On the same lines as this Supreme Judgment here in Dalip Singh and Others Vs State of Punjab, in this case also a 3-judge bench addressed the issue “Whether the word “related” means “interested”?”
Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in
Supreme Court has held that a related witness would ordinarily speak the truth, but in the case of an enmity there may be a tendency to drag in an innocent person as an accused—each case has to be considered on its own facts.
From Paras 25 and 26,
“25. We are unable to agree with the learned Judges of the High Court that the testimony of the two eyewitnesses requires corroboration. If the foundation for such an observation is based on the fact that the witnesses are women and 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 endeavoured to dispel in Rameshwar v. State of Rajasthan.”
In the said case, it has also been further observed: (AIR p. 366, para 26)
“26. A witness is normally to be considered independent unless he or she springs from sources which are likely to be tainted and that usually means unless the witness has cause, such as enmity against the accused, to wish to implicate him falsely. Ordinarily a close relative would be the last to screen the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent person. It is true, when feelings run high and there is personal cause for enmity, that there is a tendency to drag in an innocent person against whom a witness has a grudge along with the guilty, but foundation must be laid for such a criticism
and the mere fact of relationship far from being a foundation is often a sure guarantee of
truth.”
Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in
In this order from Delhi High Court, it is held that the principle of “rounding off” has been recognised in law in a number of decisions to do substantial justice to folks who got border line marks less than the minimum marks set for the qualifying examination.
News: https://barandbench.com/delhi-hc-permits-rounding-off-petitioners-marks-in-ll-b-to-enable-him-to-apply-for-jag/
Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in
Justice Mr.Rakesh Kumar of Patna High Court has given an order to CBI to conduct inquiry on some Corruption incidents by members of Judiciary, that were reported in Dainik Jagran and Republic TV. (Orders courtesy by Bar and Bench website)
And the very next day a 11-judge bench was constituted and Justice Mr.Rakesh Kumar’s order was suspended and all judicial work was taken away from him. Here is the order.
Then, a 1-pager was passed assigning judicial work to him. Here is the notice.
And then an Order was passed by a 3-judge bench of High Court of Madhya Pradesh quashing the order of Justice Mr.Rakesh Kumar dt 28-08-2019
Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in
Applicants (who?) prayed for speedy disposal of maintenance applications pending at lower family court.
The Case Index is available here.
Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in
Here are the key orders passed by Hon’ble Delhi High Court on the case of Kusum Sharma Vs Mahinder Kumar Sharma case.
This judgment is gainfully used in Shalu Ojha case here.
A 2-judge bench of Supreme Court passed guidelines to handle multiple maintenance litigation here.
A humble collection of Legal Maxims useful for Law students and Law practitioners…
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
W
X
Y
Z
This is the order which cited Shafhi judgment here, to larger bench for reconsideration, since there was a conflicting precedent, in Anvar P,V.
Here is the last Order, wherein Arguments have concluded and the Judgment was reserved.
Here is the final Judgment authored by Justice R.F.Nariman.
Relevant portions:
From Para 52: Accused must be given copy of all documents that prosecution relies upon.
52. It is pertinent to recollect that the stage of admitting documentary evidence in a criminal trial is the filing of the charge-sheet. When a criminal court summons the accused to stand trial, copies of all documents which are entered in the charge-sheet/final report have to be given to the accused. Section 207 of the CrPC, which reads as follows, is mandatory. Therefore, the electronic evidence, i.e. the computer output, has to be furnished at the latest before the trial begins. The reason is not far to seek; this gives the accused a fair chance to prepare and defend the charges levelled against him during the trial. The general principle in criminal proceedings therefore, is to supply to the accused all documents that the prosecution seeks to rely upon before the commencement of the trial. The requirement of such full disclosure is an extremely valuable right and an essential feature of the right to a fair trial as it enables the accused to prepare for the trial before its commencement.
From Para 54: When should the certificate u/s 65B be filed?
54. Therefore, in terms of general procedure, the prosecution is obligated to supply all documents upon which reliance may be placed to an accused before commencement of the trial. Thus, the exercise of power by the courts in criminal trials in permitting evidence to be filed at a later stage should not result in serious or irreversible prejudice to the accused. A balancing exercise in respect of the rights of parties has to be carried out by the court, in examining any application by the prosecution under Sections 91 or 311 of the CrPC or Section 165 of the Evidence Act.
