Admissibility of Evidence - The Legal Chamber

Can In-Laws Be Summoned for Murder if Not Named in the Chargesheet? Supreme Court Answers

2Mar

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Can In-Laws Be Summoned for Murder if Not Named in the Chargesheet? Supreme Court Answers

This Supreme Court judgment clarifies the principles for summoning additional accused under Section 319 CrPC, holding that courts must apply a "strong and cogent evidence" standard—stricter than a prima facie case but short of conviction-weight evidence. It emphasizes that evidentiary reliability, witness credibility, and dying declaration admissibility are trial-stage determinations, not preliminary considerations. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from an FIR lodged on March 25, 2021, by the appellant, Neeraj Kumar, alleging that his sister, Nishi, was shot by her husband, Rahul, at her matrimonial home. The information was conveyed to the appellant by his nine-year-old niece, Shristi, who witnessed the incident. During the investigation, the deceased's statements were recorded tw...

No Retrial Merely to Fill Gaps in Prosecution, Rules Supreme Court in Drug Case

The Supreme Court held that a retrial is an exceptional remedy not warranted merely to rectify procedural lapses in evidence admission. Electronic evidence complying with Section 65B of the Evidence Act is admissible without a transcript. The non-examination of a Chemical Analyst or non-production of samples is not automatically fatal, as an appellate court can remedy such defects under Section 391 CrPC instead of ordering a retrial. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a raid conducted by police on a hut based on information that the appellant, Kailas, and another accused were stocking Ganja for sale. Following due procedure, the raiding party, which included panch witnesses and a gazetted officer, searched the hut and recovered 18 plastic packets containing 39 kilograms of Ganja...

Supreme Court Landmark Ruling: Additional Evidence in Appeals Must Align with Pleadings

The Supreme Court held that an appellate court must examine the pleadings of the party seeking to lead additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27(1) CPC. Permission to adduce such evidence cannot be granted unless the case sought to be established is already pleaded. The matter was remanded for reconsideration on this legal principle. Facts Of The Case: The plaintiffs, Iqbal Ahmed and another, filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 20.02.1995 against the defendant, Abdul Shukoor. The plaintiffs claimed they had agreed to purchase the defendant's house property for ₹10,67,000, having paid ₹5,00,000 as advance. They pleaded that they had sold their own immovable properties to arrange the funds for this purchase and were always ready and willing to perform thei...