Category: Evidence Act

Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 133 and Illustration (b) to Section 114 — Accomplice Testimony — Testimony of an approver/accomplice is not illegal merely because it is uncorroborated, but as a rule of prudence, it is unsafe to convict solely on the basis of uncorroborated testimony — Corroboration must be in material particulars and should come from independent sources.

  2026 INSC 598 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH GOPI CHAND @ PAPPU Vs. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) ( Before : Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Manoj Misra, JJ. )…

Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 112 — Presumption of legitimacy — DNA test can be directed to determine paternity only when there is sufficient prima facie material to dislodge the presumption under Section 112.– Section 114(h) — Adverse inference — Not applicable at the stage where the Court is considering the need for a DNA test.

2026 INSC 600 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH CHATURBHUJ PRADHAN Vs. AMAR PRADHAN AND ANOTHER ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No…..of…

Evidence Act, 1872 — Eyewitness testimony vs. Medical evidence — In case of conflict, eyewitness testimony, especially of an injured witness who is found to be reliable and has withstood cross — examination, is generally superior to expert medical opinion formed by an expert witness — Lack of independent witnesses does not automatically compromise the prosecution case, especially when societal realities suggest potential fear or hesitation

2026 INSC 403 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ADALAT YADAV ETC. Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…

Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 112 — Presumption of legitimacy — Birth during marriage being conclusive proof of legitimacy — While Section 112 raises a conclusive presumption, it is rebuttable — Modern scientific advancements like DNA testing, where conclusive and undisputed, can override this presumption, especially when the child’s legitimacy is not the sole issue and the test is conducted with consent.

2026 INSC 399 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NIKHAT PARVEEN @ KHUSBOO KHATOON Vs. RAFIQUE@SHILLU ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No…

Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 8 — Conduct of accused leading to discovery of facts — Even if statements leading to discovery are not admissible under Section 27 due to lack of custody, they can be admitted under Section 8 as conduct, serving as a link in the chain of evidence, but cannot alone result in conviction.

2026 INSC 162 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ROHIT JANGDE Vs. THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH ( Before : Sanjay Kumar and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No.689…

Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 118 — Competency of child witness — Effect of delay and tutoring — Although a minor child is competent to testify, the reliability and evidentiary value of testimony given many years after the event, especially when the child has been residing with the complainant’s family (maternal grandparents), is significantly affected by the high possibility of memory distortion and tutoring. (Paras 5, 7, 10.2)

2025 INSC 1475 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MAYANKKUMAR NATWARLAL KANKANA PATEL AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER ( Before : Vikram Nath and Augustine George Masih,…

Criminal Law — Conviction — Circumstantial Evidence — Last Seen Together Theory — Must establish acquaintance between accused and deceased for theory to apply as a circumstance linking chain; mere fact of accused and deceased being in the same vicinity shortly before the crime, without proven acquaintance, is insufficient to propound the ‘last seen together theory’ as a conclusive link, though presence in same vicinity remains a relevant initial fact. (Para 6)

2025 INSC 1449 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SHAIK SHABUDDIN Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA ( Before : Ahsanuddin Amanullah and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No….of 2025…

Evidence — Video Conference Deposition — Procedure for Confronting Witness — The Supreme Court clarified and directed that in cases where a witness’s statement is recorded via video conferencing and a previous written statement is to be used for confrontation, a copy of the statement must be transmitted electronically to the witness, and the procedure under Sections 147 and 148 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (or corresponding sections of the Evidence Act) must be followed to ensure fairness and integrity of the trial. Such directions are issued to avoid procedural irregularities and uphold the principles of fair trial, effective cross-examination, and proper appreciation of evidence.

2025 INSC 1322 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAJ KUMAR @ BHEEMA Vs. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI ( Before : Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, JJ. ) Criminal…

Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 50 — Opinion as to relationship, when relevant — Opinion expressed by conduct of person with special knowledge on relationship is relevant — Essentials are court’s opinion, expression through conduct, and person having special knowledge — Conduct alone is not proof but an intermediate step to infer opinion — Opinion must be proved by direct evidence — Court needs to weigh evidence to form its own conclusion; Trial Court erred in treating opinion of witnesses as fact rather than evidence to be weighed and failed to independently assess credibility.

2025 INSC 1187 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DHARMRAO SHARANAPPA SHABADI AND OTHERS Vs. SYEDA ARIFA PARVEEN ( Before : Ahsanuddin Amanullah and S.V.N. Bhatti, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

Family Law — Partition Suit — Evidence — Testimony of a credible witness with special means of knowledge, coupled with presumption of marriage from prolonged cohabitation and absence of rebuttal by the opposing party, is sufficient to establish a valid marital relationship and grant a decree for partition.- Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 50 — Opinion on relationship, when relevant — Testimony of a witness with special means of knowledge of the relationship, including opinion expressed by conduct, is relevant — Witness resided in the same village, had long-standing familiarity, and spoke from personal observation, thus satisfying the requirement of special means of knowledge.

2025 INSC 1038 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH CHOWDAMMA (D) BY LR AND ANOTHER Vs. VENKATAPPA (D) BY LRS AND ANOTHER ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar…

You missed