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 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 

Section 24 Indian Evidence Act

IEA 24 : Section 24 of the Indian Evidence Act:

Confession caused 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,1 having 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 proceedings against him.—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,2 having 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 proceedings against him."

India's Important Case Laws and Landmark Judgments on IEA - Section 24 Indian Evidence Act 1872:

Vijay Kumar And Anr. vs The State Of Himachal Pradesh on 25 April, 1978 Himachal Pradesh High Court 

Emperor vs Cunna on 21 March, 1920 Bombay High Court 

Mst. Viran Wali vs State on 20 October, 1960 Jammu High Court  

Percy Rustam Basta vs State Of Maharashtra on 16 March, 1971 Supreme Court of India 

K.I. Pavunny vs Assistant Collector on 3 February, 1997 Supreme Court of India 

Vaman Narain Ghiya vs State on 15 January, 2014 Rajasthan High Court 

In Re: Ahamad vs Unknown on 1 August, 1950 Karnataka High Court 

Muthukumaraswami Pillai vs King-Emperor on 17 April, 1912 Madras High Court 

Muthukumarsawmi Pillai And Ors. vs Emperor on 17 April, 1912 Madras High Court 

The King-Emperor vs Nilakanta Alias Brahmachari on 15 February, 1912 Madras High Court 

Section 23 Indian Evidence Act

IEA 23 : Section 23 of the Indian Evidence Act:

Admissions in civil cases, when relevant.—In civil cases no admission is relevant, if it is made either upon an express condition that evidence of it is not to be given, or under circumstances from which the Court can infer that the parties agreed together that evidence of it should not be given. Explanation.—Nothing in this section shall be taken to exempt any barrister, pleader, attorney or vakil from giving evidence of any matter of which he may be compelled to give evidence under section 126.

India's Important Case Laws and Landmark Judgments on IEA - Section 23 Indian Evidence Act 1872:

The State Of Maharashtra, (Notice vs Punja Trambak Lahamage on 27 March, 2008 Bombay High Court 

Narayan Ganesh Dastane vs Sucheta Narayan Dastane on 19 March, 1975 Supreme Court of India 

The Assistant Director vs Khader Sulaiman on 9 January, 2003 Madras High Court 

The Assistant Director vs Khader Sulaiman, P. Krishnasamy on 9 January, 2003 Madras High Court 

Aluru Kondayya And Ors vs Singaraju Rama Rao And Ors on 20 September, 1965 Supreme Court of India 

Amin Shariff vs Emperor on 21 February, 1934 Calcutta High Court 

Meajan Matbor vs Alimuddin Mea And Ors. on 10 May, 1916 Calcutta High Court 

Bond Food Products Private Ltd vs M/S. Planters Airways Ltd on 8 April, 2004 Madras High Court 

Mrs. W.S. Nisha W/O K. Saleem, 25, vs Dr. K. Padmanabhan S/O Mr. Kalippa on 7 December, 2001 Madras High Court 

Ramdhar vs Union Of India on 17 August, 1978 Delhi High Court 

Section 22 Indian Evidence Act

IEA 22 : Section 22 of the Indian Evidence Act:

When oral admissions as to contents of documents are relevant.—Oral admissions as to the contents of a document are not relevant, unless and until the party proposing to prove them shows that he is entitled to give secondary evidence of the contents of such document under the rules hereinafter contained, or unless the genuineness of a document produced is in question.

India's Important Case Laws and Landmark Judgments on IEA - Section 22 Indian Evidence Act 1872:

State Of Mysore vs K. Mohamed Ismail on 20 December, 1957 Karnataka High Court 

Acharu vs Rappai And Ors. on 31 August, 1978 Kerala High Court 

Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd vs Wyeth Limited on 7 August, 2009 Delhi High Court 

Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd vs Wyeth Limited on 7 August, 2009 Delhi High Court 

The Management Of vs The Presiding Officer on 7 April, 2010 Madras High Court 

M/S Kishorilal Loomba And Sons And vs Debts Recovery Tribunal, on 18 October, 2000 Madhya Pradesh High Court 

State Of Gujarat vs R.N. Vora And Ors. on 16 September, 1986 Gujarat High Court  

Gangadhar S/O Gonduram Tadme vs Trimbak S/O Govindrao Akingire on 12 April, 2004 Bombay High Court  

Textile Mills, Bombay State And vs Their Employees, Nakshatra, Etc. on 29 October, 1958 Bombay High Court  

Smt. Sumati K. Shirodkar vs Miss Terezinha Serrao And Ors. on 5 August, 1994 Bombay High Court 

Section 70 Indian Evidence Act

Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Act 1 of 1872]

Part II - On Proof

Chapter V / 5 :  Of Documentary Evidence

IEA 70 : Section 70 of the Indian Evidence Act:

Admission of execution by party to attested document.—The admission of a party to an attested document of its execution by himself shall be sufficient proof of its execution as against him, though it be a document required by law to be attested.

