Thursday, March 31, 2016

Section 31 Indian Evidence Act

IEA 31 : Section 31 of the Indian Evidence Act:

Admissions not conclusive proof, but may estop.—Admissions are not conclusive proof of the matters admitted, but they may operate as estoppels under the provisions hereinafter contained.

India's Important Case Laws and Landmark Judgments on IEA - Section 31 Indian Evidence Act 1872:
Jeevanlal K. Jain vs The Administrator, Gold Control on 12 January, 1984 Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai  
Acharu vs Rappai And Ors. on 31 August, 1978 Kerala High Court 
Prahladbhai Khemchanddas Patel vs Election Officer Of Visnagar on 20 September, 2002 Gujarat High Court  
Glenny, C.J. vs The Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. on 27 March, 2003 Kerala High Court 
Santoshanand Avdoot @ Ghanshyam vs State on 14 August, 2014 Delhi High Court 
State Of Maharashtra vs Kamal Ahmed Mohd. Vakil Ansari on 14 March, 2013 Supreme Court of India  
Marri Narasayya And Ors. vs Peruri Krishnamurthi on 6 August, 1928 Madras High Court  
Hameed And Ors. vs Kanhaiya on 27 July, 2004 Allahabad High Court 

Wednesday, March 30, 2016

Section 30 Indian Evidence Act

IEA 30 : Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act:

Consideration of proved confession affecting person making it and others jointly under trial for same offence.—When more persons than one are being tried jointly for the same offence, and a confession made by one of such persons affecting himself and some other of such persons is proved, the Court may take into consideration such confession as against such other person as well as against the person who makes such confession. 1[Explanation.—“Offence”, as used in this section, includes the abetment of, or attempt to commit the offence.] Illustrations
(a) A and B are jointly tried for the murder of C. It is proved that A said—"B and I murdered C”. The Court may consider the effect of this confession as against B.
(b) A is on his trial for the murder of C. There is evidence to show that C was murdered by A and B, and that B said—“A and I murdered C”. This statement may not be taken into consideration by the Court against A, as B is not being jointly tried. COMMENTS Accused's confession cannot be used against co-accused The statement of the accused leading to the discovery, or the informatory statement amounting to confession of the accused, cannot be used against the co-accused with the aid of section 303; Kamal Kishore v. State (Delhi Administration), (1972) 2 Crimes 169 (Del).

India's Important Case Laws and Landmark Judgments on IEA - Section 30 Indian Evidence Act 1872:
Mothilal And Anr. vs State By Circle Inspector on 22 June, 2001 Karnataka High Court 
Emperor vs William Cooper on 13 March, 1930 Bombay High Court 
The State Of Bihar vs Pankaj Kumar Singh & Anr. on 16 May, 2014 Patna High Court 
Birendra Kumar Yadav vs State Of Bihar on 16 May, 2014 Patna High Court 
Pankaj Kumar Singh vs The State Of Bihar on 16 May, 2014 Patna High Court 
State Of Tamil Nadu Through vs Nalini And 25 Others on 11 May, 1999 Supreme Court of India 
Ananta Dixit vs State on 8 March, 1984 Orissa High Court  
Daniraiji Vrajlalji vs Vahuji Maharaj Chandraprabha on 16 April, 1970 Gujarat High Court  
Nabi Mohamad Chand Husain And Ors. vs State Of Maharashtra on 17 July, 1979 Bombay High Court  
Emperor vs Gangapa Kardepa on 18 September, 1913 Bombay High Court 

Section 149 Indian Evidence Act

IEA 149 : Section 149 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872:

Question not to be asked without reasonable grounds.—No such question as is referred to in section 148 ought to be asked, unless the person asking it has reasonable grounds for thinking that the imputation which it conveys is well-founded. Illustrations
(a) A barrister is instructed by an attorney or vakil that an important witness is a dakait. This is a reasonable ground for asking the witness whether he is a dakait.
(b) A pleader is informed by a person in Court that an important witness is a dakait. The informant, on being questioned by the pleader, gives satisfactory reasons for his statement. This is a reasonable ground for asking the witness whether he is a dakait.
(c) A witness, of whom nothing whatever is known, is asked at random whether he is a dakait. There are here no reasonable grounds for the question.
(d) A witness, of whom nothing whatever is known, being questioned as to his mode of life and means of living, gives unsatisfactory answers. This may be a reasonable ground for asking him if he is a dakait.

India's Important Case Laws and Landmark Judgments on IEA - Section 149 Indian Evidence Act 1872:
Sukhdeo S/O Sopan Mundhe And Ors. vs State Of Maharashtra on 28 April, 1988 - Bombay High Court 
Nagina Sharma And Ors. vs The State Of Bihar on 10 July, 1990 - Patna High Court 
Virendra Kumar Gun Sagar vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 3 May, 1997 - Madhya Pradesh High Court 
Virendra Kumar vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 3 May, 1997 - Madhya Pradesh High Court 
Ravikumar Shivgiri Goswami vs State Of on 9 December, 2013 - Gujarat High Court 
Tuesday vs Manikuttan @ Sajay on 14 August, 2012 - Kerala High Court 
Santosh Kumar And Ors. vs State on 8 July, 1996 - Allahabad High Court 

Section 148 Indian Evidence Act

IEA 148 : Section 148 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872:

Court to decide when question shall be asked and when witness compelled to answer.—If any such question relates to a matter not relevant to the suit or proceeding, except in so far as it affects the credit of the witness by injuring his character, the Court shall decide whether or not the witness shall be compelled to answer it, and may, if it thinks fit, warn the witness that he is not obliged to answer it. In exercising its discretion, the Court shall have regard to the following considerations:—
(1) Such questions are proper if they are of such a nature that the truth of the imputation conveyed by them would seriously affect the opinion of the Court as to the credibility of the witness on the matter to which he testifies;
(2) Such questions are improper if the imputation which they convey relates to matters so remote in time, or of such a character, that the truth of the imputation would not affect, or would affect in a slight degree, the opinion of the Court as to the credibility of the witness on the matter to which he testifies;
(3) Such questions are improper if there is a great disproportion between the importance of the imputation made against the witness’s character and the importance of his evidence;
(4) The Court may, if it sees fit, draw, from the witness’s refusal to answer, the inference that the answer if given would be unfavourable.

India's Important Case Laws and Landmark Judgments on IEA - Section 148 Indian Evidence Act 1872:
R.Dineshkumar @ Deena vs State Rep. By on 13 November, 2014 - Madras High Court 
The King-Emperor vs Nilakanta Alias Brahmachari on 15 February, 1912 - Madras High Court 
Sukhdeo S/O Sopan Mundhe And Ors. vs State Of Maharashtra on 28 April, 1988 - Bombay High Court 
Muthukumarsawmi Pillai And Ors. vs Emperor on 17 April, 1912 - Madras High Court 
Saidu Mohammed And Ors. Etc. vs State Of Kerala Etc. on 5 September, 2005 - Kerala High Court 
Virendra Kumar vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 3 May, 1997 - Madhya Pradesh High Court 
Muthukumaraswami Pillai vs King-Emperor on 17 April, 1912 - Madras High Court 
Virendra Kumar Gun Sagar vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 3 May, 1997 - Madhya Pradesh High Court 
R K Chandolia vs Cbi & Ors on 11 April, 2012 - Delhi High Court 
State Of West Bengal vs Nilkantha Mahato And Ors. on 10 October, 2002 - Calcutta High Court 

Section 147 Indian Evidence Act

IEA 147 : Section 147 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872:

When witness to be compelled to answer.—If any such question relates to a matter relevant to the suit or proceeding, the provisions of section 132 shall apply thereto.

India's Important Case Laws and Landmark Judgments on IEA - Section 147 Indian Evidence Act 1872:
Commissioner Of Income Tax-Vi vs Usha International Limited on 21 September, 2012 - Delhi High Court 
Sukhdeo S/O Sopan Mundhe And Ors. vs State Of Maharashtra on 28 April, 1988 - Bombay High Court 
Saidu Mohammed And Ors. Etc. vs State Of Kerala Etc. on 5 September, 2005 - Kerala High Court 
State Of Andhra Pradesh vs Cheemalapati Ganeswara Rao & Anr on 23 April, 1963 - Supreme Court of India 
R.Dineshkumar @ Deena vs State Rep. By on 13 November, 2014 - Madras High Court 
Mithu Pandey And Ors. vs State Of Bihar on 5 April, 1966 - Patna High Court 
Yusuf Sk. And Ors. vs The State on 12 January, 1954 - Calcutta High Court 
Emperor vs Ram Chandra Roy on 5 December, 1927 - Calcutta High Court  
Babu Bhika Jadhav vs State Of Maharashtra on 14 August, 1996 - Bombay High Court 

Section 146 Indian Evidence Act

IEA 146 : Section 146 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872:

Questions lawful in cross-examination.—When a witness is cross-examined, he may, in addition to the questions hereinbefore referred to, be asked any questions which tend—
(1) to test his veracity,
(2) to discover who he is and what is his position in life, or
(3) to shake his credit, by injuring his character, although the answer to such questions might tend directly or indirectly to criminate him or might expose or tend directly or indirectly to expose him to a penalty or forfeiture: 1[Provided that in a prosecution for rape or attempt to commit rape, it shall not be permissible to put questions in the cross-examination of the prosecutrix as to her general immoral character.]

