Legal Reference Library

The fact that the witness may be related to the deceased by marriage, cannot be sufficient reason to classify him as a related and interested witness to reject his testimony, the Supreme Court has observed while dismissing the appeals in a murder case (Chandrasekar vs State). The wife of the deceased and her relatives were prime witnesses in this case and they had deposed seeing the murderous assault on the deceased by the accused. The trial court had convicted the accused and sentenced them to life imprisonment and the high court had upheld the verdict. “It may only call for greater scrutiny and caution in consideration of the evidence,” the court observed, while rejecting the contention that these witnesses were interested witnessed and their testimony be rejected. With regard to deposition by the wife, the bench observed: “Being the wife of the deceased, we find no reason why she would not be speaking the truth with regard to the real assailants instead of shielding them by fa...

In Sirangai Shoba @ Shoba Munnuri rep.by her General Power of Attorney, M.Narayana   Rao  Vs Sirangi Muralidhar Rao, rep. by his Power of Attorney Smt. Sirangi Vijayalakshmi. the Hon'ble Andhra HC uphold a trial court order allowing witness examination on Skype for recording evidence in a divorce petition, the High Court of Hyderabad has held that examination of witnesses and recording of evidence by commissioner contemplated by Order XVIII Rule 4 C.P.C from the words ‘witness in attendance’ are to be understood as person being present and it need not be physical presence. The court held that recording of evidence through audio, video link or through internet by Skype or similar technological device is permissible and complying with the words ‘in attendance’. Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/andhra-hc-approves-witness-examination-skype/

In State of Kerala v. Babu, (1999) 4 SCC 621 the Apex Court was confronted with the question as to whether the statement of a witness recorded under S.161 of Cr.P.C. in one particular crime could be used against that witness in any other trial enquiry or proceedings by the accused. Statement recorded by an investigating officer in any case which was under investigation being a statement made under S. 161 of the Code, the same can be used for the limited purpose provided under S.162 of the Code read with S.145 of the Evidence Act. There can be no quarrel with this approach in regard to the use of the previous statements of a witness made in the course of another investigation being used in the course of another criminal trial. This is because the very object of enactment of S.161 of the Code and S.145 of the Evidence Act is to create a right in the accused to make use of the previous statements of the witnesses for the purpose of contradiction and for impeaching the merit of the w...

Unlawful Assembly; Bhagwan Jagannath Markad Vs. State of Maharashtra [Supreme Court of India, 04-10-2016] Sections 147, 149, 302 read with Sections 149, 324 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code Padam Singh v. State of U.P., (2000) 1 SCC 621 Devatha Venkataswamy v. Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., (2003) 10 SCC 700 Narendra Singh v. State of M.P., (2004) 10 SCC 699 Prasanna Das v. State of Orissa, (2004) 13 SCC 30 Majjal v. State of Haryana, (2013) 6 SCC 798 Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P., (2014) 2 SCC 1 Baby alias Sebastian versus Central Inspector of Police, (2016) 7 Scale 444 Damodar v. State of Rajasthan, (2004) 12 SCC 336 Mano Dutt & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2012) 4 SCC 79 Sanjeev v. State of Haryana, (2015) 4 SCC 387 A. Shankar v. State of Karnataka, (2011) 6 SSC 279 State of Karnataka v. Suvarnamma & Anr., (2015) 1 SCC 323 Bava Hajee Hamsa v. State of Kerala, (1974) 4 SCC 479 Patai Alias Krishna Kumar v. State U.P., (2010) 4 SCC 429 Ravishwar M...

Delhi High Court has recently held that if cross examination of a witness is concluded by a counsel upto best of his capability, subsequent change of counsel by a party would not confer any right on him/her to recall the witness for further cross examination or to fill up the lacuna, if any, left. The Bench comprising Justices Pratibha Rani and Pradeep Nandrajog also held that the witnesses cannot be harassed by a party by making them to reappear for cross examination just because the new counsel wants to further cross examine them. Recalling of a witness after the trial has concluded has the direct effect on expeditious conclusion of the trial. The Bench was hearing an Appeal against a Family Court order whereby the Judge has dismissed the three applications filed by wife in a Divorce proceedings. The evidence by both the parties stands closed and the matter is listed for final arguments. At that stage the appellant/wife filed three applications for re-calling some witnesses and givin...