India's Important Case Laws and Landmark Judgments on IEA - Section 70 Indian Evidence Act 1872:

Lothamasu Sambasiva Rao vs Thadwarthi Balakotiah on 14 November, 1972 - Andhra High Court 

Ram Nahak And Ors. vs Sita Dakuani And Ors. on 19 August, 1969 - Orissa High Court 

Arjun Chandra Bhadra vs Kailas Chandra Das And Ors. on 15 June, 1922 - Calcutta High Court 

Sheo Nath Prasad vs Sarjoo Nonia And Anr. on 12 March, 1943 - Allahabad High Court 

Timmavva Dundappa Budihal vs Channava Appaya Kanasgeri on 13 December, 1946 - Bombay High Court 

Satish Chandra Mitra vs Jogendra Nath Mahalanobis on 26 May, 1916 - Calcutta High Court 

Lita Srinivasan vs S.V.Jayaraman on 1 November, 2010 - Madras High Court 

E.Su. Na. Sheikh Davood Rowther vs N.R.M.N. Ramanathan Chettiar on 4 August, 1937 - Madras High Court 

Smt. Rukhamabai W/O Vithobaji vs Narsuram And Ors. on 7 April, 2003 - Bombay High Court 

Sahib Chandra Singh And On His vs Gour Chandra Paul And Ors. on 10 February, 1922 - Calcutta High Court 

Section 67A Indian Evidence Act

Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Act 1 of 1872]

Part II - On Proof

Chapter V / 5 :  Of Documentary Evidence

IEA 67A : Section 67-A of the Indian Evidence Act:

[ 67A Proof as to [electronic signature]. —Except in the case of a secure [electronic signature], if the [electronic signature] of any subscriber is alleged to have been affixed to an electronic record the fact that such [electronic signature] is the [electronic signature] of the subscriber must be proved.]

India's Important Case Laws and Landmark Judgments on IEA - Section 67A Indian Evidence Act 1872:

Ibrahim Khan And Ors. vs Gowram Kondaiah And Ors. on 5 July, 2002 - Andhra High Court 

Most. Sheoraj Devi & Ors vs Shukhdeo Nonia & Ors on 22 December, 2014 - Patna High Court 

Bodala Murali Krishna vs Smt. Bodala Prathima on 11 October, 2006 - Andhra High Court 

Bodala Murali Krishna vs Smt. Bodala Prathima on 11 October, 2006 - Andhra High Court 

Section 67 Indian Evidence Act

Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Act 1 of 1872]

Part II - On Proof

Chapter V / 5 :  Of Documentary Evidence

IEA 67 : Section 67 of the Indian Evidence Act:

Proof of signature and handwriting of person alleged to have signed or written document produced.—If a document is alleged to be signed or to have been written wholly or in part by any person, the signature or the handwriting of so much of the document as is alleged to be in that person’s handwriting must be proved to be in his handwriting.

India's Important Case Laws and Landmark Judgments on IEA - Section 67 Indian Evidence Act 1872:

Balwinder Singh @ Binda Son vs Narcotics Control Bureau on 8 July, 2013 - Punjab-Haryana High Court 

Ramkrishan Ganpat Futane And Ors. vs Mohammad Kasam And Ors. on 21 August, 1972 - Bombay High Court 

National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Rishi Pratap Singh & Ors. on 21 November, 2012 - Delhi High Court 

Kunhamina Umma And Ors. vs Special Tahsildar And Ors. on 18 August, 1976 - Kerala High Court 

Beer Pal & Ors. vs Arvind Kumar & Ors. on 18 September, 2012 - Delhi High Court - Cites 25 

Rajinder Kumar vs Lal Bachan & Ors. on 29 November, 2012 - Delhi High Court 

National Insurance Company Ltd. vs Umesh Singh & Ors. on 3 December, 2012 - Delhi High Court 

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Yogendra Narayan Yadav & Ors. on 4 December, 2012 - Delhi High Court 

Miyana Hasan Abdulla And Anr. vs State Of Gujarat on 28 June, 1961 - Gujarat High Court 

Oriental Insurance Company Ltd vs Arvind Kumar & Ors on 6 August, 2012 - Delhi High Court 

Section 65B Indian Evidence Act

Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Act 1 of 1872]

Part II - On Proof

Chapter V / 5 :  Of Documentary Evidence

IEA 65B : Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act:

65B. Admissibility of electronic records.—

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, any information contained in an electronic record which is printed on a paper, stored, recorded or copied in optical or magnetic media produced by a computer (hereinafter referred to as the computer output) shall be deemed to be also a document, if the conditions mentioned in this section are satisfied in relation to the information and computer in question and shall be admissible in any proceedings, without further proof or production of the original, as evidence of any contents of the original or of any fact stated therein of which direct evidence would be admissible.

