Evidence

It was alleged that the land in dispute was allotted to the Appellant (Agriculture Department) vide allotment chit dated 03.06.1957, however, in support of said claim only a photocopy of allotment chit had been produced

A photostat copy cannot be read into evidence

Thus, in the present case, the High Court acted in accordance with law while accepting the writ petition of the respondents

The impugned judgment being well-reasoned did not call for interference

Appeal, filed by the Department, was dismissed.

If a prosecution witness makes dishonest improvement in his statement regarding material aspects of the case or he makes dishonest improvement in his statement to bring his evidence in line with medical evidence, such witness is not worthy of reliance.

Suspicion, however grave can never be treated as a substitute for proof.

There is no universal principle that in every case interested witness should be disbelieved or disinterested witness should be believed

It all depends upon the rule of prudence and reasonableness to hold that a particular witness was present at scene of crime and that he was making a true statement.

Ocular account alone is sufficient to sustain conviction of an accused.

Portion of a statement not cross-examined is deemed to have been admitted by the other side.

Hearsay evidence is given by a witness consisting of a report of something which someone else has said rather than a statement of something the witness has actually seen or experienced

Certain hearsay statements can carry reliability even without subjecting original declarant to cross-examination

Trustworthiness can be established from circumstances under which statement was made, guaranteeing a level of reliability comparable to that found in a statement that has undergone cross-examination

There are situations where applying cross-examination test is impossible- such as in cases where the declarant has died and it becomes necessary to consider the statement in its untested form if it is to be used at all

Exceptions to hearsay rule are based on two fundamental principles: trustworthiness and necessity.

Civil cases are to be decided on preponderance of evidence by reading evidence as a whole, rather than cherry-picking certain aspects of pleadings and/or evidence

As such the same helps in achieving a predictable standard pattern in reaching a just decision.

Insufficient, contradictory, discrepant direct evidence is deemed adequate to hold a criminal charge as 'not proved', but where direct evidence remains in the field and it is 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.

In civil proceedings, an issue is to be decided by preponderance of evidence and in the case where there is a word against a word; it is the party (beneficiary) on whom the burden must fail

Question of the burden of proof becomes material only where the Court finds the evidence so evenly balanced that it can come to no definite conclusion

Where the whole of the evidence is before the Court and it has no difficulty in arriving at a conclusion , it becomes unnecessary to enter upon a discussion of the question of placing of burden on the parties.

Phrase 'burden of proof' has two meanings - one the burden of proof as a matter of law and pleading, that is 'legal burden' and the other, the burden of establishing a case, that is 'evidential burden'

Former is fixed as a question of law on the basis of the pleadings and is unchanged during the entire trial, whereas the latter is not constant but shifts as soon as a party adduces sufficient evidence to raise a presumption in his favour

Thus, the legal burden would always remain on the plaintiffs and the evidential burden would shift to the defendants if they (plaintiffs) discharged their initial burden

Evidence required to shift the evidential burden need not necessarily be direct evidence i.e. oral or documentary evidence or admissions made by the opposite party,it may comprise of circumstantial evidence or presumptions of law or fact.

If two sensible and judicious conclusions can be drawn keeping in mind the substance of the evidence, then the view which espouses and provides backing towards acquittal must be subscribed and assented to.

Circumstantial evidence is sufficient when it enables the Court to make reasonable inferences about the ultimate facts in issue; it must be more than mere conjecture, speculation, or guess.

Circumstantial evidence is sufficient when it enables the Court to make reasonable inferences about the ultimate facts in issue; it must be more than mere conjecture, speculation, or guess.

Civil cases are to be decided on the basis of preponderance of evidence.

If testimony of an eye-witness is found reliable and trustworthy then there is hardly any need to look for any corroboration.

Minor contradictions in statements of parties or any other weakness thereof cannot be made basis to deprive them from their lawful rights accrued in their favour.

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

Corroboration is only a rule of caution and not a rule of law.

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 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.

Even otherwise, there cannot be a universal principle that in every case interested witness shall be disbelieved or a disinterested witness shall be believed

It all depends upon the rule of prudence and reasonableness to hold that a particular witness was present at the scene of a crime and that he is making a true statement

Person who is reported to be very honest, above board, and highly respectable in society, but gives a statement that is illogical and unbelievable by any prudent man, would not be believed despite his nobility.

Contradiction in the statement of a witness may be fatal for the prosecution case but minor discrepancy in evidence will not make the prosecution case doubtful

Where discrepancies are of minor character and do not go to the root of the prosecution story and do not shake the salient features of the prosecution version, they need not be given much importance.

If two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one indicating the guilt of accused and other to his innocence, the view favourable to the accused is to be adopted.

One tainted piece of evidence cannot corroborate another tainted piece of evidence.

Evidence in a case of capital charge must come from unimpeachable source or be supported by strong circumstances that may remove inherent doubt attached to evidence of interested or partisan witness.

When a witness is found to be telling lies on an important point having material bearing on culpability of the accused, his evidence could not be attached any credence.

Civil cases are to be decided on the basis of preponderance of evidence.

If two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view favourable to the accused is to be adopted.

Such document cannot be even read in evidence.

