Evidence Act Archives - Page 11 of 11 - Supreme Court of India Judgements

September 17, 2025 12:29 am

Evidence Act, 1872– lnterested Witness– close relative cannot be characterised as an “interested” witness-He is a “natural” witness-His evidence, however, must be scrutinised carefully

Apr 8, 2017 sclaw

2017(1) Law Herald (SC) 56 : 2017 LawHerald.Org 503 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.K. Sikri The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre…

Evidence Act

Secondary Evidence—Photocopy of photocopy cannot be considered as secondary evidence.

Apr 8, 2017 sclaw

2017(1) Law Herald (SC) 52 : 2017 LawHerald.Org 510 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Madan B. Lokur The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar…

Evidence Act

Burden of Proof—Money transaction—In the absence of any explanation an adverse inference is attracted.

Apr 7, 2017 sclaw

2007(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 818 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Markandey Katju Criminal Appeal No. 212 of…

Evidence Act

Evidence—Murder–Variation between medical evidence and ocular evidence—Oral evidence has to get primacy and medical evidence is basically opinionative. Evidence—Murder–Variation between ocular evidence and medical evidence—To discard the testimony of an eyewitness simply on the strength of such opinion expressed by the medical witness is not conducive to the administration of criminal justice.

Apr 7, 2017 sclaw

2007(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 710 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Arijit Pasayat The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.H. Kapadia Criminal Appeal No. 215…

Evidence Act

Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 114 — Adverse inference — Account books were maintained in respect of construction and repairs to the building by the appellant but no such accounts were produced.

Apr 7, 2017 sclaw

AIR 1977 SC 638 : (1977) 1 SCC 592 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH RAMDAS OIL MILLS — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA (MILITARY DEPTT.) — Respondent (…

Evidence Act I P C

Test Identification Parade–Prosecutrix identified him before lodging the FIR–To hold a test identification parade would be futile. Juvenile Justice–The 2000 Act would be applicable to the person who had not completed 18 years of as an 01.04.2001.

Apr 6, 2017 sclaw

2007(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 278 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Markandey Katju Criminal Appeal No. 173 of 2006…

You missed

Cr P C

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 223(d) — Persons accused of different offences committed in the course of the same transaction may be charged and tried together — Legislative intent is to prevent multiplicity of proceedings, avoid conflicting judgments, and promote judicial economy while ensuring fairness — Segregation without legally recognized grounds like distinct facts, severable evidence, or demonstrated prejudice, is impermissible.

Sep 16, 2025 sclaw

Anticipatory Bail

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 420, 463, 465, 467, 468, 471, 474 read with Section 34 — Offences relating to cheating and forgery — Anticipatory bail — Rejection challenged — Appellants, public servants at the time, accused of certifying mutation entries based on forged documents — High Court rejected anticipatory bail — Supreme Court affirmed the High Court’s decision

Sep 16, 2025 sclaw

Constitution

Waqf Act, 1995 (as amended) — Challenge to constitutional validity of amendments — Petitioners contended that amendments are ultra vires the Constitution, violating fundamental rights including Articles 14, 15, 19, 21, 25, 26, 29, 30 and 300A. Respondents argued for legislative competence and presumption of validity of enactments. Court emphasized that statutes should only be declared unconstitutional if there is a clear, glaring, and undeniable violation of constitutional principles or fundamental rights, or if manifestly arbitrary, and that courts must strive to uphold legislative validity.

Sep 16, 2025 sclaw

Consumer

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 25 — Enforcement of orders — Pre-2002 amendment and post-2019 Act, all orders could be enforced as decrees. The period between 15.03.2003 to 20.07.2020 saw an anomaly where only interim orders (and monetary recovery) were clearly enforceable under Section 25, leaving final non-monetary orders in a gap. Interpretation of Statutes — Casus omissus — Court can fill gaps in legislation using interpretative tools like purposive construction when literal interpretation leads to absurdity or defeats the object of the Act, especially for remedial legislation like the Consumer Act.

Sep 2, 2025 sclaw

Category: Evidence Act

You missed