(2) The conditions referred to in sub-section (1) in respect of a computer output shall be the following, namely:—

(a) the computer output containing the information was produced by the computer during the period over which the computer was used regularly to store or process information for the purposes of any activities regularly carried on over that period by the person having lawful control over the use of the computer;

(b) during the said period, information of the kind contained in the electronic record or of the kind from which the information so contained is derived was regularly fed into the computer in the ordinary course of the said activities;

(c) throughout the material part of the said period, the computer was operating properly or, if not, then in respect of any period in which it was not operating properly or was out of operation during that part of the period, was not such as to affect the electronic record or the accuracy of its contents; and

(d) the information contained in the electronic record reproduces or is derived from such information fed into the computer in the ordinary course of the said activities.

(3) Where over any period, the function of storing or processing information for the purposes of any activities regularly carried on over that period as mentioned in clause (a) of sub-section (2) was regularly performed by computers, whether—

(a) by a combination of computers operating over that period; or

(b) by different computers operating in succession over that period; or

(c) by different combinations of computers operating in succession over that period; or

(d) in any other manner involving the successive operation over that period, in whatever order, of one or more computers and one or more combinations of computers, all the computers used for that purpose during that period shall be treated for the purposes of this section as constituting a single computer; and references in this section to a computer shall be construed accordingly.

(4) In any proceedings where it is desired to give a statement in evidence by virtue of this section, a certificate doing any of the following things, that is to say,—

(a) identifying the electronic record containing the statement and describing the manner in which it was produced;

(b) giving such particulars of any device involved in the production of that electronic record as may be appropriate for the purpose of showing that the electronic record was produced by a computer;

(c) dealing with any of the matters to which the conditions mentioned in sub-section (2) relate, and purporting to be signed by a person occupying a responsible official position in relation to the operation of the relevant device or the management of the relevant activities (whichever is appropriate) shall be evidence of any matter stated in the certificate; and for the purposes of this sub-section it shall be sufficient for a matter to be stated to the best of the knowledge and belief of the person stating it.

(5) For the purposes of this section,—

(a) infomation shall be taken to be supplied to a computer if it is supplied thereto in any appropriate form and whether it is so supplied directly or (with or without human intervention) by means of any appropriate equipment;

(b) whether in the course of activities carried on by any official information is supplied with a view to its being stored or processed for the purposes of those activities by a computer operated otherwise than in the course of those activities, that information, if duly supplied to that computer, shall be taken to be supplied to it in the course of those activities;

(c) a computer output shall be taken to have been produced by a computer whether it was produced by it directly or (with or without human intervention) by means of any appropriate equipment. Explanation.—For the purposes of this section any reference to information being derived from other information shall be a reference to its being derived therefrom by calculation, comparison or any other process.

India's Important Case Laws and Landmark Judgments on IEA - Section 65B Indian Evidence Act 1872:

Kundan Singh vs The State on 24 November, 2015 - Delhi High Court 

Kamal Patel vs Ram Kishore Dogne on 4 January, 2016 - Madhya Pradesh High Court 

S.K. Saini & Anr vs C.B.I. on 19 August, 2015 - Delhi High Court 

Anvar P.V vs P.K.Basheer & Ors on 18 September, 2014 - Supreme Court of India 

K. Ramajayam @ Appu vs The Inspector Of Police on 27 January, 2016 - Madras High Court 

K. Ramajayam @ Appu vs The Inspector Of Police on 27 January, 2016 - Madras High Court 

Abdul Rahaman Kunji vs The State Of West Bengal on 14 November, 2014 - Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) 

Rakesh Kumar & Ors. vs State on 27 August, 2009 - Delhi High Court 

Mr. Manoj Kumar S vs State Of Karnataka on 30 June, 2015 - Karnataka High Court 

Achchey Lal Yadav vs State on 4 September, 2014 - Delhi High Court 

Section 62 Indian Evidence Act

IEA 62 : Section 62 of the Indian Evidence Act:

Primary evidence.—Primary evidence means the document itself produced for the inspection of the Court. Explanation 1.—Where a document is executed in several parts, each part is primary evidence of the document; Where a document is executed in counterpart, each counterpart being executed by one or some of the parties only, each counterpart is primary evidence as against the parties executing it. Explanation 2.—Where a number of documents are all made by one uniform process, as in the case of printing, lithography, or photography, each is primary evidence of the contents of the rest; but, where they are all copies of a common original, they are not primary evidence of the contents of the original. Illustration A person is shown to have been in possession of a number of placards, all printed at one time from one original. Any one of the placards is primary evidence of the contents of any other, but no one of them is primary evidence of the contents of the original.

