Rahim Pathan Vs State of Maharashtra on 04 Jun 2019

Posted on July 31 by ShadesOfKnife

Single bench judge of Bombay High Court held as follows, while acquitting a husband from the allegations of strangulating his wife.

From Para 16,

16. Perusal of aforesaid findings reflect that the learned Sessions Judge kept implicit reliance on the evidence of PW-2 Sayed Bandeali as well as recitals of the FIR, scribed by PW-9 Gauri More to arrive at the conclusion of guilt of the accused. The approach of learned Sessions Judge appears superficial and erroneous one. He drawn the conclusion that the death of victim was custodial death and it was imperative for the accused husband to explain how the deceased Rubina died. It reveals that the learned Sessions Judge overlooked or glossed over serious legal infirmities in this case. It was fallacious to appreciate that the shop of accused was located at a distance of 3. k.m. from his residential house. Therefore, there was ample opportunity for him to visit to the house from his shop for committing crime. This sort of speculative findings rests on assumption is totally impermissible and inadmissible in law. There is no evidence available on record about the last scene together of the accused in the company of deceased wife Rubina at the relevant time. In contrast, kith and kin of Rubina turned hostile and refused to cast aspersion on the appellant-accused for her homicidal death.

Rahim Pathan Vs State of Maharastra on 04 Jun 2019

Citations :

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/141994995/

R.Shaji Vs State of Kerala on 4 Feb 2013

Posted on April 17 by ShadesOfKnife

Lot of legal points explained with respect to the statements given by witnesses in Court in this landmark decision by a Division bench of Apex Court.

From Para 13,

13. Clause (iv) of Section 207 Cr.P.C. clearly provides that any statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., shall be made available to the accused along with all the other documents that have been filed along with the charge sheet.

From Para 14,

14. Evidence given in a court under oath has great sanctity, which is why the same is called substantive evidence. Statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. can be used only for the purpose of contradiction and statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C. can be used for both corroboration and contradiction. In a case where the magistrate has to perform the duty of recording a statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., he is under an obligation to elicit all information which the witness wishes to disclose, as a witness who may be an illiterate, rustic villager may not be aware of the purpose for which he has been brought, and what he must disclose in his statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Hence, the magistrate should ask the witness explanatory questions and obtain all possible information in relation to the said case.

From Para 15,

15. So far as the statement of witnesses recorded under Section 164 is concerned, the object is two fold; in the first place, to deter the witness from changing his stand by denying the contents of his previously recorded statement, and secondly, to tide over immunity from prosecution by the witness under Section 164. A proposition to the effect that if a statement of a witness is recorded under Section 164, his evidence in Court should be discarded, is not at all warranted.

From Para 16,

16. Section 157 of the Evidence Act makes it clear that a statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., can be relied upon for the purpose of corroborating statements made by witnesses in the Committal Court or even to contradict the same. As the defence had no opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses whose statements are recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., such statements cannot be treated as substantive evidence.

During the investigation, the Police Officer may sometimes feel that it is expedient to record the statement of a witness under Section 164 Cr.P.C. This usually happens when the witnesses to a crime are clearly connected to the accused, or where the accused is very influential, owing to which the witnesses may be influenced.

R.Shaji Vs State of Kerala on 4 Feb 2013

Citations : [2013 AIR SC 651], [2013 ALD CRI 2 153], [2013 CRIMES SC 1 217], [2013 JLJR 1 499], [2013 JT SC 2 447], [2013 KLJ 1 620], [2013 KERLT 1 493], [2013 PLJR 2 145], [2013 SCALE 2 186], [2013 SCC 14 266], [2013 SCR 3 1172], [2013 UC 1 673], [2014 SCC CRI 4 185], [2013 SCC ONLINE SC 114], [2013 SLT 1 705], [2013 SUPREME 1 545], [2013 AIOL 72], [2013 AIR SC 1095], [2013 CCR 1 494], [2013 KCCR SN 3 220], [2013 RAJ 1 435], [2013 RCR CRIMINAL SC 1 964], [2013 AIR SCW 1095], [2013 ALLMR CRI SC 1469]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/178895486/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609af40e4b0149711415f37

Gyan Singh Shakya Vs State of UP on 08 Mar 2021

Posted on March 10 by ShadesOfKnife

Based on Sharad Birdhichand here and many other judgments, Allahabad High Court has set-aside the conviction and sentence of the appellants.