India's Important Case Laws and Landmark Judgments on IEA - Section 146 Indian Evidence Act 1872:
Dr. Baburao Patel vs Bal Thackeray And Anr. on 4 March, 1977 - Bombay High Court 
R.Dineshkumar @ Deena vs State Rep. By on 13 November, 2014 - Madras High Court 
Prakash Rajaram And Ors. vs State Of Maharashtra on 19 February, 1974 - Bombay High Court 
Kailash Nath Agarwal vs Amar Nath Agarwal And Ors. on 5 January, 1968 - Allahabad High Court 
R K Chandolia vs Cbi & Ors on 11 April, 2012 - Delhi High Court 
Lior Avi Ben Moyal vs Narcotics Control Bureau on 28 November, 2008 - Punjab-Haryana High Court 
Shri N. Sri Rama Reddy Etc vs Shri V. V. Giri on 27 April, 1970 - Supreme Court of India 
Sa vs Aa on 22 March, 2016 - Delhi High Court 
Dilbhajan Singh vs State Of Punjab on 25 March, 2004 - Punjab-Haryana High Court 

Section 145 Indian Evidence Act

IEA 145 : Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872:

Cross-examination as to previous statements in writing.—A witness may be cross-examined as to previous statements made by him in writing or reduced into writing, and relevant to matters in question, without such writing being shown to him, or being proved; but, if it is intended to contradict him by the writing, his attention must, before the writing can be proved, be called to those parts of it which are to be used for the purpose of contradicting him.1145. Cross-examination as to previous statements in writing.—A witness may be cross-examined as to previous statements made by him in writing or reduced into writing, and relevant to matters in question, without such writing being shown to him, or being proved; but, if it is intended to contradict him by the writing, his attention must, before the writing can be proved, be called to those parts of it which are to be used for the purpose of contradicting him."

India's Important Case Laws and Landmark Judgments on IEA - Section 145 Indian Evidence Act 1872:
Ajodhya Prasad Bhargava vs Bhawani Shanker Bhargava And Anr. on 8 May, 1956 - Allahabad High Court 
Peacock Industries Ltd., Mr. Daud vs Budhrani Finance Ltd. And State on 14 July, 2006 - Bombay High Court 
Tahsildar Singh And Another vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh on 5 May, 1959 - Supreme Court of India 
Emperor vs Ajit Kumar Ghosh And Ors. on 19 May, 1944 - Calcutta High Court 
V.K. Rao vs Chandappa Appa Devadiga on 17 October, 1974 - Bombay High Court 
Ibrahimkhan Pirkhan Pathan vs State Of Maharashtra on 5 October, 2002 - Bombay High Court 
Zila Singh vs The State on 24 November, 1953 - Punjab-Haryana High Court 
Zila Singh vs The State on 24 November, 1953 - Punjab-Haryana High Court 
State Of Gujarat And Ors. vs Hiralal Devji And Ors. on 20 December, 1963 - Gujarat High Court 
Ramdas Srinivas Nayak vs Abdul Rehman Antulay And Anr. on 6 October, 1992 - Bombay High Court 

Section 144 Indian Evidence Act

IEA 144 : Section 144 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872:

Evidence as to matters in writing.—Any witness may be asked, whilst under examination, whether any contract, grant or other disposition of property, as to which he is giving evidence, was not contained in a document, and if he says that it was, or if he is about to make any statement as to the contents of any document, which, in the opinion of the Court, ought to be produced, the adverse party may object to such evidence being given until such document is produced, or until facts have been proved which entitle the party who called the witness to give secondary evidence of it. Explanation.—A witness may give oral evidence of statements made by other persons about the contents of documents if such statements are in themselves relevant facts. Illustration The question is, whether A assaulted B. C deposes that he heard A say to D—"B wrote a letter accusing me of theft, and I will be revenged on him”. This statement is relevant as showing A’s motive for the assault, and evidence may be given of it, though no other evidence is given about the letter.

India's Important Case Laws and Landmark Judgments on IEA - Section 144 Indian Evidence Act 1872:
S.S. Roy And Anr. vs The State And Anr. on 6 August, 1952 - Orissa High Court 
Atul Bora vs Akan Bora on 19 December, 2006 - Gauhati High Court 
Kothakota Papayya And Ors. vs State on 31 March, 1975 - Andhra High Court 
Peacock Industries Ltd., Mr. Daud vs Budhrani Finance Ltd. on 14 July, 2006 - Bombay High Court 
Nandkishore Sao And Ors. vs Bikan Singh And Anr. on 16 February, 1922 - Patna High Court 
Udayan vs State Of Kerala on 10 June, 2011 - Kerala High Court 
Muthukumarsawmi Pillai And Ors. vs Emperor on 17 April, 1912 - Madras High Court 
Kishan Gopal Parasar vs Allauddin on 29 August, 1996 - Rajasthan High Court 
Nanda Lal Roy And Ors. vs Pramatha Nath Roy And Ors. on 14 March, 1932 - Calcutta High Court 
Rabindranath Sahu vs Dayanidhi Sahu And Ors. on 17 May, 1991 - Orissa High Court 

Section 143 Indian Evidence Act

IEA 143 : Section 143 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872:

When they may be asked. — Leading questions may be asked in cross-examination.

India's Important Case Laws and Landmark Judgments on IEA - Section 143 Indian Evidence Act 1872:
Varkey Joseph vs State Of Kerala on 27 April, 1993 - Supreme Court of India
Chuharmal S/O Takarmal Mohnani vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 2 May, 1988 - Supreme Court of India
Kartar Singh vs State Of Punjab on 11 March, 1994 - Supreme Court of India
Union Of India vs Bali Ramu Pawar & Ors on 15 October, 2008 - Supreme Court of India 

Section 142 Indian Evidence Act

IEA 142 : Section 142 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872:

When they must not be asked.—Leading questions must not, if objected to by the adverse party, be asked in an examination-in-chief, or in a re-examination, except with the permission of the Court. The Court shall permit leading questions as to matters which are introductory or undisputed, or which have, in its opinion, been already sufficiently proved.

India's Important Case Laws and Landmark Judgments on IEA - Section 142 Indian Evidence Act 1872:
Varkey Joseph vs State Of Kerala on 27 April, 1993 - Supreme Court of India 
Sat Pal vs Delhi Administration on 29 September, 1975 - Supreme Court of India 
M. P. Sharma And Others vs Satish Chandra, District on 15 March, 1954 - Supreme Court of India 
Masalti vs State Of U.P. on 4 May, 1964 - Supreme Court of India 
Shamshul Kanwar vs State Of U.P on 4 May, 1995 - Supreme Court of India 
Swamy Shraddananda @ Murali vs State Of Karnataka on 18 May, 2007 - Supreme Court of India 
Masalti vs State Of U. P on 4 May, 1964 - Supreme Court of India 
Gura Singh vs The State Of Rajasthan on 6 December, 2000 - Supreme Court of India 
Dharnidhar vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 8 July, 2010 - Supreme Court of India 

Section 141 Indian Evidence Act

IEA 141 : Section 141 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872:

Leading questions.—Any question suggesting the answer which the person putting it wishes or expects to receive, is called a leading question.

India's Important Case Laws and Landmark Judgments on IEA - Section 141 Indian Evidence Act 1872:
Bishna @ Bhiswadeb Mahato & Ors vs State Of West Bengal on 28 October, 2005 - Supreme Court of India 
Dharnidhar vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 8 July, 2010 - Supreme Court of India  
Masalti vs State Of U. P on 4 May, 1964 - Supreme Court of India 
Varkey Joseph vs State Of Kerala on 27 April, 1993 - Supreme Court of India 
Gaudiya Mission vs Shobha Bose & Anr on 15 January, 2008 - Supreme Court of India 
Masalti vs State Of U.P. on 4 May, 1964 - Supreme Court of India 

Section 140 Indian Evidence Act

IEA 140 : Section 140 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872:

Witnesses to character.—Witnesses to character may be cross-examined and re-examined.

India's Important Case Laws and Landmark Judgments on IEA - Section 140 Indian Evidence Act 1872:
Mohansingh Laxmansingh vs Bhanwarlal Rajmal Nahata And Ors. on 14 February, 1963 - Madhya Pradesh High Court
Tejmal Punamchand Burad vs State Of Maharashtra And Others on 2 July, 1991 - Bombay High Court
State Of U.P vs Raghubir Singh on 13 December, 1996 - Supreme Court of India
Bhagwana Ram & Ors vs Deendayal & Ors on 13 February, 2013 - Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
In Re: Mandayapurath Eresa Kutty vs Unknown on 15 November, 1922 - Madras High Court
Md.Islam vs State Of Bihar on 2 April, 2012 - Patna High Court - Orders

Section 139 Indian Evidence Act

IEA 139 : Section 139 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872:

Cross-examination of person called to produce a document.—A person summoned to produce a document does not become a witness by the mere fact that he produces it, and cannot be cross-examined unless and until he is called as a witness.