Depending on the facts of each case, and the Court exercising discretion after seeing that the accused is not prejudiced by want of a fair trial, the Court may in appropriate cases allow the prosecution to produce such certificate at a later point in time. If it is the accused who desires to produce the requisite certificate as part of his defence, this again will depend upon the justice of the case – discretion to be exercised by the Court in accordance with law.
From Para 59,
59. We may reiterate, therefore, that the certificate required under Section 65B(4) is a condition precedent to the admissibility of evidence by way of electronic record, as correctly held in Anvar P.V. (supra), and incorrectly “clarified” in Shafhi Mohammed (supra). Oral evidence in the place of such certificate cannot possibly suffice as Section 65B(4) is a mandatory requirement of the law. Indeed, the hallowed principle in Taylor v. Taylor (1876) 1 Ch.D 426, which has been followed in a number of the judgments of this Court, can also be applied. Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act clearly states that secondary evidence is admissible only if lead in the manner stated and not otherwise. To hold otherwise would render Section 65B(4) otiose.
Para 17 of the separate concurring opinion penned by V. Ramasubramanian, J is as follows:
Following the above precedents, this Court also held in S. Pratap Singh v. State of Punjab (1964) 4 SCR 733, AIR 1964 SC 72, Yusufalli Esmail Nagree v. State Of Maharashtra . (1967) 3 SCR 720, AIR 1968 SC 147, 1968 Cri LJ 103, N. Sri Rama Reddy v. V.V. Giri (1970) 2 SCC 340, AIR 1971 SC 1162, R. M. Malkani v. State Of Maharashtra . (1973) 1 SCC 471, AIR 1973 SC 157, Ziyauddin Burhanuddin Bukhari v. Brijmohan Ramdass Mehra (1976) 2 SCC 17, Ram Singh v. Ram Singh 1985 Supp SCC 611, AIR 1986 SC 3 and Tukaram S. Dighole v. Manikrao Shivaji Kokate . (2010) 4 SCC 32912, that tape records of conversations and speeches are admissible in evidence under the Evidence Act, subject to certain conditions. In Ziyauddin Burhanuddin Bukhari (1976) 2 SCC 17 and Tukaram S. Dighole (2010) 4 SCC 32912 this Court further held that tape records constitute “document” within the meaning of the expression under Section 3 of the Evidence Act. Thus, without looking up to the lawmakers to come up with necessary amendments from time to time, the courts themselves developed certain rules, over a period of time, to test the authenticity of these documents in analogue form and these rules have in fact, worked well.
Citations: [(2020) 3 SCC 216] [(2020) 7 SCC 1], [AIR 2020 SUPREME COURT 4908], [AIRONLINE 2020 SC 641]
Other Source links:
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/172105947/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5f10bc933321bc1d0ef58d1d
https://lawfyi.io/arjun-panditrao-khotkar-vs-kailash-kushanrao-gorantyal-on-14-july-2020-case-summary/
The Bombay High Court judgment which was challenged at Supreme Court is here.
This is the landmark judgment regarding Sec 65B of Indian Evidence Act and it’s procedure and usage.
A follow up hearing…
This judgment is referred to a larger bench and was overruled here.
Landmark judgment from Justice Shri Dalveer Bhandari regarding Law around Mental cruelty and irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a ground for Divorce under Hindu Marriage Act 1955.
Citations : [2006 BOMCR SC 5 240], [2006 SUPREME 2 627], [2006 SCALE 3 252], [2006 AIR SC 1550], [2006 JT 3 491], [2006 ALLMR SC 4 190], [2006 MHLJ SC 4 242], [2006 SCR 3 53], [2006 MPLJ SC 3 1], [2006 AIOL 157], [2006 AIR SC 1675], [2006 SCC 4 558], [2006 DLT 128 360], [2006 AIR SCW 1550]
Other Sources :
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1643829/
https://www.indianemployees.com/judgments/details/naveen-kohli-vs-neelu-kohli
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ae31e4b0149711413211
https://www.legitquest.com/case/naveen-kohli-v-neelu-kohli/26101
Other cases wherein Divorce was granted to Husband here.
Bad Behavior has blocked 820 access attempts in the last 7 days.