India's Important Case Laws and Landmark Judgments on IEA - Section 62 Indian Evidence Act 1872:

Theresa vs Special Court Under A.P. Land on 22 September, 1998 - Andhra High Court 

K.K.Vijayachandran vs The Superintendent Of Police on 29 September, 2006 - Kerala High Court 

Chumman Singh And Ors. vs The State Of Bihar on 28 July, 2006 - Patna High Court 

U.Shankar vs State Represented By on 10 August, 2011 - Madras High Court 

K.R. Easwaramurthi Goundan vs The King-Emperor on 23 February, 1944 - Bombay High Court 

Gutta Sriramulu Naidu And Anr. vs The State on 21 July, 1961 - Andhra High Court 

High Court Of Karnataka vs Syed Mohammed Ibrahim on 17 December, 2014 - Karnataka High Court 

Vithal Ramrao Ingale (Patil) vs Navalbai Digambar Deshmukh on 4 July, 2002 - Bombay High Court 

Krishna Sahebrao Patil vs The State Of Maharashtra on 5 March, 2014 - Bombay High Court 

Pandit Salig Ram vs Radhay Shiam on 25 February, 1931 - Allahabad High Court 

Section 61 Indian Evidence Act

IEA 61 : Section 61 of the Indian Evidence Act:

Proof of contents of documents.—The contents of documents may be proved either by primary or by secondary evidence.

India's Important Case Laws and Landmark Judgments on IEA - Section 61 Indian Evidence Act 1872:

The Assistant Director vs Khader Sulaiman, P. Krishnasamy on 9 January, 2003 - Madras High Court 

The Assistant Director vs Khader Sulaiman on 9 January, 2003 - Madras High Court 

Jit Singh Mohar Singh vs Municipal Committee And Anr. on 23 October, 1959 - Punjab-Haryana High Court 

K.K.Vijayachandran vs The Superintendent Of Police on 29 September, 2006 - Kerala High Court 

Ratan Roy vs State Of Bihar And Ors. on 14 March, 1950 - Patna High Court 

Vithal Ramrao Ingale (Patil) vs Navalbai Digambar Deshmukh on 4 July, 2002 - Bombay High Court 

Chinnappan vs Rosemary on 2 April, 2014 - Madras High Court 

Bhima Tima Dhotre vs The Pioneer Chemical Co. on 23 June, 1967 - Bombay High Court 

Smt. Rekha Rana And Ors. vs Smt. Ratnashree Jain on 17 August, 2005 - Madhya Pradesh High Court 

The State Of Maharashtra vs Krishnaawatar Daulatsingh Madan on 2 March, 2012 - Bombay High Court 

Section 58 Indian Evidence Act

IEA 58 : Section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act:

Facts admitted need not be proved. —No fact need to be proved in any proceeding which the parties thereto or their agents agree to admit at the hearing, or which, before the hearing, they agree to admit by any writing under their hands, or which by any rule of pleading in force at the time they are deemed to have admitted by their pleadings: Provided that the Court may, in its discretion, require the facts admitted to be proved otherwise than by such admissions.

India's Important Case Laws and Landmark Judgments on IEA - Section 58 Indian Evidence Act 1872:

Boraiah Alias Shekar vs State on 20 December, 2002 - Karnataka High Court 

Thursday vs By Advs.Sri.P.Vijaya Bhanu - Kerala High Court 

Kashibai Martand vs Vinayak Ganesh And Ors. on 22 February, 1955 - Bombay High Court 

Egon Zhender International Pvt. vs M/S Namgayal Institute on 25 October, 2013 - Delhi High Court 

Appavu Chettiar vs Nanjappa Goundan And Ors. on 2 May, 1913 - Madras High Court 

The Chief Commissioner Of Income vs Pamapathi on 31 January, 2008 - Karnataka High Court 

Syed Mustajab Husain vs Additional District Judge on 23 February, 2012 - Allahabad High Court 

Jalal And Sons And Another vs Sita Bai (Died) By Lrs. And Others on 20 February, 2001 - Andhra High Court 

Arulmighu Sri.Subramaniaswami vs Thiruchendur Panchayat Union on 6 March, 2008 - Madras High Court 

Ramkrishan Ganpat Futane And Ors. vs Mohammad Kasam And Ors. on 21 August, 1972 - Bombay High Court 

Section 53 Indian Evidence Act

IEA 53 : Section 53 of the Indian Evidence Act:

In criminal cases, previous good character relevant.— In criminal proceedings, the fact that the person accused is of a good character, is relevant.