Delhi High Court has held that when a deaf and dumb witness is under cross-examination, the Court is required to take due care of the fact that vocabulary of such a person is limited as he or she speaks through sign language and it may not be possible for that witness to answer, or in detail explain every answer by sign language and this disability of a limited vocabulary of sign language does not affect either the competence or the credibility of such witness. Justice Mukta Gupta has made the above observation while disposing an Appeal filed by Accused convicted for the offence defined under Section 9(k), punishable under Section 10 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2002, for sexually assaulting a 12 yr old deaf and dumb girl. The twin arguments raised by Counsel for the appellant are that since the prosecutrix could not be cross-examined her testimony cannot be read in evidence and even if the offence is proved against the appellant, the same would fall under Se...

Allahabad High Court, coming down heavily on Police officers for illegally confining a lady for fifteen days, in the garb of investigation against her husband in the complaint filed by her parents accusing him of kidnapping her, has observed that practice of taking witness in custody for recording her statement under Section 164 CrPC is not contemplated under the Code of Criminal Procedure or any other law. Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/confinement-witnesses-purpose-investigation-crime-illegal-allahabad-hc/

Delhi High Court while reversing the acquittal of an Accused for an Offence U/S 354 of Indian Penal Code has held that there is no legal impediment in convicting a person on the sole testimony of a single witness. “That is the logic of Section 134 of the Evidence Act, 1872. But if there are doubts about the testimony, the courts will insist on corroboration. In fact, it is not the number, the quantity, but the quality that is material. The time-honoured principle is that evidence has to be weighed and not counted. The test is whether the evidence has a ring of truth, is cogent, credible and trustworthy or otherwise”.  Justice Sunita Gupta was hearing an appeal filed by the State against acquittal of Accused Pratap Singh @Krishna by  Metropolitan Magistrate (Mahila Court), South-East District, Saket Courts. Facts The complainant “X‟ had gone to gym where accused was an instructor. After 10.30 am, when all the girls from the gym had left, the respondent /accused came to her and ...

It is the public duty of witnesses in a criminal case to give evidence whenever they receive summons from a court of law and therefore they cannot be heard to say that they shall not depose until all the accused in a case are arrested, the Madras High Court Bench here has said. Justice P.N. Prakash made the observation while closing a petition filed by a witness in a case booked by Tirupacheti police in Sivaganga district, challenging an order passed by a Sessions Court on October 4 splitting up the case into two since the police could not arrested the prime accused in the case. Not finding force in the petitioner’s plea, the judge said that the Sessions Court had split the case only because the police were unable to execute a non-bailable arrest warrant issued against the prime accused who had been hospitalised as he was suffering from a serious ailment. Report “A team of doctors too had examined A1 (the prime accused) and they have also given a report on September 15, 2015 in...

After an award is passed in an arbitration, there cannot be any examination or cross-examination of witnesses in court on an allegation of legal misconduct by the arbitrator. The court can only examine the records of the arbitration proceedings, the Supreme Court has stated in its judgment, Cochin Shipyard Ltd vs Apeejay Shipping Ltd. "Examination of any witness in court is impermissible to substantiate legal misconduct on the part of the arbitrator. It is because it must be palpable from the proceedings," the court said. In this case, the government undertaking agreed to build a ship for Apeejay. Disputes arose between them which were referred to arbitration by a retired Supreme Court judge. The shipyard moved the civil judge to execute the award of 2009. Apeejay then wanted to examine the arbitrator and the general manager (GM) on its allegation that the arbitrator was guilty of legal misconduct (not moral misconduct, which is different in law). The judge rejected it. The K...

[2015(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 100 = 2015(2) HLR 172] PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT (SNEH PRASHAR, J.) SURINDER SINGH (SINCE DECEASED AND NOW REPRESENTED BY HIS LEGAL HEIRS) Appellant  VERSUS PIARA SINGH Respondent  R.S.A. No. 1498 of 1986 Decided on 16-11-2014. (A) Evidence Act, 1872, Section 69 - Will - Proof of Will – When attesting witnesses not found – Held that, it becomes incumbent upon the propounder of the Will to prove two facts (i) that the attestation of one attesting witness atleast was in his handwriting; and (ii) that the signatures of the executant is in his handwriting.  (Para 13)  (B) Evidence Act, 1872, Section 68 – Succession Act, 1925, Section 63(c) - Will – Proof of Execution - Suspicious Circumstances - A Will is not a document which can be admitted in evidence without complying with the provisions specifically stipulated for proving the same - Factum of existence of the Will brought to light by the plaintiffs only when the...