India's Important Case Laws and Landmark Judgments on IEA - Section 139 Indian Evidence Act 1872:
M/S Kumar Exports vs M/S Sharma Carpets on 16 December, 2008 - Supreme Court of India 
M.S. Narayana Menon @ Mani vs State Of Kerala & Anr on 4 July, 2006 - Supreme Court of India 
Parmeshwari Devi vs State And Anr on 23 November, 1976 - Supreme Court of India 
The State Of Bombay vs Kathi Kalu Oghad And Others on 4 August, 1961 - Supreme Court of India 
Shyamlal Mohanlal vs State Of Gujarat on 14 December, 1964 - Supreme Court of India 
K. Prakashan vs P.K. Surenderan on 10 October, 2007 - Supreme Court of India 
Ritesh Sinha vs State Of U.P.& Anr on 7 December, 2012 - Supreme Court of India

Section 138 Indian Evidence Act

IEA 138 : Section 138 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872:

Order of examinations.—Witnesses shall be first examined-in-chief, then (if the adverse party so desires) cross-examined, then (if the party calling him so desires) re-examined. The examination and cross-examination must relate to relevant facts, but the cross-examination need not be confined to the facts to which the witness testified on his examination-in-chief. Direction of re-examination.—The re-examination shall be directed to the explanation of matters referred to in cross-examination; and, if new matter is, by permission of the Court, introduced in re-examination, the adverse party may further cross-examine upon that matter.

India's Important Case Laws and Landmark Judgments on IEA - Section 138 Indian Evidence Act 1872:
Vellanki Leasing And Finance Pvt. vs Pfimex Pharmaceuticals Ltd. on 3 December, 2007 - Andhra High Court
Peacock Industries Ltd., Mr. Daud vs Budhrani Finance Ltd. on 14 July, 2006 - Bombay High Court
C.C. Alavi Haji vs Palapetty Muhammed & Anr on 18 May, 2007 - Supreme Court of India
Banwari Lal And Anr. vs State on 23 December, 1955 - Allahabad High Court
Jain Associates And Ors. vs Deepak Chawdhary & Co. on 16 April, 1999 - Delhi High Court
Shri Apurva (Proprietor) A.D. vs State Of U.P. And Another on 2 December, 2014 - Allahabad High Court
M/S Super Cassettes Industries vs Sri.G M Hulbanni Prop: M/S Adarsh on 25 August, 2012 - Karnataka High Court
Dwarka Dass And Ors. vs State And Ors. on 31 August, 1978 - Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Vinod Tyagi vs State Of U.P. And Another on 20 April, 2015 - Allahabad High Court
Shri Gurdial Singh vs M/S. Arudatta Triotex Engineers  on 7 June, 2011 - Bombay High Court 

Tuesday, March 29, 2016

Section 29 Indian Evidence Act

IEA 29 : Section 29 of the Indian Evidence Act:

Confession otherwise relevant not to become irrelevant because of promise of secrecy, etc.—If such a confession is otherwise relevant, it does not become irrelevant merely because it was made under a promise of secrecy, or in consequence of a deception practised on the accused person for the purpose of obtaining it, or when he was drunk, or because it was made in answer to questions which he need not have answered, whatever may have been the form of those questions, or because he was not warned that he was not bound to make such confession, and that evidence of it might be given against him.

India's Important Case Laws and Landmark Judgments on IEA - Section 29 Indian Evidence Act 1872:
Rangappa Hanamappa And Anr. vs State on 8 September, 1953 Bombay High Court 
Shanti And Anr. vs The State on 4 May, 1977 Orissa High Court 
In Re: Mannem Edukondalu vs Unknown on 18 April, 1957 Andhra High Court 
Shri F.P. Gracie vs Shri Vithal Ganpat More on 25 November, 1975 Bombay High Court 
E.Sivanesan vs Satharia Ahle Sunnath Jamath on 10 January, 2011 Madras High Court 
Girish Kumar vs State Of Kerala on 31 October, 2007 Kerala High Court 
Rajan Tiwary vs State Of Bihar Thru.C.B.I on 17 May, 2013 Patna High Court 
Girish Kumar vs State Of Kerala on 31 October, 2007 Kerala High Court

Section 137 Indian Evidence Act

IEA 137 : Section 137 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872:

Examination-in-chief.—The examination of a witness by the party who calls him shall be called his examination-in-chief. 
Cross-examination.—The examination of a witness by the adverse party shall be called his cross-examination. 
Re-examination.—The examination of a witness, subsequent to the cross-examination by the party who called him, shall be called his re-examination.

India's Important Case Laws and Landmark Judgments on IEA - Section 137 Indian Evidence Act 1872:
Tanajirao Martinrao Kadambande vs H.J. Chinoy on 4 February, 1969 - Bombay High Court 
Debasis Sahu vs Nabeen Chandra Sahu And Anr. on 5 July, 2002 - Orissa High Court 
Ginning Factory vs Gulabchand on 25 June, 2013 - Bombay High Court 
Atul Bora vs Akan Bora on 19 December, 2006 - Gauhati High Court 
Dwarka Dass And Ors. vs State And Ors. on 31 August, 1978 - Jammu & Kashmir High Court 
Asokan vs State Of Kerala on 3 August, 2005 - Kerala High Court 
Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakker vs State Of Gujarat on 19 March, 1964 - Supreme Court of India 
Bhujang Nathuji Daf vs Ramkrishna Daulat Daf on 12 November, 2008 - Bombay High Court 
Tanala Satyanarayana vs Tanali Ramarao And Ors. on 23 December, 2005 - Andhra High Court 
Abul Hassan Molla vs State Of West Bengal on 20 March, 2008 - Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)

Section 136 Indian Evidence Act

IEA 136 : Section 136 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872:

Judge to decide as to admissibility of evidence.—When either party proposes to give evidence of any fact, the Judge may ask the party proposing to give the evidence in what manner the alleged fact, if proved, would be relevant; and the Judge shall admit the evidence if he thinks that the fact, if proved, would be relevant, and not otherwise. If the fact proposed to be proved is one of which evidence is admissible only upon proof of some other fact, such last-mentioned fact must be proved before evidence is given of the fact first mentioned, unless the party undertakes to give proof of such fact, and the Court is satisfied with such undertaking. If the relevancy of one alleged fact depends upon another alleged fact being first proved, the Judge may, in his discretion, either permit evidence of the first fact to be given before the second fact is proved, or require evidence to be given of the second fact before evidence is given of the first fact. Illustrations
(a) It is proposed to prove a statement about a relevant fact by a person alleged to be dead, which statement is relevant under section 32. The fact that the person is dead must be proved by the person proposing to prove the statement, before evidence is given of the statement.
(b) It is proposed to prove, by a copy, the contents of a document said to be lost. The fact that the original is lost must be proved by the person proposing to produce the copy, before the copy is produced.
(c) A is accused of receiving stolen property knowing it to have been stolen. It is proposed to prove that he denied the possession of the property. The relevancy of the denial depends on the identity of the property. The Court may, in its discretion, either require the property to be identified before the denial of the possession is proved, or permit the denial of the possession to be proved before the property is identified.
(d) It is proposed to prove a fact (A) which is said to have been the cause or effect of a fact in issue. There are several intermediate facts (B, C and D) which must be shown to exist before the fact (A) can be regarded as the cause or effect of the fact in issue. The Court may either permit A to be proved before B, C or D is proved, or may require proof of B, C and D before permitting proof of A.

India's Important Case Laws and Landmark Judgments on IEA - Section 136 Indian Evidence Act 1872:
Mr. Jitendra Singh Rajendra Singh vs Mr.Mayur Khandeparkar I/By Nitin on 29 October, 2013 - Bombay High Court 
Mrs Mahabanoo Navroz Kotwal vs Piloo Fali Bomanji on 10 June, 2014 - Bombay High Court 
State Of Gujarat vs Shailendra Kamalkishor Pande on 29 June, 2007 - Gujarat High Court 
State Of Gujarat vs Ashulal Nanji Bisnol on 1 October, 2001 - Gujarat High Court 
Abid vs State on 17 June, 2010 - Gujarat High Court 
V. Arulkumar : vs The State on 5 March, 2013 - Madras High Court 
Ghewar Chand vs State Of Rajasthan on 22 November, 1996 - Rajasthan High Court 
Ram Singh & Ors vs Col. Ram Slngh on 7 August, 1985 - Supreme Court of India 
M/S. Supreme Chemiplast vs State Of Karnataka on 19 August, 2014 - Karnataka High Court 
M/S.Reliance Industries Ltd. } vs The State Of Maharashtra on 17 March, 2010 - Bombay High Court

Section 135 Indian Evidence Act

IEA 135 : Section 135 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872:

Order of production and examination of witnesses.—The order in which witnesses are produced and examined shall be regulated by the law and practice for the time being relating to civil and criminal procedure respectively, and, in the absence of any such law, by the discretion of the Court.