India's Important Case Laws and Landmark Judgments on IEA - Section 53 Indian Evidence Act 1872:

Raj Kumar Karwal vs Union Of India And Ors.Withkirpal on 21 March, 1990 Supreme Court of India 

Damodar Das vs Gokal Chand And Ors. on 14 July, 1884 Allahabad High Court 

Vishnuprasad Dabyabhai vs State And Ors. on 21 June, 1983 Gujarat High Court 

Abdul Razzak Alias Raju vs Sudip Kr. Dutta Gupta on 3 July, 1989 Calcutta High Court 

Ameer And Ors. vs Sub-Divisional Magistrate on 13 August, 1968 Allahabad High Court 

Shri Niwas Jhanwar vs Jethmal And Ors. on 9 September, 1997 Rajasthan High Court 

Selvi & Ors vs State Of Karnataka & Anr on 5 May, 2010 Supreme Court of India 

In Jail vs The State Of Maharashtra on 10 June, 2009 Bombay High Court 

Bal Mukund Jaiswal vs Bharat Sangh Dwara Aasuchana on 26 March, 1993 Allahabad High Court 

Queen-Empress vs Kartick Chunder Das on 20 July, 1887 Calcutta High Court 

Section 51 Indian Evidence Act

IEA 51 : Section 51 of the Indian Evidence Act:

Grounds of opinion, when relevant.—Whenever the opinion of any living person is relevant, the grounds on which such opinion is based are also relevant. Illustration An expert may give an account of experiments performed by him for the purpose of forming his opinion.

India's Important Case Laws and Landmark Judgments on IEA - Section 51 Indian Evidence Act 1872:

Vishnuprasad Dabyabhai vs State And Ors. on 21 June, 1983 - Gujarat High Court 

Abdul Kader Mahomed Jhaveri vs Union Of India And Ors. on 29 August, 1986 - Gujarat High Court 

Mr.P.Kumar vs The State Of Tamilnadu Rep.By on 8 December, 2010 - Madras High Court 

The Assistant Director vs Khader Sulaiman, P. Krishnasamy on 9 January, 2003 - Madras High Court 

The Assistant Director vs Khader Sulaiman on 9 January, 2003 - Madras High Court 

Raj Kumar Karwal vs Union Of India And Ors.Withkirpal on 21 March, 1990 - Supreme Court of India 

Suleman Usman Memon vs The State Of Gujarat on 27 February, 1961 - Gujarat High Court 

Suleman Usman Memon vs The State Of Gujarat on 27 February, 1961 - Gujarat High Court 

Bhagat Ram vs The Gram Panchayat And Anr. on 1 August, 1980 - Punjab-Haryana High Court 

J. & K. Board Of School Education vs Prem Kumar on 11 February, 1986 - Jammu & Kashmir High Court 

Section 18 Indian Evidence Act

IEA 18 : Section 18 of the Indian Evidence Act:

Admission by party to proceeding or his agent.—Statements made by a party to the proceeding, or by an agent to any such party, whom the Court regards, under the circumstances of the case, as expressly or impliedly authorized by him to make them, are admissions. by suitor in representative character.—Statements made by parties to suits, suing or sued in a representative character, are not admissions, unless they were made while the party making them held that character. Statements made by—

(1) party interested in subject-matter.—persons who have any proprietary or pecuniary interest in the subject-matter of the proceeding, and who make the statement in their character of persons so interested, or

(2) person from whom interest derived.—persons from whom the parties to the suit have derived their interest in the subject-matter of the suit, are admissions, if they are made during the continuance of the interest of the persons making the statements.

India's Important Case Laws and Landmark Judgments on IEA - Section 18 Indian Evidence Act 1872:

Additional District Magistrate vs S. S. Shukla Etc. Etc on 28 April, 1976 Supreme Court of India 

Kamal Ahmed Mohammed Vakil vs The State Of Maharashtra on 26 November, 2012 Bombay High Court 

Kailash Sahkari Awas Samiti vs State Of U.P. & Others on 2 February, 2010 Allahabad High Court 

Mariam Hussain W/O. Zaheed vs Syedani W/O. Late Syed Mustafa on 1 March, 2007 Karnataka High Court  