Objection to admissibility of a document in evidence has to be decided then and there instead of deferring the same till the end of trial and even at the time of passing final judgment.

Last seen evidence is always considered to be weak type of evidence, unless corroborated by some other independent evidence.

Evidence includes all statements which the Court permits or requires to be made before it by witnesses in relation to matters of fact under inquiry and all documents produced for the inspection of court.

Though by judicial reasoning relevant evidence is usually admissible but there are certain restrictions on admissibility depending upon exclusionary rules of evidence

Such artificial restrictions on the process of judicial reasoning known as rules of evidence are not uniform in the policy they seek to implement

Rules of evidence are all attributable to policy considerations and have nothing to do with their value or links in rational chain of reasoning which restrict, rather than promote access to potentially useful information

Unlike relevance, admissibility has nothing to do with probative or logical relationship between evidence tendered and effect to be proved

Admissibility involves exclusively a determination of whether law of evidence permits relevant evidence of a particular kind to be received by the court

Some evidence, such as hearsay, is excluded, even though relevant, because of danger of unreliability inherent in repeated statements and because it cannot be cross-examined effectively

Confession of accused though relevant yet if recorded while in police custody is not admissible because of the reason it can be procured due to threat, duress or coercion thus regarded as unreliable

Some evidence such as evidence of previous bad character of accused in a criminal case is excluded, even though relevant, because of considerations of fairness to the accused and danger of prejudice flowing from judge's becoming aware of his records.

Any given item of judicial evidence may attract more than one of the labels by which varieties of evidence have been classified

Principal labels are (i) Testimony, (ii) Hearsay evidence, (iii) Documentary evidence, (iv) Real evidence and (v) Circumstantial evidence

Testimony means direct evidence; hearsay, an indirect evidence; documentary evidence means presentation of facts through documents; real evidence includes material things (like case property)

In addition to material objects, real evidence also includes documents, physical appearance of persons and animals, demeanour of witnesses, intonation of voices on a tape recording, views, inspections out of courts of locus in quo or of some object which it is impossible or highly inconvenient to bring to court, and, possibly, out-of-court demonstrations or re-enactments of acts or events into which Court is inquiring

Circumstantial evidence means evidence of relevant facts like motive, plans and preparatory acts, capacity, opportunity, identity, continuance, failure to give evidence, failure to provide evidence and standards of comparison.

Document which has not been produced and proved in evidence but only marked cannot be taken into account as a legal evidence of fact by the Courts.

Witness who improves his statement on material aspects of the case is untrustworthy.

Oral evidence will take preference over medical evidence.

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.

No doubt police witnesses are as good as other independent witnesses and conviction can be recorded on their evidence, but their testimony should be reliable, dependable, trustworthy and confidence worthy

If such qualities are missing in their evidence, no conviction can be passed on the basis of evidence of police witnesses.

Accused moved an application before the Trial Court raising an objection over admission and admissibility of 100 out of 133 documents which the Investigating Officer sought to produce in his evidence on the ground that they being Photostat copies were inadmissible

Charge against the accused was of recovery of Photostat copies from him at the time of his arrest

Prosecution could not stress to produce the original ones or furnish an explanation about missing, etc. thereof

Evidentiary value of the same and reliability as incriminating evidence was not required to be discussed or decided at the time of their production in the evidence

Constitutional petition was dismissed.

Whenever an objection is raised by the defense over admissibility of some evidence sought to be produced in the trial, the Court is bound to decide it first before proceeding further and that it shall abstain from deferring the same for a decision to be made at the time of judgment.

If a document that otherwise cannot be admitted in evidence is sought to be admitted in the evidence, and the defense is raising objection over it; it would be duty of the Court to decide it first before taking on further proceedings

If the objection being raised is to hit merit of the document or manner of its recovery having an impact of prejudicing outcome of the case prematurely against or in favour of either party, the court is not required to decide the same then and there while recording the evidence

Said two situations are dissimilar to each other in the context and implication in law

One entails an immediate attention of the Court so that inadmissible evidence is held back at the very inception with a view to avoid misperception and unnecessary burden, whereas the other one necessitates a detailed analysis combined with entire evidence adduced or to be adduced by the prosecution for rendering a definitive opinion about its qualification.

It should only be in exceptional circumstances, when it is entirely impossible to distinguish the grain from the chaff and when both are inextricably intertwined, that the entire evidence of such a witness can be relied upon or, for that matter, be discarded.

This assessment is crucial to ascertain the reliability of the witness's testimony.

Plaintiff has to prove his own case hence mere absence of the defendant's evidence shall not absolve the plaintiff from his duty to prove his case.

If there might be some minor contradictions which always found in each and every case as no one could give evidence like photograph such contradiction be ignored. [Para. 28 of the judgment]

Corroboration was only a rule of caution and not a rule of law.

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

Admissibility of document cannot be disputed or questioned on the ground that they are fabricated; it is for the Trial Court to determine at the time of decision whether they are reliable and genuine documents.

Degree of proof required in the civil and criminal cases is different viz. in the former, mere preponderance of probability is sufficient and benefit of reasonable doubt need not necessarily go to the defendant but in the latter the persuasion of guilt must amount to such a moral certainty as convinces the minds of the tribunal, as reasonable men beyond all reasonable doubt.