India's Important Case Laws and Landmark Judgments on IEA - Section 135 Indian Evidence Act 1872:
K.I. Pavunny vs Assistant Collector (Head on 3 February, 1997 - Supreme Court of India 
Mohammed Salim Ibrahim Qureshi vs State Of Gujarat on 3 March, 2006 - Gujarat High Court 
Itc Bhadrachalam Paperborads & vs Mandal Revenue Officer, on 9 September, 1996 - Supreme Court of India 
Dineshkumar Becharbhai Gameti vs State Of Gujarat on 6 August, 1998 - Gujarat High Court 
Gangasharan Raghavallabh Sharma vs State Of Gujarat & on 26 August, 2013 - Gujarat High Court 
Sardara Singh Alias Saadh Son Of S. vs Assistant Collector(Custom) on 1 April, 2009 - Punjab-Haryana High Court 
Bhanabhai Khalpabhai vs Collector Of Customs on 8 March, 1994 - Supreme Court of India 
Percy Rustam Basta vs State Of Maharashtra on 16 March, 1971 - Supreme Court of India 
Romesh Chandra Mehta vs State Of West Bengal on 18 October, 1968 - Supreme Court of India 
State (Collector Of Central vs Tapan Kumar Shome on 19 June, 1984 - Orissa High Court 

Monday, March 28, 2016

Section 28 Indian Evidence Act

IEA 28 : Section 28 of the Indian Evidence Act:

Confession made after removal of impression caused by inducement, threat or promise relevant.—If such a confession as is referred to in section 24 is made after the impression caused by any such inducement, threat or promise has, in the opinion of the Court, been fully removed, it is relevant.

India's Important Case Laws and Landmark Judgments on IEA - Section 28 Indian Evidence Act 1872:
Sabavva Kom Hanmappa Simpiger vs Basappa Andaneppa Chiniwar on 30 September, 1954 Bombay High Court  
A. S. Krishna vs State Of, Madras on 28 November, 1956 Supreme Court of India 
E. Keshava Bhat vs K.S. Subraya Bhat on 29 August, 1979 Kerala High Court 
Raghu Nath Dass And Ors. vs Rajendra Kumar And Ors. on 19 December, 1961 Allahabad High Court 
Employees' State Insurance vs Spangles And Glue Manufacturers on 2 February, 1967 Punjab-Haryana High Court 
K. Hashim vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 17 November, 2004 Supreme Court of India 
The Chief Commissioner Of Income vs Pamapathi on 31 January, 2008 Karnataka High Court 
Ummu Salma Beevi vs Balaraman on 24 December, 1996 Madras High Court 

Sunday, March 27, 2016

Section 27 Indian Evidence Act

IEA 27 : Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act:

How much of information received from accused may be proved.—Provided that, when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved.

India's Important Case Laws and Landmark Judgments on IEA - Section 27 Indian Evidence Act 1872:
State (N.C.T. Of Delhi) vs Navjot Sandhu@ Afsan Guru on 4 August, 2005 Supreme Court of India 
Deoman Upadhyaya vs State on 24 August, 1959 Allahabad High Court 
Naresh Chandra Das And Anr. vs Emperor on 28 August, 1941 Calcutta High Court 
State Of U. P vs Deoman Upadhyaya on 6 May, 1960 Supreme Court of India 
Athappa Goundan And Ors. vs Emperor on 16 March, 1937 Madras High Court 
Vijay Kumar And Anr. vs The State Of Himachal Pradesh on 25 April, 1978 Himachal Pradesh High Court 
Vishal Yadav vs State Of U.P. on 2 April, 2014 Delhi High Court 
Baldeo And Ors. vs Emperor on 23 February, 1940 Allahabad High Court 
Vaman Narain Ghiya vs State on 15 January, 2014 Rajasthan High Court 
State Of U.P. vs Deoman Upadhyaya on 6 May, 1960 Supreme Court of India 

Saturday, March 26, 2016

Section 167 Indian Evidence Act

Chapter 11: Of Improper Admission and Rejection of Evidence

IEA 167 : Section 167 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872:

No new trial for improper admission or rejection of evidence.—The improper admission or rejection of evidence shall not be ground of itself for a new trial or reversal of any decision in any case, if it shall appear to the Court before which such objection is raised that, independently of the evidence objected to and admitted, there was sufficient evidence to justify the decision, or that, if the rejected evidence had been received, it ought not to have varied the decision.

India's Important Case Laws and Landmark Judgments on IEA - Section 167 Indian Evidence Act 1872:
Mangala Prosad vs V.J. Manerikar And Ors. on 3 January, 1964 - Calcutta High Court 
State vs Gali Chalapathi Rao And Ors. on 14 February, 1974 - Andhra High Court 
5 Whether It Is To Be Circulated  vs State Of Gujarat & 2 on 1 December, 2014 - Gujarat High Court 
Vishal Yadav vs State Of U.P. on 2 April, 2014 - Delhi High Court 
Valimahomed Gulamhussain vs C.T.A. Pillai, Additional on 18 December, 1959 - Bombay High Court 
Ramu vs State Of Karnataka on 18 April, 1991 - Karnataka High Court 
Hitnarain Singh vs Rambarai Rai And Ors. on 20 April, 1928 - Patna High Court 
Vallabhdas Liladhar And Ors vs Assistant Collector Of Customs on 27 January, 1964 - Supreme Court of India 
Narain And Two Others vs The State Of Punjab on 4 December, 1958 - Supreme Court of India 
Ramkishan Mithanlal Sharma vs The State Of Bombay. on 22 October, 1954 - Supreme Court of India 

Section 166 Indian Evidence Act

IEA 166 : Section 166 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872:

Power of jury or assessors to put questions.—In cases tried by jury or with assessors, the jury or assessors may put any question to the witnesses, through or by leave of the Judge, which the Judge himself might put and which he considers proper.

India's Important Case Laws and Landmark Judgments on IEA - Section 166 Indian Evidence Act 1872:
Vaman Narain Ghiya vs State on 15 January, 2014 - Rajasthan High Court 
Ronny @ Ronald James Alwaris Etc vs State Of Maharashtra on 5 March, 1998 - Supreme Court of India 
First Appeal No.526 Of 2012 vs Unknown on 22 August, 2013 - Bombay High Court 
Kesho Ram & Ors. vs Joga Ram & Ors. on 20 April, 2009 - Delhi High Court 
Srichand P. Hinduja vs State Through C.B.I. on 31 May, 2005 - Delhi High Court 
Dibyalata Konwar vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd. on 22 January, 2008 - Gauhati High Court 
Avasarala Venkata Hanumantha Rao vs Avasarala Achanna on 7 January, 1915 - Madras High Court 
In Re: A.V. Hanumantha Rao And Anr. vs Unknown on 7 January, 1915 - Madras High Court 
Chandan Prakash & Anr. vs Vidya Devi & Ors. on 14 August, 2012 - Delhi High Court 
The Empress vs Ashootosh Chuckerbutty And Ors. on 10 July, 1878 - Calcutta High Court 

Section 165 Indian Evidence Act

IEA 165 : Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872:

Judge’s power to put questions or order production.—The Judge may, in order to discover or to obtain proper proof of relevant facts, ask any question he pleases, in any form, at any time, of any witness, or of the parties, about any fact relevant or irrelevant; and may order the production of any document or thing; and neither the parties nor their agents shall be entitled to make any objection to any such question or order, nor, without the leave of the Court, to cross-examine any witness upon any answer given in reply to any such question: Provided that the Judgment must be based upon facts declared by this Act to be relevant, and duly proved: Provided also that this section shall not authorize any Judge to compel any witness to answer any question, or to produce any document which such witness would be entitled to refuse to answer or produce under sections 121 to 131, both inclusive, if the questions were asked or the documents were called for by the adverse party; nor shall the Judge ask any question which it would be improper for any other person to ask under section 148 or 149; nor shall he dispense with primary evidence of any document, except in the cases hereinbefore excepted.

