Evidence of child witness is not reliable who is under the influence of tutoring; Changan Dame v. In Mudhol, he met Kallanagouda Timmanagouda Patil of Utturu P. Relevant case law 1 A. It was held that the conduct of accused in pointing shop and its properties was relevant under this section. But non-confessional part of the F. The previous conviction is relevant as a fact in issue.
Evidence not adduced in support of allegation inference drawn that will is valid; S. State, 1972 2 Crimes 175. Saving of provisions of India Succession Act relating to Wills. Example — Illustrations f , g , h. All the comments will be moderated by the newindianexpress. In disproved the existence of such fact is not proved but its non-existence is proved. In this case the wife was pregnant at the time of her marriage and the husband alleged that she had concealed it from him.
Judges and Magistrates — No Judge or Magistrate shall, except upon the special order of some Court of which he is subordinate, be compelled to answer any questions as to his own conduct in Court as such Judge or Magistrate, or as to any thing which came to his knowledge in Court as such Judge or Magistrate but he may be examined as to other matters which occurred in his presence whilst he was so acting. Presumption as to abatement of suicide by a married women — 1113A. Relevancy and effect of judgment, order or decrees, other than those mentioned in Section 41. It is conscious attitude adjusted for doing an Act or series of Acts. Chapter X — Of the examination of witnesses 135.
Witness to character — Witnesses to character may be cross-examined and re-examined. Where there is a direct evidence,the evidence of motive is not of much significance. There was no earthly reason for this witness to come to the court and depose falsely about the extra judicial confession made by the appellant. When dying declaration doesnot require further corroboration Once, the court has come to the conclusion that the dying declaration was the truthful version as to the circumstances of the death and the assailants of the victim, there is no question of further corroboration; Khushal Rao v. . Production of document — A witness summoned to produce a document shall, if it is in his possession or power, bring it to the Court, notwithstanding any objection which there may be to its production or to its admissibility. However, faced with the testimony of a single witness, the court may classify the oral testimony of a single witness, the court may classify the oral testimony into three categories, namely i wholly reliable, ii wholly unreliable, and iii neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable.
Comments What court may take judicial notice Court may take judicial notice of widespread malaise of illegal immigration and exploitation of young-ones by unauthorised recruiting agents; M. He had also stated, that, there were bloodstains on the clothes of the appellant as well. By the Repealing Act,1938 1 of 1938 , S. It is true that by itself the evidence of a chance witness may not necessarily be false but as has often been said that it is unsafe to be relied upon; Ganpat Kondiba Chavan v. State Delhi Administration , 1997 2 Crimes 169 Del. Everyone all around the country can take their dispute to the court and they are liable to solve them.
In the Act as published in Gazette of India, 1872, Pt. The mortgagor is in possession. There was a dire necessary for the codification of the rules of law evidence. Copyright © All Right Reserved Content on this website is purely academic in nature. Previous judgments relevant to bar a second suit or trail — The existence of any judgment, order or decree which by law prevents any court from taking cognizance of a suit or holding a trial, is a relevant fact when the question is, whether such Court ought to take cognizance of such suit or to hold such trail. The statement of a deceased clergyman that he married them under such circumstances that the celebration would be a crime, is relevant. He makes an entry showing that on a particular occasion he received less than he really did receive.
According to this witness, on February 23, 1998, he had been to Kasipur Court in connection with some work. Under section 8 previous declaration of intention, threat or attempts to commit an offence are instances of previous or antecedent Conduct and are relevant. This was followed by a Mediatornama, Ex. It is not essential to prove motive when any heinous crime is committed. When a public officer is required by law to be appointed in writing, and when it is shown that any particular person had acted as such officer, the writing by which he is appointed need not be proved. The courts enjoyed unfettered liberty in the matter of admission of evidence.
Opinion on relationship, when relevant — When the Court has to form an opinion as to the relationship of one person to another, the opinion, expressed by conduct, as to the existence of such relationship, or any person who, as a member of the family or otherwise, has special means of knowledge on the subject, is a relevant fact: Provided that such opinion shall not be sufficient to prove a marriage in proceedings under the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 4 of 1869 or in prosecutions under section 494, 495, 497 or 498 of the Indian Penal Code 45 of 1860. Direct evidence is that which goes expressly to the very point in question and which, if believed, proves the point in question without aid from inference or reasoning, e. When the conduct of a person is in question, the statements, oral or written, made to him or in his presence or hearing which affect such conduct are relevant. For example- a confession made by the accused before the magistrate in the court is an Judicial Evidence. Prosecution witnesses stated that Panchayati was held in the village where the accused appellant and his brother did not attend, rather, they had given threat to kill the deceased. These are mentioned below- 1 Oral Evidence 2 Documentary Evidence 3 Primary Evidence 4 Secondary Evidence 5 Real Evidence 6 Hearsay Evidence 7 Judicial Evidence 8 Non- Judicial Evidence 9 Direct Evidence 10 Indirect Evidence or Circumstantial Evidence These are elaborated below- 1 Oral Evidence— Section 60 of the Indian Evidence Act explains Oral Evidence. She belongs to a tribal community.
The assertion made by the witness that the appellant and Mumtaz were known to him could not be disputed by the defence at all. B, cannot be asked what A said, except upon the special order of the superior Court. It is proposed to prove that he denied the possession of the property. The evidence of this witness shows that he was one of the panchas when inquest on the dead body of the deceased was held. Confession by inducement, threat or promise when irrelevant in criminal proceeding — A confession made by an accused person is irrelevant in a criminal proceeding, if the making of the confession appears to the Court to have been caused by any inducement, threat or promise, 1having reference to the charge against the accused person, proceeding from a person in authority and sufficient, in the opinion of the Court, to give the accused person grounds, which would appear to him reasonable, for supposing that by making it he would gain any advantage or avoid any evil of a temporal nature in reference to the proceeding against him. Estoppel — When one person has by his declaration, act or omission, intentionally caused or permitted another person to believe a thing to be true and to act upon such belief, neither he nor his representative shall be allowed, in any suit or proceeding between himself and such person or his representative, to deny the truth of that thing.
If, however, the evidence of eye witnesses is credit-worthy and is believed by the court which has placed implicit reliance on them, the question whether there is any motive or not becomes wholly irrelevant; Raja v. The post mortem was carried out by Dr. Therefore, when one person makes a misrepresentation to the other about a fact he would not be shut out by the rule of estoppel if that other person knew the true state of facts and must consequently not have been misled by the misrepresentation; Maddanappa v. Where there are more than one dying declarations and they are inconsistent there it is not possible to pick out one such declaration wherein accused is implicated and base the conviction on the sole basis of that dying declaration; Kamla v. Provided the Court be satisfied that there is sufficient reason for the non-production of the original.