Sohanlal And Ors. vs Gulab Chand on 7 May, 1965 Rajasthan High Court  

Hrishikesh Banerjee And Ors. vs Sushil Chandra Moulik on 28 March, 1956 Calcutta High Court 

Omanakuttan vs Sajan Thomas on 6 April, 2004 Kerala High Court 

District Court vs Patel Narandas on 28 February, 1998 Kerala High Court  

Pradyuman Kumar Sharma vs Shri Jaysagar M. Sancheti on 14 March, 2013 Bombay High Court 

Prakash Kumar @ Prakash Bhutto vs State Of Gujarat on 12 January, 2005 Supreme Court of India

Section 47 Indian Evidence Act

IEA 47 : Section 47 of the Indian Evidence Act:

Opinion as to handwriting, when relevant.—When the Court has to form an opinion as to the person by whom any document was written or signed, the opinion of any person acquainted with the handwriting of the person by whom it is supposed to be written or signed that it was or was not written or signed by that person, is a relevant fact. Explanation.—A person is said to be acquainted with the handwriting of another person when he has seen that person write, or when he has received documents purporting to be written by that person in answer to documents written by himself or under his authority and addressed to that person, or when, in the ordinary course of business, documents purporting to be written by that person have been habitually submitted to him. Illustration The question is, whether a given letter is in the underwriting of A, a merchant in London. B is a merchant in Calcutta, who has written letters addressed to A and received letters purporting to be written by him. C is B's clerk, whose duty it was to examine and file B's correspondence. D is B's broker, to whom B habitually submitted the letters purporting to be written by A for the purpose of advising him thereon. The opinions of B, C and D on the question whether the letter is in the handwriting of A are relevant, though neither B, C nor D ever saw A write.

[ 47A Opinion as to [electronic signature] when relevant .—When the Court has to form an opinion as to the [electronic signature] of any person, the opinion of the Certifying Authority which has issued the [Electronic Signature Certificate] is a relevant fact.]

India's Important Case Laws and Landmark Judgments on IEA - Section 47 Indian Evidence Act 1872:

Bakaram Jangaiah And Others vs Gunde Laxmamma (Died) By Lrs. on 24 July, 1998 - Andhra High Court 

J. & K. Board Of School Education vs Prem Kumar on 11 February, 1986 - Jammu & Kashmir High Court 

Jayalakshmi Ammal vs K. Lakshmi Iyengar on 11 March, 1992 - Madras High Court 

K.M. Ramakrishne Godwa vs Senior Assistant Commissioner on 21 October, 1990 - Karnataka High Court 

Kashful Huda vs Additional District Judge on 28 October, 2002 - Allahabad High Court 

Miss Hardevi Malkani vs State And Anr. on 12 September, 1967 - Allahabad High Court 

R.Balasubramaniam vs The Inspector Of Police on 24 February, 2015 - Madras High Court 

State vs Brij Mohan on 21 December, 1984 - Delhi High Court 

Mohammed Yusuf And Anr. vs D. And Anr. on 14 July, 1961 - Bombay High Court 

The Public Prosecutor, High Court vs P. Subhash Chandra Reddy on 13 March, 2003 - Andhra High Court 

Section 45 Indian Evidence Act

IEA 45 : Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act:

Opinions of experts.—When the Court has to form an opinion upon a point of foreign law or of science or art, or as to identity of handwriting 35 [or finger impressions], the opinions upon that point of persons specially skilled in such foreign law, science or art, 36 [or in questions as to identity of handwriting] 35 [or finger impressions] are relevant facts. Such persons are called experts. Illustrations

(a) The question is, whether the death of A was caused by poison. The opinions of experts as to the symptoms produced by the poison by which A is supposed to have died are relevant.

(b) The question is, whether A, at the time of doing a certain act, was, by reason of unsoundness of mind, incapable of knowing the nature of the Act, or that he was doing what was either wrong or contrary to law. The opinions of experts upon the question whether the symptoms exhibited by A commonly show unsoundness of mind, and whether such unsoundness of mind usually renders persons incapable of knowing the nature of the acts which they do, or of knowing that what they do is either wrong or contrary to law, are relevant.

(c) The question is, whether a certain document was written by A. Another document is produced which is proved or admitted to have been written by A. The opinions of experts on the question whether the two documents were written by the same person or by different persons, are relevant. Comments Conflict of opinion of Experts When there is a conflict of opinion between the experts, then the Court is competent to form its own opinion with regard to signatures on a document; Kishan Chand v. Sita Ram, AIR 2005 P&H 156. Expert opinion admissibility Requirement of expert evidence about test firing to find out whether double barrel gun is in working condition or not, not necessary; Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1999 SC 321. The evidence of a doctor conducting post mortem without producing any authority in support of his opinion is insufficient to grant conviction to an accused; Mohd Zahid v. State of Tamil Nadu, 1999 Cr LJ 3699 (SC). Opinion to be received with great caution The opinion of a handwriting expert given in evidence is no less fallible than any other expert opinion adduced in evidence with the result that such evidence has to be received with great caution; Ram Narain v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1973 SC 2200.