India's Important Case Laws and Landmark Judgments on IEA - Section 165 Indian Evidence Act 1872:
Shivani Sharma vs Ram Chander And Ors. on 22 February, 2013 - Delhi High Court 
D.B. Bhappu vs Parasmal Nemaji Bhimani on 5 September, 1975 - Bombay High Court 
Sanchaita Investments And Ors. vs State Of West Bengal And Ors. on 5 March, 1981 - Calcutta High Court 
Hs Bedi vs National Highway Authority on 22 January, 2016 - Delhi High Court 
Ved Parkash Kharbanda vs Vimal Bindal on 8 March, 2013 - Delhi High Court 
Raghunandan vs State Of U.P on 10 January, 1974 - Supreme Court of India 
Ernakulam vs By Advs.Sri.K.Ramakumar (Sr.) - Kerala High Court 
Kamleshwari Yadav @ Kamleshwar vs The State Of Bihar &Amp; Anr on 23 June, 2010 - Patna High Court 
State vs Harbans Lal on 27 September, 1968 - Delhi High Court 

Section 164 Indian Evidence Act

IEA 164 : Section 164 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872:

Using, as evidence, of document, production of which was refused on notice.—When a party refuses to produce a document which he has had notice to produce, he cannot afterwards use the document as evidence without the consent of the other party or the order of the Court. Illustration A sues B on an agreement and gives B notice to produce it. At the trial, A calls for the document and B refuses to produce it. A gives secondary evidence of its contents. B seeks to produce the document itself to contradict the secondary evidence given by A, or in order to show that the agreement is not stamped. He cannot do so.

India's Important Case Laws and Landmark Judgments on IEA - Section 164 Indian Evidence Act 1872:
Rangappa Hanamappa And Anr. vs State on 8 September, 1953 - Bombay High Court 
Shanti And Anr. vs The State on 4 May, 1977 - Orissa High Court 
Rangappa Hanamappa And Anr. vs State on 8 September, 1953 - Bombay High Court 
Sheo Raj vs State on 8 October, 1963 - Allahabad High Court 
State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Singhara Singh And Others on 16 August, 1963 - Supreme Court of India 
Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav vs The State Of Bihar Thru. Cbi on 17 May, 2013 - Patna High Court 
Rajan Tiwary vs State Of Bihar Thru.C.B.I on 17 May, 2013 - Patna High Court 
Anil Kumar Yadav vs The State Of Bihar Thru.Cbi on 17 May, 2013 - Patna High Court 
State Of Madras vs G. Krishnan on 22 August, 1960 - Madras High Court 

Section 163 Indian Evidence Act

IEA 163 : Section 163 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872:

Giving, as evidence, of document called for and produced on notice.—When a party calls for a document which he has given the other party notice to produce, and such document is produced and inspected by the party calling for its production, he is bound to give it as evidence if the party producing it requires him to do so.

India's Important Case Laws and Landmark Judgments on IEA - Section 163 Indian Evidence Act 1872:
Phoolchand Garg vs Gopaldas Agarwal And Ors. on 26 September, 1989 - Madhya Pradesh High Court 
Natabar Jana vs State And Anr. on 6 December, 1954 - Calcutta High Court 
Hiten P. Dalal vs Stardard Chartered Bank on 18 April, 2000 - Supreme Court of India 
Standard Chartered Bank And Anr.  vs Custodian And Anothe Etc on 18 April, 2000 - Supreme Court of India 
Union Of India (Uoi) vs Firm Vishudh Ghee Vyopar Mandal on 2 April, 1953 - Allahabad High Court 
Md.Ajmal Md.Amir Kasab @Abu vs State Of Maharashtra on 29 August, 2012 - Supreme Court of India 
Gama And Anr. vs State Of Uttar Pradesh on 18 July, 1986 - Allahabad High Court 
Rajesh Bhatia And Ors. vs G. Parimala And Anr. on 30 November, 2005 - Andhra High Court 
Government Of Bengal vs Santiram Mondal on 27 February, 1930 - Calcutta High Court 
Rajiv Gupta And Others vs Jiwan Lal And Others on 19 March, 2009 - Punjab-Haryana High Court 

Section 162 Indian Evidence Act

IEA 162 : Section 162 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872:

Production of documents.—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. The validity of any such objection shall be decided on by the Court. The Court, if it sees, fit, may inspect the document, unless it refers to matters of State, or take other evidence to enable it to determine on its admissibility. Translation of documents.—If for such a purpose it is necessary to cause any document to be translated, the Court may, if it thinks fit, direct the translator to keep the contents secret, unless the document is to be given in evidence: and, if the interpreter disobeys such direction, he shall be held to have committed an offence under section 166 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).

India's Important Case Laws and Landmark Judgments on IEA - Section 162 Indian Evidence Act 1872:
Naresh Chandra Das And Anr. vs Emperor on 28 August, 1941 - Calcutta High Court 
The State Of Punjab vs Sodhi Sukhdev Singh on 15 November, 1960 - Supreme Court of India 
Baldeo And Ors. vs Emperor on 23 February, 1940 - Allahabad High Court 
In Re: Syamo Maha Patro And Anr. vs Unknown on 11 February, 1932 - Madras High Court 
Vishnu Krishna Belurkar vs The State Of Maharashtra on 18 February, 1974 - Bombay High Court 
Deoman Upadhyaya vs State on 24 August, 1959 - Allahabad High Court 
State Of U.P vs Raj Narain & Ors on 24 January, 1975 - Supreme Court of India 
Ramkishan Mithanlal Sharma vs The State Of Bombay. on 22 October, 1954 - Supreme Court of India 
Tahsildar Singh And Another vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh on 5 May, 1959 - Supreme Court of India 
Nathu Manchhu vs The State Of Gujarat on 15 April, 1977 - Gujarat High Court 

Section 161 Indian Evidence Act

IEA 161 : Section 161 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872:

Right of adverse party as to writing used to refresh memory.—Any writing referred to under the provisions of the two last preceding sections must be produced and shown to the adverse party if he requires it; such party may, if he pleases, cross-examine the witness thereupon.1161. Right of adverse party as to writing used to refresh memory.—Any writing referred to under the provisions of the two last preceding sections must be produced and shown to the adverse party if he requires it; such party may, if he pleases, cross-examine the witness thereupon."

India's Important Case Laws and Landmark Judgments on IEA - Section 161 Indian Evidence Act 1872:
State (Gnct Of Delhi) vs Sidhartha Vashisht on 22 May, 2013 - Delhi High Court 
Ranjit Singh vs State on 3 October, 1997 - Delhi High Court 
Smt. Minati Das vs Radhakanta Patra And Ors. on 12 July, 1993 - Calcutta High Court 
State vs Harbans Lal on 27 September, 1968 - Delhi High Court 
Nandini Satpathy vs Dani (P.L.) And Anr on 7 April, 1978 - Supreme Court of India 
In Re: Syamo Maha Patro And Anr. vs Unknown on 11 February, 1932 - Madras High Court 
Avinash Kumar vs State on 18 December, 1962 - Allahabad High Court 
Dalla And Anr. vs State Of Rajasthan on 15 October, 1986 - Rajasthan High Court 
Chandrasinh @ Chandubha Lalubha vs State Of Gujarat on 6 July, 2001 - Gujarat High Court 

Section 160 Indian Evidence Act

IEA 160 : Section 160 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872:

Testimony to facts stated in document mentioned in section 159.—A witness may also testify to facts mentioned in any such document as is mentioned in section 159, although he has no specific recollection of the facts themselves, if he is sure that the facts were correctly recorded in the document. Illustration A book-keeper may testify to facts recorded by him in books regularly kept in the course of business, if he knows that the books were correctly kept, although he has forgotten the particular transactions entered.

India's Important Case Laws and Landmark Judgments on IEA - Section 160 Indian Evidence Act 1872:
In Re: Syamo Maha Patro And Anr. vs Unknown on 11 February, 1932 - Madras High Court 
Kanti Prasad Jayshanker Yagnik vs Purshottamdas Ranchhoddas Patel on 24 January, 1969 - Supreme Court of India 
Dharma vs The State on 27 July, 1965 - Rajasthan High Court 
The State vs C. Ronald And Ors. on 1 October, 2004 - Calcutta High Court 
Mohansingh Laxmansingh vs Bhanwarlal Rajmal Nahata And Ors. on 14 February, 1963 - Madhya Pradesh High Court 
V.P. Padmanabhan Nair And Ors. vs Grasim Industries, Mavoor on 22 May, 1997 - Kerala High Court 
Gopal Khaitan vs The King on 9 May, 1949 - Calcutta High Court  
Naginlal Nandlal vs State Of Gujarat on 6 July, 1961 - Gujarat High Court  
State Of Andhra Pradesh vs Cheemalapati Ganeswara Rao & Anr on 23 April, 1963 - Supreme Court of India  
In Re: Krishnama Naicken And Anr. vs Unknown on 2 October, 1930 - Madras High Court  

Section 159 Indian Evidence Act

IEA 159 : Section 159 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872:

Refreshing memory.—A witness may, while under examination, refresh his memory by referring to any writing made by himself at the time of the transaction concerning which he is questioned, or so soon afterwards that the Court considers it likely that the transaction was at that time fresh in his memory. The witness may also refer to any such writing made by any other person, and read by the witness within the time aforesaid, if when he read it he knew it to be correct. When witness may use copy of document to refresh memory.—Whenever a witness may refresh his memory by reference to any document, he may, with the permission of the Court, refer to a copy of such document: Provided the Court be satisfied that there is sufficient reason for the non-production of the original. An expert may refresh his memory by reference to professional treatises.