Gyan Singh Shakya Vs State of UP on 08 Mar 2021

Nawab Vs State of Uttarakhand on 22 Jan 2020

Posted on March 10 by ShadesOfKnife

Based on Sharad BirdhiChand here, Apex Court held that the defence of accused is full of holes and cannot be believed and hence his appeal was dismissed.

Nawab Vs State of Uttarakhand on 22 Jan 2020

Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda Vs State of Maharashtra on 17 Jul 1984

Posted on March 10 by ShadesOfKnife

Landmark judgment by a 3-judge bench of Supreme Court around circumstantial evidence (Sec 106 of Evidence Act 1872) basis which the accused were acquitted. The 5 golden principles postulated in this decision are as below.

153. A close analysis of this decision would show that the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established :
(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.
It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned “must or should” and not “may be” established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between “may be proved” and “must be or should be proved” as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade and another Vs. State of Maharashtra 1973 2 SCC 793 where the observations were made :
(2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty,
(3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency,
(4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and
(5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the
accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.
154. These five golden principles, if we may say so, constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence.

Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda Vs State of Maharashtra on 17 Jul 1984

Casemine version:

Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda Vs State of Maharashtra on 17 Jul 1984 (Casemine)

Citations : [1984 SCC 4 116], [1984 AIR SC 1622], [1984 CRI LJ 1738], [1984 CRIMES 2 235], [1984 CAR 263], [1984 CRLJ 90 1738], [1984 SCALE 2 445], [1985 SCR 1 88], [1984 CRLR 296], [1985 BOMCR SC 1 208], [1984 CRIMES SC 2 853], [1984 SCC CRI 1 487], [1984 SCC CRI 487], [1984 CRLJ SC 1738], [1984 AIR 1622], [1984 CRIMES SC 2 235]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1505859/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56b48ca6607dba348ffede2b

Evidence Act Sec 106 – Burden of Proving Fact Especially Within Knowledge

Posted on January 6 by ShadesOfKnife

When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him.

Umedbhai Jadavbhai Vs State of Gujarat on 16 Dec 1977

Posted on January 6 by ShadesOfKnife

Definition of Circumstantial evidence established by Supreme Court in this case. This corresponds to Sec 106 of Evidence Act.

From Paras 7 and 8,

7. It is well-established that in a case resting on circumstantial evidence all the circumstances brought out by the prosecution, must inevitably and exclusively point to the guilt of the accused and there should be no circumstance which may reasonably be considered consistent with the innocence of the accused. Even in the case of circumstantial evidence, the Court will have to bear in mind the cumulative effect of all the circumstances in a given case and weigh them as an integrated whole. Any missing link may be fatal to the prosecution case.

8. We will first consider whether the High Court was justified in entertaining the appeal and secondly in interfering with the order of acquittal. Entertainment of the appeal by the High Court against an acquittal will be justified only under special circumstances. They exist in this case. We find that the Sessions Judge has committed a manifest error of record when he held that “there was a pool of blood in the outer room and trail of blood-stains leading from the outer room to the inner room”. We do not find a tittle of evidence, oral or documentary to substantiate the above statement in the judgment of the Sessions Judge relying on which he came to the conclusion “that the victim was stabbed in the outer room while she was running from the outer room into the inner room”. The Sessions Judge fell into a grave error by coming to this grossly erroneous conclusion absolutely unsupported by any evidence.

Umedbhai Jadavbhai Vs State of Gujarat on 16 Dec 1977 (Indiankanoon)

Casemine version

Umedbhai Jadavbhai Vs State of Gujarat on 16 Dec 1977 (Casemine)

Citations : [1978 AIR SC 424], [1978 GLR 19 268], [1978 SCC 1 228], [1978 SCR 2 471], [1978 CAR 57], [1978 SCC CRI 108], [1978 CRLJ SC 489], [1978 CRLR SC 72]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1083864/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609abcae4b014971140d562

https://india.lawi.asia/umedbhai-jadavbhai-v-the-state-of-gujarat/

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Tag: Evidence Act 106 – Burden of Proving Fact Especially Within Knowledge

Rahim Pathan Vs State of Maharashtra on 04 Jun 2019

R.Shaji Vs State of Kerala on 4 Feb 2013

Gyan Singh Shakya Vs State of UP on 08 Mar 2021

Nawab Vs State of Uttarakhand on 22 Jan 2020

Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda Vs State of Maharashtra on 17 Jul 1984

Evidence Act Sec 106 – Burden of Proving Fact Especially Within Knowledge

Umedbhai Jadavbhai Vs State of Gujarat on 16 Dec 1977