37 [ 45A Opinion of Examiner of Electronic Evidence. —When in a proceeding, the court has to form an opinion on any matter relating to any information transmitted or stored in any computer resource or any other electronic or digital form, the opinion of the Examiner of Electronic Evidence referred to in section 79A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (21 of 2000) is a relevant fact. Explanation .—For the purposes of this section, an Examiner of Electronic Evidence shall be an expert;] Illustrations

(a) The question is, whether the death of A was caused by poison. The opinions of experts as to the symptoms produced by the poison by which A is supposed to have died are relevant.

(b) The question is, whether A, at the time of doing a certain act, was, by reason of unsoundness of mind, incapable of knowing the nature of the Act, or that he was doing what was either wrong or contrary to law. The opinions of experts upon the question whether the symptoms exhibited by A commonly show unsoundness of mind, and whether such unsoundness of mind usually renders persons incapable of knowing the nature of the acts which they do, or of knowing that what they do is either wrong or contrary to law, are relevant.

(c) The question is, whether a certain document was written by A. Another document is produced which is proved or admitted to have been written by A. The opinions of experts on the question whether the two documents were written by the same person or by different persons, are relevant.

India's Important Case Laws and Landmark Judgments on IEA - Section 45 Indian Evidence Act 1872:

State (Through Cbi/New Delhi) vs S.J.Choudhary on 13 February, 1996 - Supreme Court of India 

Unknown vs Palakdhari Ilr - Allahabad High Court 

State (Through Cbi/New Delhi) vs S.J. Choudhary on 13 February, 1996 - Supreme Court of India 

State (Through Cbi) vs S.J. Choudhary on 13 February, 1996 - Patna High Court 

Sri Maruthi Processors vs R. Subramaniam on 5 October, 2012 - Madras High Court 

Mahmudabad Properties (P.) Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 27 July, 1970 - Calcutta High Court 

Pandian vs M.Kamalakannan on 6 December, 2012 - Madras High Court 

Basudeo Gir vs State on 24 September, 1958 - Patna High Court 

Sundari Alias Esakkiammal vs R.Krishnammal on 5 September, 2011 - Madras High Court  

Sundari Alias Esakkiammal vs R.Krishnammal on 5 September, 2011 - Madras High Court 

Sushil Agarwal vs Ashok Pareek on 3 February, 2010 - Rajasthan High Court 

Jagdeep Sharma vs Dr. Murari Lal Sharma on 3 February, 2010 - Rajasthan High Court 

Anuj K. Sanghi And Anr vs Pankaj Trivedi on 3 February, 2010 - Rajasthan High Court 

Ram Gopal Agarwal vs Ramesh Kumar Parwal on 3 February, 2010 - Rajasthan High Court 

State (Through Cbi/New Delhi) vs S.J. Choudhary on 22 March, 1990 - Supreme Court of India 

Kashful Huda vs Additional District Judge on 28 October, 2002 - Allahabad High Court 

D. Pandi vs The Dhanalakshmi Bank Limited on 16 February, 2001 - Madras High Court 

Central Excise Department vs P. Somasundaram on 18 July, 1979 - Karnataka High Court 

Chinnasamy vs Dr.D.Rajendran on 13 April, 2010 - Madras High Court 

The Sunni Central Board Of Waqfs vs Gopal Singh Visharad - Allahabad High Court 

Section 41 Indian Evidence Act

IEA 41 : Section 41 of the Indian Evidence Act:

Relevancy of certain judgments in probate, etc., jurisdiction.— A final judgment, order or decree of a competent Court, in the exercise of probate, matrimonial admiralty or insolvency jurisdiction which confers upon or takes away from any person any legal character, or which declares any person to be entitled to any such character, or to be entitled to any specific thing, not as against any specified person but absolutely, is relevant when the existence of any such legal character, or the title of any such person to any such thing, is relevant. Such judgment, order or decree is conclusive proof— that any legal character, which it confers accrued at the time when such judgment, order or decree came into operation; that any legal character, to which it declares any such person to be entitled, accrued to that person at the time when such judgment, 1[order or decree] declares it to have accrued to that person; 3[order or decree] declares it to have accrued to that person;" that any legal character which it takes away from any such person ceased at the time from which such judgment, 1[order or decree] declared that it had ceased or should cease; 3[order or decree] declared that it had ceased or should cease;" and that anything to which it declares any person to be so entitled was the property of that person at the time from which such judgment, 1[order or decree] declares that it had been or should be his property. 3[order or decree] declares that it had been or should be his property."