India's Important Case Laws and Landmark Judgments on IEA - Section 159 Indian Evidence Act 1872:
Naginlal Nandlal vs State Of Gujarat on 6 July, 1961 - Gujarat High Court 
V.P. Padmanabhan Nair And Ors. vs Grasim Industries, Mavoor on 22 May, 1997 - Kerala High Court 
Whether vs Unknown on 12 August, 2011 - Gujarat High Court 
Dharma vs The State on 27 July, 1965 - Rajasthan High Court 
V.M. Thomas vs Registrar Of Companies on 13 November, 1978 - Kerala High Court 
Sridhar vs State Of Karnataka on 13 September, 2004 - Karnataka High Court 
Bhogilal Chunilal Pandya vs The State Of Bombay on 4 November, 1958 - Supreme Court of India 
Sarju And Anr. vs The State Of West Bengal on 5 June, 1960 - Calcutta High Court 
State Of Andhra Pradesh vs Cheemalapati Ganeswara Rao & Anr on 23 April, 1963 - Supreme Court of India 
In Re: Krishnama Naicken And Anr. vs Unknown on 2 October, 1930 - Madras High Court 

Section 158 Indian Evidence Act

IEA 158 : Section 158 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872:

What matters may be proved in connection with proved statement relevant under section 32 or 33.—Whenever any statement, relevant under section 32 or 33, is proved, all matters may be proved, either in order to contradict or to corroborate it, or in order to impeach or confirm the credit of the person by whom it was made, which might have been proved if that person had been called as a witness and had denied upon cross-examination of the truth the matter suggested.

India's Important Case Laws and Landmark Judgments on IEA - Section 158 Indian Evidence Act 1872:
Sm. Krishna Subala Bose And Ors. vs Dhanapati Dutta And Ors. on 9 December, 1955 - Calcutta High Court 
Aher Lakhman Bhura vs State Of Gujarat on 19 October, 1994 - Gujarat High Court 
Parmanand Gupta vs Smt.Bhagwati Devi on 11 December, 2014 - Madhya Pradesh High Court 
Mst. Ramrati Kuer vs Dwarika Prasad Singh And Ors on 24 August, 1966 - Supreme Court of India 
Prakash Sholaram vs State Of Gujarat on 21 July, 1999 - Gujarat High Court 
In Re: Guruswami Tevar And Ors. vs Unknown on 4 December, 1939 - Madras High Court 
Bhondu vs Rex on 25 October, 1948 - Allahabad High Court 
Age 40 Years vs The State Of Maharashtra on 23 December, 2011 - Bombay High Court  
Bhondu vs Rex. on 25 October, 1948 - Allahabad High Court 
Vijay vs The State Of Maharashtra on 28 February, 2014 - Bombay High Court 

Section 157 Indian Evidence Act

IEA 157 : Section 157 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872:

Former statements of witness may be proved to corroborate later testimony as to same fact.—In order to corroborate the testimony of a witness, any former statement made by such witness relating to the same fact, at or about the time when the fact took place, or before any authority legally competent to investigate the fact, may be proved.

India's Important Case Laws and Landmark Judgments on IEA - Section 157 Indian Evidence Act 1872:
The King-Emperor vs Nilakanta Alias Brahmachari on 15 February, 1912 - Madras High Court 
Muthukumarsawmi Pillai And Ors. vs Emperor on 17 April, 1912 - Madras High Court 
Muthukumaraswami Pillai vs King-Emperor on 17 April, 1912 - Madras High Court 
Bhogilal Chunilal Pandya vs The State Of Bombay on 4 November, 1958 - Supreme Court of India 
Sarju And Anr. vs The State Of West Bengal on 5 June, 1960 - Calcutta High Court 
Ramratan And Others vs The State Of Rajasthan on 13 September, 1961 - Supreme Court of India 
Naginlal Nandlal vs State Of Gujarat on 6 July, 1961 - Gujarat High Court 
Vishnu Krishna Belurkar vs The State Of Maharashtra on 18 February, 1974 - Bombay High Court 
Rustam And Ors. vs Emperor on 16 March, 1910 - Allahabad High Court 
Dinkar Bandhu Deshmukh And Anr. vs State on 25 November, 1969 - Bombay High Court 

Section 156 Indian Evidence Act

IEA 156 : Section 156 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872:

Questions tending to corroborate evidence of relevant fact, admissible.—When a witness whom it is intended to corroborate gives evidence of any relevant fact, he may be questioned as to any other circumstances which he observed at or near to the time or place at which such relevant fact occurred, if the Court is of opinion that such circumstances, if proved, would corroborate the testimony of the witness as to the relevant fact which he testifies. Illustration A, an accomplice, gives an account of a robbery in which he took part. He describes various incidents unconnected with the robbery which occurred on his way to and from the place where it was committed. Independent evidence of these facts may be given in order to corroborate his evidence as to the robbery itself.

India's Important Case Laws and Landmark Judgments on IEA - Section 156 Indian Evidence Act 1872:
Ramdev Food Products Private vs State Of Gujarat on 16 March, 2015 - Supreme Court of India 
Shivraj Singh Chauhan vs The State Of Bihar (D.G.P.Bihar) on 6 April, 2014 - Patna High Court 
Nirmaljit Singh Hoon vs The State Of West Bengal And Anr on 6 September, 1972 - Supreme Court of India 
Radha vs State on 18 May, 2011 - Delhi High Court 
Sudhakar Ramkrushna Gangane vs State Of Maharashtra on 19 August, 2013 - Bombay High Court 
Amin Shariff vs Emperor on 21 February, 1934 - Calcutta High Court 
Mohammad Shafi Shah And Ors. vs State Of J. And K. And Ors. on 15 July, 2000 - Jammu & Kashmir High Court 
Jiley Singh vs State Of U.P.And Others on 21 January, 2010 - Allahabad High Court 
Smt. Urwashi Gangwar vs State Of U.P. on 16 July, 2010 - Allahabad High Court 
Abdul Hakeem Alias Gabbad vs State Of U.P. on 28 July, 2010 - Allahabad High Court 

Section 155 Indian Evidence Act

IEA 155 : Section 155 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872:

Impeaching credit of witness –

The credit of a witness may be impeached in the following ways by the adverse party, or with the consent of the Court, by the party who calls him:—

(1) By the evidence of persons who testify that they, from their knowledge of the witness believe him to be unworthy of credit;

(2) By proof that the witness has been bribed, or has 1[accepted] the offer of a bribe, or has received any other corrupt inducement to give his evidence;

(3) By proof of former statements inconsistent with any part of his evidence which is liable to be contradicted;

2[***]

Explanation

A witness declaring another witness to be unworthy of credit may not, upon his examination-in-chief, give reasons for his belief, but he may be asked his reasons in cross-examination, and the answers which he gives cannot be contradicted, though, if they are false, he may afterwards be charged with giving false evidence.

Illustrations

(a) A sues B for the price of goods sold and delivered to B.

C says that he delivered the goods to B.

Evidence is offered to show that, on a previous occasion, he said that he had not delivered the goods to B.

The evidence is admissible.

(b) A is indicted for the murder of B.

C says the B, when dying, declared that A had given B the wound of which he died.

Evidence is offered to show that, on a previous occasion, C said that the wound was not given by A or in his presence.

The evidence is admissible.

————————

Subs. by Act 18 of 1872, sec. 11, for “had”.
Clause (4) omitted by Act 4 of 2003, sec. 3 (w.r.e.f. 31-12-2002). Clause (a), before omission, stood as under:
“(4) when a man is prosecuted for rape or an attempt to ravish, it may be shown that the prosecutrix was of generally immoral character”.”

India's Important Case Laws and Landmark Judgments on IEA - Section 155 Indian Evidence Act 1872:
Tara Chand Rampal vs The State on 15 February, 1974 - Delhi High Court
State vs Jasbir Singh @ Billa And Kuljeet ... on 16 November, 1979 - Delhi High Court
Kehar Singh & Ors vs State (Delhi Admn.) on 3 August, 1988 - Supreme Court of India
Tahsildar Singh And Another vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh on 5 May, 1959 - Supreme Court of India
Tuesday vs Shajahan @ Shajan on 7 August, 2012 - Kerala High Court
Rup Chand vs Mahabir Parshad And Anr. on 15 May, 1956 - Punjab and Haryana High Court

Section 154 Indian Evidence Act

IEA 154 : Section 154 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872:

Question by party to his own witness.- (1) The Court may, in its discretion, permit the person who calls a witness to put any question to him which might be put in cross-examination by the adverse party

*[(2) Nothing in this section shall disentitle the person so permitted under subsection (1) to rely on any part of the evidence of such witness.]

