the impugned orders and judgments of Courts below as illegal or unlawful, was bound to establish that the Courts had exceeded their jurisdiction or they had not properly exercised their jurisdiction or they were not having jurisdiction, however, she could not point out any such legally recognized ground for issuance of the desired writ of certiorari

No interference was made out in impugned orders and judgments passed by both the Courts below

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Failure of direct evidence is always sufficient to hold a criminal charge as "not proved" but where the direct evidence holds the field and stands the test of it being natural and confidence-inspiring then the requirement of independent corroboration is only a rule of abundant caution and not a mandatory rule to be applied invariably in each case.

If court is satisfied about the truthfulness of direct evidence then the corroborative evidence is not of much significance

Corroboration is not a rule of law but is that of prudence.

Unless direct or substantive evidence was brought on record, conviction could not be recorded on the basis of any type of evidence howsoever convincing it might be.

Failure of direct evidence was sufficient to hold a criminal charge as 'not proved' but where direct evidence remained in the field with test of its being natural and confidence inspiring then requirement of independent corroboration was only a rule of abundant caution and not a mandatory rule to be applied invariably in each case.

Mere relationship of eye-witnesses with deceased alone did not support the plea of accused that their testimonies were not worth believing

In matters of capital punishments, accused would not stand absolved by making a mere allegation of dispute / enmity but were required to bring on record that there had been such a dispute / enmity which could be believed to have motivated 'natural witnesses' in involving innocent at the cost of escape of 'real culprits'

Where natural witnesses were blood-relations then normally possibility of substitution had become rare

Minor discrepancies in statements of all eye-witnesses were not enough to demolish case of prosecution as discrepancies always occurred on account of lapse of time which could well be ignored

No discrepancy or discrepancies could be pressed for acquittal but defence had to bring on record the contradictions which too should be of a nature to cut at the root of prosecution towards their presence and manner of incident

Empties recovered from place of incident were fired from pistol recovered from accused

Accused failed to point out any illegality or serious infirmity committed by Trial Court while passing judgment against accused

High Court declined to interfere in conviction and sentence awarded to accused as the same was based on correct appreciation of evidence by Trial Court

Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

If direct evidence was credible, truthful and trustworthy and was sufficient to establish the charge, corroboration from any other source was not required

Rule of corroboration in the criminal administration of justice was not a mandatory rule to be observed in each case, rather it being a rule of abundant caution was applied to satisfy the mind and ensure the truthfulness of the direct evidence.

Accused could be convicted if the direct oral evidence of one eye-witness found to be reliable, trustworthy and confidence inspiring.

Evidence coming from independent and natural source and the natural witness was one who was not inimical toward the accused to falsely implicate him in the commission of offence.

Accused could be convicted if found the direct oral evidence of one eye-witness to be reliable, trust worthy and confidence inspiring.

Conviction could be awarded if direct oral evidence of one eye-witness found to be reliable, trust worthy and confidence inspiring.

Accused was charged for committing murder of his real mother in her residential house by causing firearm injuries with pistol

Motive behind the occurrence was that the accused, who was an addicted person, came and demanded amount from the deceased and on her refusal opened fire upon her

Ocular account of the incident had been furnished by sister of the accused being eye-witness/ complainant

Said witness got recorded a comprehensive examination-in-chief without irrelevant details and upon the questions put to her in cross-examination, she remained firm and unshaken on her statement

In criminal case, the best evidence should be available on record

Witness, who had seen the occurrence, was required to be produced as a witness

Statement of complainant qualified the criteria of direct evidence which was considered to be the best evidence

Said witness, being the natural witness, had given the truthful, natural and confidence inspiring account of occurrence as herself being one of the inmates of the abode, where the occurrence had taken place

Said direct evidence ruled out any remote possibility to exonerate the real culprit on any account

By any stretch of imagination, statement of the eye-witness could not be described as untruthful

Complainant was inmate of the house residing with the deceased who stated the occurrence which she had seen with her naked eye

Appeal against conviction was dismissed, in circumstances.

Where the prosecution had relied upon the direct evidence in the form of ocular account and the same was disbelieved by the court, medical evidence and recoveries, if any, which otherwise only rendered corroboration to the ocular account were of no avail to the prosecution for securing conviction.

If direct evidence remained in the field with a test of its being natural and confidence inspiring then requirement of independent corroboration was only a rule of abundant caution and not a mandatory rule to be applied inversely in each case.

In the present case, direct evidence was produced by the prosecution through son of the deceased and a mason,who was constructing the boundary walls of the house of the accused

Son of deceased had stated that on the day of occurrence at about 9.30 a.m., he had observed fire shots by the accused upon his father, his house being located nearby the place of occurrence, he started running towards his house to bring weapon, but on his return the accused had decamped from the place of occurrence

Conduct of said witness appeared to be unnatural, as it was not appealable to logic that once father was being murdered in his presence, he instead of making an attempt to rescue him proceeded towards his house for bringing weapon

Other witness/mason had contradicted the statement of son of deceased and stated that when he heard firing shots, he along with other labour proceeded towards the place of firing and found the deceased lying in the pool of blood

Perusal of statement of said witness revealed that he had not mentioned the presence of witness/son of the deceased even at the time of making firing and even he mentioned nothing that soon after the occurrence witness/son of deceased arrived at the place of occurrence

Soon after the occurrence, complainant had arrived at the place of occurrence, but he also stated nothing about the presence of witness/son of the deceased

Statement of mason was also silent with regard to identity of the assailants who made firing upon the deceased

Witness/son of deceased had failed to establish his presence at the time and place of occurrence

Apparently, said witness was interested witness being the son of the deceased and his statement was lacking independent corroboration

No implicit reliance could be placed upon the testimony of alleged eye-witness (son of deceased), in circumstances.

Failure of direct evidence, was sufficient to hold a criminal charge as not proved, but where the direct evidence would remain in the field with test of its being natural and confidence inspiring, then requirement of independent corroboration, was only a rule of abundant caution and not a mandatory rule to be applied invariably in each case.

Presence of the witnesses at the place of occurrence at the time of occurrence must be shown who are in a position to depose categorically that they witnessed the occurrence, committed by the person to whom it is attributed.

Failure of direct evidence was always sufficient to hold a criminal charge as "not proved", but where the direct evidence would remain in the field with test of its being natural and confidence inspiring, then requirement of independent corroboration was only a rule of abundant caution and not a mandatory rule to be applied invariably in each case.

Failure of direct evidence, was sufficient to hold a criminal charge as 'not proved', however, where the direct evidence would hold the field as well, would stand well with test of being natural and confidence inspiring, then requirement of independent corroboration, was only rule of abundant caution and not a mandatory need to be applied invariably in each case.

Absence of direct evidence, was sufficient to hold a criminal charge as 'not proved', but where the direct evidence would remain in the field with test of its being natural and confidence inspiring, then requirement of independent corroboration was only a rule of abundant caution and not a mandatory rule to be applied invariably in each case.

Where direct evidence to prove a fact was available then much importance had to be given to it, and expert evidence in such circumstances carried no legal value.