India's Important Case Laws and Landmark Judgments on IEA - Section 41 Indian Evidence Act 1872:

In Re: P.C. Venkataramanayya vs Unknown on 8 January, 1931 - Madras High Court 

In Re: Mr. P.C.V. Pantult, vs Unknown on 8 January, 1931 - Madras High Court 

R. Viswanathan vs Rukn-Ul-Mulk Syed Abdul Wajid on 4 May, 1962 - Supreme Court of India 

Hindu Religious Endowments & Ors vs B. Samitra & Ors on 20 February, 1976 - Supreme Court of India 

Sri Ram vs Prabhu Dayal And Ors. on 7 February, 1972 - Rajasthan High Court 

The Secretary Of State For India vs Syed Ahmad Badsha Bahadur on 11 April, 1921 - Madras High Court 

Kalyanchand Lalchand vs Sitabai Dhanasa on 5 November, 1913 - Bombay High Court 

The Secretary Of State For India vs Syed Ahmad Badsha Sahib Bahadur on 13 October, 1920 - Madras High Court 

Ripumadhusudan Prasad Singh vs Rama Shankar Prasad Singh And Ors. on 21 March, 1969 - Patna High Court 

Bhramarbar Santra And Ors. vs State Of Orissa And Ors. on 19 September, 1969 - Orissa High Court 

Section 40 Indian Evidence Act

IEA 40 : Section 40 of the Indian Evidence Act:

Previous judgments relevant to bar a second suit or trial.—The existence of any judgment, order or decree which by law prevents any Courts 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 trial.

India's Important Case Laws and Landmark Judgments on IEA - Section 40 Indian Evidence Act 1872:

Fatten Lall vs Gujju Lall on 1 June, 1880 Calcutta High Court 

Pushpa Devi vs State Of U.P. Thru. Learned Adj on 23 July, 2015 Allahabad High Court 

Ibne Hasan vs Smt. Hasina Bibi And Ors. on 31 January, 1984 Allahabad High Court 

State Of Bihar vs Radha Krishna Singh & Ors on 20 April, 1983 Supreme Court of India 

City Municipal Council vs C. Ramu on 13 July, 1988 Karnataka High Court 

Daya Sapra vs Vishnu Dutt Sharma on 14 December, 2007 Delhi High Court 

Ramesh Chand Gupta & Ors. vs Union Of India & Anr. on 6 February, 2009 Delhi High Court 

Bishunath Tewari And Ors. vs Mst. Mirchi on 6 May, 1952 Patna High Court 

Moosa vs Sub Inspector Of Police on 23 December, 2005 Kerala High Court 

The State Of Bihar vs Lalu Prasad And Ors. on 20 March, 2008 Patna High Court 

Section 38 Indian Evidence Act

IEA 38 : Section 38 of the Indian Evidence Act:

Relevancy of statements as to any law contained in law-books.—When the Court has to form an opinion as to a law of any country, any statement of such law contained in a book purporting to be printed or published under the authority of the Government of such country and to contain any such law, and any report of a ruling of the Courts of such country contained in a book purporting to be a report of such rulings, is relevant.

India's Important Case Laws and Landmark Judgments on IEA - Section 38 Indian Evidence Act 1872:

Abdul Kader Mahomed Jhaveri vs Union Of India And Ors. on 29 August, 1986 Gujarat High Court 

Emperor vs Barendra Kumar Ghose on 26 September, 1923 Calcutta High Court 

Krishna Kumar Mishra And Anr. Etc. vs State Of Bihar And Ors. Etc. Etc. on 19 March, 1996 Patna High Court 

Bakaram Jangaiah And Others vs Gunde Laxmamma (Died) By Lrs. on 24 July, 1998 Andhra High Court 

Hindustan Lever Ltd., Bombay vs The Monopolies And Restrictive on 7 April, 1977 Supreme Court of India 

S.P. Gupta vs Union Of India & Anr on 30 December, 1981 Supreme Court of India 

Pandurabg Sakharam vs The Mahaarashtra Revenue on 1 December, 1972 Bombay High Court 

The State vs Ramprakash P. Puri And Ors. on 20 November, 1963 Gujarat High Court 

The King Emperor vs Barendra Kumar Ghose on 26 September, 1923 Calcutta High Court 

S.P. Gupta vs President Of India And Ors. on 30 December, 1981 Supreme Court of India