Tag: Evidence Law

No Medical Injury? No Problem: Supreme Court Explains When Victim’s Word Wins in POCSO Cases
3Feb By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

No Medical Injury? No Problem: Supreme Court Explains When Victim’s Word Wins in POCSO Cases

The Supreme Court upheld the appellant's conviction under Sections 9(m) and 10 of the POCSO Act, 2012, for aggravated sexual assault on a child. The Court ruled that cogent ocular evidence from witnesses, including the victim's traumatized behavior, can sustain a conviction even if medical evidence does not show injury or penetration. The sentence was partially modified. Facts Of The Case: On August 15, 2021, the appellant, Dinesh Kumar Jaldhari, returned to the victim's home in Jashpur, Chhattisgarh, with her father and another man after collecting wood. After consuming alcohol, the victim's four-year-old daughter was sleeping inside. Around 4:30 p.m., the mother went inside to give food to the appellant and found him wearing only shorts, sitting near her daughter's legs. Th...
Read More
From Death Row to Freedom: The Supreme Court’s Historic Curative Verdict in the Nithari Case
2Feb By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

From Death Row to Freedom: The Supreme Court’s Historic Curative Verdict in the Nithari Case

Supreme Court Says this curative petition was allowed due to irreconcilable outcomes on an identical evidentiary foundation, violating Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The Court found the Section 164 CrPC confession involuntary and Section 27 recoveries inadmissible, structural infirmities fatal to the conviction. The earlier judgment was set aside to cure a gross miscarriage of justice. Facts Of The Case: The case involves petitioner Surendra Koli, who was employed as a domestic help in Noida's Nithari area. Between 2005 and 2006, multiple women and children were reported missing. On December 29, 2006, human remains were discovered in the open area behind the house where Koli worked, leading to his arrest. He was convicted and sentenced to death in 2009 for the murder...
Read More
Right to Privacy Prevails: Supreme Court Rejects Forced DNA Test in Paternity Dispute
29Jan By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Right to Privacy Prevails: Supreme Court Rejects Forced DNA Test in Paternity Dispute

In this Supreme Court judgment, the Supreme Court ruled that a DNA test cannot be ordered as a matter of routine. It emphasized that the conclusive presumption of a child's legitimacy under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act can only be displaced by proving "non-access." Absent such proof and a direct nexus to the alleged offence, forced testing violates the right to privacy and bodily autonomy. Facts Of The Case: Respondent No. 1, Kamar Nisha, was married to Abdul Latheef in 2001. Latheef, suffering from a skin ailment, was successfully treated by the appellant, Dr. R. Rajendran. Latheef confided in the doctor about his lack of progeny, leading to a request for medical assistance for his wife. Following this, an extramarital relationship developed between the appellant and...
Read More
Supreme Court Shields Lawyers: Police Can’t Summon Advocates as Witness
17Jan By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Shields Lawyers: Police Can’t Summon Advocates as Witness

The Supreme Court ruled that investigating agencies cannot directly summon an Advocate to disclose privileged communications with a client under Section 132 of the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023. Such a summons violates the attorney-client privilege and the accused's fundamental rights. Any exception must be explicitly justified, approved by a senior officer, and is subject to judicial review under Section 528 of the BNSS. Facts Of The Case: An FIR was registered at the Odhav Police Station in Ahmedabad, Gujarat, under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, and other statutes concerning a loan agreement dispute. Following the arrest of an accused, an Advocate filed a successful bail application before the Sessions Court. Subsequently, the Assistant C...
Read More
“Mere Suspicion Not Proof”:Supreme Court Landmark Ruling on Circumstantial Evidence
13Jan By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

“Mere Suspicion Not Proof”:Supreme Court Landmark Ruling on Circumstantial Evidence

This Supreme Court judgment underscores the stringent standards for conviction based on circumstantial evidence. It holds that the prosecution must establish a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances, excluding every hypothesis of innocence. Where gaps exist or alternative possibilities emerge, the benefit of doubt must be accorded to the accused, leading to acquittal if guilt is not proven beyond reasonable doubt. Facts Of The Case: An 85-year-old woman, living alone in Coimbatore, was found murdered in her home on the morning of December 19, 2016. She had been strangled with a towel, sexually assaulted, and her two gold bangles were missing. The prosecution's case relied on circumstantial evidence against the appellant, Mohamed Sameer Khan. Key points included that the appellant w...
Read More
“Demand & Acceptance” Not Proved: Supreme Court Acquits Official in Anti-Corruption Case
13Jan By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

“Demand & Acceptance” Not Proved: Supreme Court Acquits Official in Anti-Corruption Case

The Supreme Court reiterated the established principle that an appellate court should not reverse an acquittal unless the trial court’s view is perverse or based on a manifest misreading of evidence. The prosecution must prove the foundational facts of demand and acceptance of a bribe beyond reasonable doubt, and mere recovery of money is insufficient for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, an Assistant Commissioner of Labour, was accused of demanding a bribe of ₹9,000 from a labour contractor for renewing three licences. The prosecution alleged that a partial payment of ₹3,000 was made on 25.09.1997, with the balance demanded the next day. The complainant reported this to the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), which laid a trap on 26.09.1997. ...
Read More
Supreme Court Rules: Non-Examination of Complainant Vitiates Departmental Inquiry
4Jan By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rules: Non-Examination of Complainant Vitiates Departmental Inquiry

The Supreme Court held that a departmental inquiry is vitiated if based on the unexamined statement of a key complainant, denying the delinquent employee the right to cross-examination—a violation of natural justice. Charges unsupported by conclusive evidence cannot sustain a dismissal order, warranting judicial intervention under Article 226. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, V.M. Saudagar, was a Travelling Ticket Examiner (TTE) with Central Railway, Nagpur. On 31 May 1988, a Railway Vigilance team conducted a surprise check on his coach. He was subsequently charge-sheeted in July 1989 for alleged misconduct, including demanding illegal gratification from three passengers for berth allotment, possessing excess undeclared cash, failing to recover a small fare difference, and forgin...
Read More
Dowry Death Mystery Solved: Supreme Court Holds Father-in-Law Guilty After High Court’s Acquittal
29Dec By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Dowry Death Mystery Solved: Supreme Court Holds Father-in-Law Guilty After High Court’s Acquittal

The Supreme Court restored the conviction of the accused under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC, holding that in cases of unnatural death within a household, the burden to explain the circumstances lies with the accused under Section 106 of the Evidence Act. The Court found the chain of circumstantial evidence complete, establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Facts Of The Case: The case revolves around the death of Smt. Pushpa, who was married to Mahesh Singh. Her family alleged she faced persistent dowry harassment and cruelty from her husband and father-in-law, Janved Singh. On December 31, 1997, Janved Singh reported to police that Pushpa died from accidental electrocution while ironing clothes. However, the post-mortem revealed the cause was asphyxia due to strangula...
Read More
Supreme Court :Why Consent Doesn’t Matter If Victim Is Under 16
28Dec By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court :Why Consent Doesn’t Matter If Victim Is Under 16

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction under Sections 363, 366, 376, and 377 IPC, emphasizing that the testimony of a minor victim can be relied upon as a "sterling witness." It held that even if medical evidence is not conclusive, it does not rule out the offence, and consent is immaterial when the victim is below 16 years of age. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from an FIR registered in February 2007 against the appellant, Varun Kumar, for offences including kidnapping and rape under the IPC. The prosecution alleged that the appellant, along with a co-accused, abducted a minor girl aged about 15 years. The victim's testimony detailed that she was taken to Una and subsequently to a relative's house, where the appellant subjected her to forcible sexual and unnatural intercourse o...
Read More