Trial Evidence
Trial Evidence
Trial Evidence
INTRODUCTION:
prosecution.
514.
SC 2423.
439).
1997 SC 2512).
held that,
(4).
CONFESSION:-
that ,
held that,
381).
Confession of co-accused cannot be
held that,
1959 SC 1.
(5). EXTRA JUDICIAL CONFESSION:-
(a). Corroboration:-
SC 1103.
(2006) 10 SC 151.
as follows:
testimony.
(Cri.) 1965)
DECUMENTS RECOVERED:-
2001 SC 979.
to others.
and truthfulness.
decision that,
as follows :
4. ..
SCW 1053.
Supreme 713.
that,
as indicated in,
1992 SC 1817):
SCR 673)].
1994)].
912)}.
1519)].
(Cri.) 127.
3299.
1954 SC 706.
2137.
held that,
(10) CONSPIRACY:-
of the conspiracy.
2006 SC 35 as follows:
To constitute a
conspiracy, meeting of mind of
two or more persons for doing an
illegal act or an act bi illegal
means is the first and primary
condition and it is not necessary
that all the conspirators must
know each and every details of
conspiracy. Neither it is necessary
that every one of the conspirators
takes active part in the
commission of each and every
conspiratorial acts. The
agreement amongst the
conspirators can be inferred by
necessary implications. In most of
the cases, the conspiracies are
proved by the circumstantial
evidence; as the conspiracy is
seldom an open affair. The
existence of conspiracy and its
objects are usually deducted from
the circumstance of the case and
the conduct of the accused
involved in the conspiracy. V.
Thiagarajan and Others vs.
State rep. by Inspector of
Police, SPE/CBE/ACB,
Chennai.
PARADE:-
1.
SC 1321.
111.
SCC 581.
1578.
(e) Admissibility:-
Section 45 Expert evidence
SC 3318.
admissible Guidelines:
22. . Tape-recorded
conversation can only be relied
upon as corroborative evidence
of conversation deposed by any
of the parties to the conversation
and in the absence of evidence of
any such conversation, the tape-
recorded conversation is indeed
no proper evidence and cannot
be relied upon.
to be proved;
nature;
accused;
1982 SC 1157.
(Cri) 312.
1610.
of:-
follows:
critically."
'25. We are
unable to agree
with the learned
Judges of the
High Court that
the testimony of
the two
eyewitnesses
required
corroboration. If
the foundation
for such an
observation is
based on the
fact that the
witnesses are
women and that
the fact that the
fate of seven
men hangs on
their testimony,
we know of no
such rule. If it
is grounded on
the reason that
they are closely
related to the
deceased we are
unable to
concur. This is a
fallacy common
to many criminal
cases and one
which another
Bench of this
Court
endeavored to
dispel in
Rameshwar V.
State of
Rajasthan
(AIR 1952 SC
54). We find,
however, that it
unfortunately
still persists, if
not in the
judgments of
the Courts, at
any rate in the
arguments of
counsel.'
para 14)
precision.
as follows:
We have independently
improvements, contradictions,
false case.
(d). Hostile Witness:-
421(B).
6197 [F].
"Even in a criminal
prosecution when a
witness is cross-
examined and
contradicted with the
leave of the court by
the party calling him,
his evidence cannot, as
a matter of law, be
treated as washed off
the record altogether.
It is for the Judge of
fact to consider in each
case whether as a
result of such cross-
examination and
contradiction, the
witness stands
thoroughly discredited
or can still be believed
in regard to a part of
his testimony. If the
Judge finds that in the
process, the credit of
the witness has not
been completely
shaken, he may, after
reading and considering
the evidence of the
witness, as a whole,
with due caution and
care, accept, in the light
of the other evidence
on the record, that part
of his testimony which
he finds to be
creditworthy and act
upon it. If in a given
case, the whole of the
testimony of the
witness is impugned,
and in the process, the
witness stands squarely
and totally discredited,
the Judge should, as a
matter of prudence,
discard his evidence in
toto."
witnesses:-