*[Inserted vide Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2005]

India's Important Case Laws and Landmark Judgments on IEA - Section 154 Indian Evidence Act 1872:
Atul Bora vs Akan Bora on 19 December, 2006 - Gauhati High Court 
S. Murugesan And 2 Others vs S. Pethaperumal And 2 Others on 21 October, 1998 - Madras High Court 
Ammathayarammal vs The Official Assignee on 3 March, 1932 - Madras High Court 
Profulla Kumar Sarkar And Ors. vs Emperor on 3 March, 1931 - Calcutta High Court 
Mani Mohan Ghose vs Emperor on 12 February, 1931 - Calcutta High Court 
Tara Chand Rampal vs The State on 15 February, 1974 - Delhi High Court  
State vs Rajendrakumar on 20 January, 2010 - Gujarat High Court 
Rehana Begum vs Mirza M. Shaiulla Baig And Ors. on 2 June, 2005 - Karnataka High Court 
Sivhamurthy Swamy vs Agodi Songanno on 15 September, 1967 - Karnataka High Court 

Section 153 Indian Evidence Act

IEA 153 : Section 153 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872:

Exclusion of evidence to contradict answers to questions testing veracity.—When a witness has been asked and has answered any question which is relevant to the inquiry only in so far as it tends to shake his credit by injuring his character, no evidence shall be given to contradict him; but, if he answers falsely, he may afterwards be charged with giving false evidence. Exception 1.—If a witness is asked whether he has been previously convicted of any crime and denies it, evidence may be given of his previous conviction. Exception 2.—If a witness is asked any question tending to impeach his impartiality, and answers it by denying the facts suggested, he may be contradicted. Illustrations
(a) A claim against an underwriter is resisted on the ground of fraud. The claimant is asked whether, in a former transaction, he had not made a fraudulent claim. He denies it. Evidence is offered to show that he did make such a claim. The evidence is inadmissible.
(b) A witness is asked whether he was not dismissed from a situation for dishonesty. He denies it. Evidence is offered to show that he was dismissed for dishonesty. The evidence is not admissible.
(c) A affirms that on a certain day he saw B at Lahore. A is asked whether he himself was not on that day at Calcutta. He denies it. Evidence is offered to show that A was on that day at Calcutta. The evidence is admissible, not as contradicting A on a fact which affects his credit, but as contradicting the alleged fact that B was seen on the day in question in Lahore. In each of these cases the witness might, if his denial was false, be charged with giving false evidence.
(d) A is asked whether his family has not had a blood feud with the family of B against whom he gives evidence. He denies it. He may be contradicted on the ground that the question tends to impeach his impartiality.

India's Important Case Laws and Landmark Judgments on IEA - Section 153 Indian Evidence Act 1872:
Shobha vs Unknown - Kerala High Court  
Shri N. Sri Rama Reddy Etc vs Shri V. V. Giri on 27 April, 1970 - Supreme Court of India 
Lior Avi Ben Moyal vs Narcotics Control Bureau on 28 November, 2008 - Punjab-Haryana High Court 
State Of Gujarat vs Shailendra Kamalkishor Pande on 29 June, 2007 - Gujarat High Court 
K.Rajendran vs Kerala State Election Commission on 30 November, 2012 - Kerala High Court 
R K Chandolia vs Cbi & Ors on 11 April, 2012 - Delhi High Court 
Kamal Kanto Das vs The State on 17 December, 1958 - Calcutta High Court 
State Of Karnataka vs K. Yarappa Reddy on 5 October, 1999 - Supreme Court of India 
Emperor vs Rahimatalli Mahomedalli Mulla on 30 September, 1919 - Bombay High Court 
Crr No. 398 Of 2013 (O&M) vs State Of Haryana on 2 May, 2013 - Punjab-Haryana High Court 

Section 152 Indian Evidence Act

IEA 152 : Section 152 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872:

Questions intended to insult or annoy.—The Court shall forbid any question which appears to it to be intended to insult or annoy, or which, though proper in itself, appears to the Court needlessly offensive in form.

India's Important Case Laws and Landmark Judgments on IEA - Section 152 Indian Evidence Act 1872:
Shri Gita Ram Kalsy And Ors. vs Shri Arjan Singh Kalsy And Ors. on 16 February, 1996 - Punjab-Haryana High Court  
Prakash Rajaram And Ors. vs State Of Maharashtra on 19 February, 1974 - Bombay High Court 
R K Chandolia vs Cbi & Ors on 11 April, 2012 - Delhi High Court  
Chandra Shekhar Rai vs The State Of Bihar on 19 June, 2013 - Patna High Court  
Ayeasha Bi vs Peerkhan Sahib And Ors. on 5 January, 1953 - Madras High Court  
M/S Punjab State Industrial vs Mr. Sunil K. Kansal on 11 October, 2012 - Punjab-Haryana High Court 
Rajesh V. Choudhary vs Kshitij R. Torka And Anr on 15 September, 2015 - Bombay High Court  
Surendran vs State And Ors. on 27 August, 1993 - Kerala High Court  
Beni Ram Sarugs vs Mahomed Abdullah on 5 May, 1909 - Calcutta High Court  
Brundaban Mohapatra And Ors. vs Kulamani Mishra on 30 September, 1985 - Orissa High Court 

Section 151 Indian Evidence Act

IEA 151 : Section 151 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872:

Indecent and scandalous questions.—The Court may forbid any questions or inquiries which it regards as indecent or scandalous, although such questions or inquiries may have some bearing on the questions before the Court, unless they relate to facts in issue, or to matters necessary to be known in order to determine whether or not the facts in issue existed.

India's Important Case Laws and Landmark Judgments on IEA - Section 151 Indian Evidence Act 1872:
A.K. Sharafudin vs S. Jagadeesan on 20 March, 1950 - Karnataka High Court 
Smt. Ningamma And Another vs Chikkaiah And Another on 10 August, 1999 - Karnataka High Court 
K.K. Velusamy vs N. Palaanisamy on 30 March, 2011 - Supreme Court of India 
Radha Kishan vs Navratan Mal Jain And Anr. on 30 August, 1989 - Rajasthan High Court 
R K Chandolia vs Cbi & Ors on 11 April, 2012 - Delhi High Court 
Krishnamurthi Aiyar vs Govindaswami Pillai And Anr. on 3 September, 1965 - Madras High Court 
Prakash Rajaram And Ors. vs State Of Maharashtra on 19 February, 1974 - Bombay High Court 
V.Pandi vs M.Thyagarajan on 18 July, 2012 - Madras High Court 
Shivlal Amarji And Sons vs Maganlal Lakhmichand on 28 March, 1966 - Gujarat High Court 
Sk. Nafel Ali vs Sm. Nihar Bala Das on 23 July, 1981 - Calcutta High Court 

Section 26 Indian Evidence Act

IEA 26 : Section 26 of the Indian Evidence Act:

Confession by accused while in custody of police not to be proved against him.—No confession made by any person whilst he is in the custody of a police officer, unless it be made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate1, shall be proved as against such person.—No confession made by any person whilst he is in the custody of a police officer, unless it be made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate2, shall be proved as against such person." 2[Explanation.—In this section “Magistrate” does not include the head of a village discharging magisterial functions in the Presidency of Fort St. George 3[***] or elsewhere, unless such headman is a Magistrate exercising the powers of a Magistrate under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1882 (10 of 1882)4].

India's Important Case Laws and Landmark Judgments on IEA - Section 26 Indian Evidence Act 1872:
Vijay Kumar And Anr. vs The State Of Himachal Pradesh on 25 April, 1978 Himachal Pradesh High Court 
The King-Emperor vs Nilakanta Alias Brahmachari on 15 February, 1912 Madras High Court 
Deoman Upadhyaya vs State on 24 August, 1959 Allahabad High Court 
Vaman Narain Ghiya vs State on 15 January, 2014 Rajasthan High Court 
Chandubhai Abhesingbhai Chauhan vs State Of on 17 June, 2013 Gujarat High Court 
Sohan Lal vs Nasib Chand And Ors. on 11 October, 1977 Punjab-Haryana High Court  
State Of Assam vs Anupam Das on 3 August, 2007 Gauhati High Court  
Muthukumarsawmi Pillai And Ors. vs Emperor on 17 April, 1912 Madras High Court 
Rakesh Kumar Jha vs State Of Delhi on 27 September, 2012 Delhi High Court 

Section 150 Indian Evidence Act

IEA 150 : Section 150 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872:

Procedure of Court in case of question being asked without reasonable grounds.—If the Court is of opinion that any such question was asked without reasonable grounds, it may, if it was asked by any barrister, pleader, vakil or attorney, report the circumstances of the case to the High Court or other authority to which such barrister, pleader, vakil or attorney is the subject in the exercise of his profession.

India's Important Case Laws and Landmark Judgments on IEA - Section 150 Indian Evidence Act 1872:
As.No.52/1992 Of The Sub Court vs Shahida - Kerala High Court 
Deoman Upadhyaya vs State on 24 August, 1959 - Allahabad High Court 
Vijay Kumar And Anr. vs The State Of Himachal Pradesh on 25 April, 1978 - Himachal Pradesh High Court  
Prakash Rajaram And Ors. vs State Of Maharashtra on 19 February, 1974 - Bombay High Court 
Shamrao Ganpat Chintamani vs Kakasaheb Laxman Gorde on 19 October, 2007 - Bombay High Court 
4Th Defendant / vs Plaintiff And - Kerala High Court 
State Of U. P vs Deoman Upadhyaya on 6 May, 1960 - Supreme Court of India 
4Th Defendant / vs Plaintiff - Kerala High Court 

Section 100 Indian Evidence Act

IEA 100 : Section 100 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872:

Saving of provisions of Indian Succession Act relating to Wills.—Nothing in this Chapter contained shall be taken to affect any of the provisions of the Indian Succession Act (10 of 1865)1 as to the construction of Wills.

India's Important Case Laws and Landmark Judgments on IEA - Section 100 Indian Evidence Act 1872:
Dr. Manas Bhunia vs Dr. Makhan Lal Bangal & Ors. on 7 April, 1999 - Calcutta High Court 
Raghbir Singh Gill vs Gurcharan Singh Tohra & Ors on 9 May, 1980 - Supreme Court of India 
Bhola Nath Vij vs Kanwar Karan Singh on 4 January, 2011 - Delhi High Court 
S. Madasamy Thevar vs A.M. Arjuna Raja on 27 March, 2000 - Madras High Court 
Chadalavada Subba Rao vs Kasu Brahmananda Reddy And Ors. on 13 December, 1965 - Andhra High Court 
Mohd. Nizamuddin And Ors. vs State Of A.P. Rep. By Public on 30 September, 2004 - Andhra High Court 
State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Ramprakash And Ors. on 5 October, 1988 - Madhya Pradesh High Court 
Indravadan Parshotamdas Desai vs Indravadan Ambalal Mehta And Ors. on 23 January, 1968 - Gujarat High Court 
Whether Reporters Of Local Papers vs State on 27 March, 2014 - Gujarat High Court 
Ghasi Ram vs State on 1 July, 1952 - Madhya Pradesh High Court 

Section 99 Indian Evidence Act

IEA 99 : Section 99 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872:

Who may give evidence of agreement varying term of document.—Persons who are not parties to a document, or their representatives in interest, may give evidence of any facts tending to show a contemporaneous agreement varying the terms of the document. Illustration A and B make a contract in writing that B shall sell A certain cotton, to be paid for on delivery. At the same time they make an oral agreement that three months’s credit shall be given to A. This could not be shown as between A and B, but it might be shown by C, if it affected his interests.

India's Important Case Laws and Landmark Judgments on IEA - Section 99 Indian Evidence Act 1872:
Dr. Manas Bhunia vs Dr. Makhan Lal Bangal & Ors. on 7 April, 1999 - Calcutta High Court 
Bai Hira Devi And Others vs The Official Assignee Of Bombay on 20 February, 1958 - Supreme Court of India 
State Of Orissa vs Rabindranath Dalai And Anr. on 2 April, 1973 - Orissa High Court 
Madan Lal Kapur vs Subhash Lal Kapur And Ors. on 23 July, 2003 - Delhi High Court 
Tuesday vs By Advs. Sri.M.Ramesh Chander on 19 March, 2004 - Kerala High Court 
5 Whether It Is To Be Circulated vs State  on 10 April, 2014 - Gujarat High Court 
India Tourism Development vs Miss Susan Leigh Beer on 30 May, 2014 - Delhi High Court 
A Dhoddiah Chettiar vs Madukkarai (Niligiris) Estates on 23 November, 1972 - Madras High Court 
Jarnail Singh vs Amrik Singh on 29 April, 2003 - Punjab-Haryana High Court 
Padia Patra And Ors. vs The State on 8 December, 1965 - Orissa High Court 

Section 98 Indian Evidence Act

IEA 98 : Section 98 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872:

Evidence as to meaning of illegible characters, etc.—Evidence may be given to show the meaning of illegible or not commonly intelligible characters, of foreign, obsolete, technical, local and provincial expressions, of abbreviations and of words used in a peculiar sense. Illustration A, a sculptor, agrees to sell to B, “all my mods”. A has both models and modelling tools. Evidence may be given to show which he meant to sell.

India's Important Case Laws and Landmark Judgments on IEA - Section 98 Indian Evidence Act 1872:
Unknown vs Venkat on 28 April, 2014 - Bombay High Court 
Dr. Chhotalal Jivabhai Patel vs Vadilal Lallubhai Mehta And Ors. on 29 September, 1967 - Gujarat High Court 
Dr. Manas Bhunia vs Dr. Makhan Lal Bangal & Ors. on 7 April, 1999 - Calcutta High Court 
Abbas Khan And Anr. vs Muhammad Ali on 17 November, 1933 - Allahabad High Court 
4 Waman vs 2 The Maharashtra Revenue on 22 December, 2010 - Bombay High Court 
P.K. Kalliani Amma And Ors. vs M.T. Narayanan Nambiar And Ors. on 22 September, 1914 - Madras High Court 
Laxminarayan And Another vs Returning Officer And Others on 28 September, 1973 - Supreme Court of India 
P.B. Bhatt And Ors. vs V.R. Thakkar And Ors. on 27 July, 1971 - Bombay High Court 
Laxman Singh vs Poonam Singh & Ors on 10 September, 2003 - Supreme Court of India 
State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Ramesh on 18 November, 2004 - Supreme Court of India 

Section 97 Indian Evidence Act

IEA 97 : Section 97 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872:

Evidence as to application of language to one of two sets of facts, to neither of which the whole correctly applies.—When the language used applies partly to one set existing facts, and partly to another set of existing facts, but the whole of it does not apply correctly to either, evidence may be given to show to which of the two it was meant to apply. Illustrations A agrees to sell to B “my land at X in the occupation of Y". A has land at X, but not in the occupation of Y, and he has land in the occupation of Y, but it is not at X. Evidence may be given of facts showing which he meant to sell.

India's Important Case Laws and Landmark Judgments on IEA - Section 97 Indian Evidence Act 1872:
Pradeep Kumar vs Mahaveer Pershad And Ors. on 26 August, 2002 - Andhra High Court 
Kanhaiya Bhalotia vs The Union Of India on 26 September, 2013 - Patna High Court 
Kanhaiya Bhalotia vs The Union Of India Through The on 26 September, 2013 - Patna High Court 
Sujanapal vs State Of Kerala on 25 February, 2010 - Kerala High Court 
Ahammed Kabeer vs Azeez on 6 February, 2002 - Kerala High Court 
Friday vs Vijayan @ Vijayappan - Kerala High Court 
Judge vs Unknown on 7 August, 2010 - Kerala High Court 
Arikala Narasa Reddy vs Venkataram Reddy Reddygari & Anr on 4 February, 2014 - Supreme Court of India 
Ramachandra Govind Take And Ors. vs The State on 6 March, 1968 - Bombay High Court 
Alla Basavapunnareddy vs Kalaga Krishnayya And Ors. on 16 June, 1965 - Andhra High Court 

Section 96 Indian Evidence Act

IEA 96 : Section 96 of the Indian Evidence Act:

Evidence as to application of language which can apply to one only of several persons.—When the facts are such that the language used might have been meant to apply to any one, and could not have been meant to apply to more than one, of several persons or things, evidence may be given of facts which show which of those persons or things it was intended to apply to. Illustrations
(a) A agrees to sell to B, for Rs. 1,000, “my white horse”. A has two white horses. Evidence may be given of facts which show which of them was meant.
(b) A agrees to accompany B to Haidarabad. Evidence may be given of facts showing whether Haidarabad in the Dekkhan or Haidarabad in Sindh was meant.

India's Important Case Laws and Landmark Judgments on IEA - Section 96 Indian Evidence Act 1872:
Parbhoo And Ors. vs Emperor on 16 September, 1941 - Allahabad High Court 
Rishi Kesh Singh And Ors. vs The State on 18 October, 1968 - Allahabad High Court 
Ramakrishnan vs V.S. Kuttan Pillai And Anr. on 16 March, 1978 - Kerala High Court 
Yusuf Sk. And Ors. vs The State on 12 January, 1954 - Calcutta High Court 
Yusuf Sk. And Ors. vs The State on 12 January, 1954 - Calcutta High Court 
Shyamlal Mohanlal vs State Of Gujarat on 14 December, 1964 - Supreme Court of India 
State Of Gujarat vs Shyamlal Mohanlal on 11 October, 1962 - Gujarat High Court 
Laxman And Ors. vs State Of Rajasthan on 22 May, 2001 - Rajasthan High Court 
Belapur Co. Ltd. vs Maharashtra State Farming on 22 August, 1968 - Bombay High Court 
State Of Gujarat vs Shyamlal Mohanlal Choksi on 14 December, 1964 - Gujarat High Court