⚖ INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT – LANDMARK JUDGMENT MASTER TABLE
🔹 I. RELEVANCY OF FACTS (Sections 5–16)
| Issue |
Case |
Citation |
Principle |
| Motive relevance |
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Babu Ram |
(2000) 4 SCC 515 |
Motive assumes importance in circumstantial evidence cases. |
| Conspiracy – Section 10 |
State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu |
Parliament Attack Case |
Acts/statements of co-conspirators admissible if prima facie conspiracy established. |
| Res Gestae – Section 6 |
Sukhar v. State of Uttar Pradesh |
(1999) 9 SCC 507 |
Statement must be contemporaneous and part of same transaction. |
🔹 II. ADMISSION & CONFESSION (Sections 17–31)
| Issue |
Case |
Citation |
Principle |
| Extra-judicial confession |
Sahadevan v. State of Tamil Nadu |
(2012) 6 SCC 403 |
Can form sole basis of conviction if voluntary & credible. |
| Police confession inadmissible |
State of Punjab v. Barkat Ram |
AIR 1962 SC 276 |
Confession to police officer inadmissible under Section 25. |
| Section 27 discovery |
Pulukuri Kottaya v. Emperor |
AIR 1947 PC 67 |
Only discovery portion admissible. |
| Retracted confession |
Pyare Lal Bhargava v. State of Rajasthan |
AIR 1963 SC 1094 |
Retraction weakens evidentiary value; needs corroboration. |
🔹 III. DYING DECLARATION (Section 32)
| Issue |
Case |
Citation |
Principle |
| Sole basis of conviction |
Khushal Rao v. State of Bombay |
AIR 1958 SC 22 |
Can sustain conviction without corroboration. |
| Doctor certification not mandatory |
Laxman v. State of Maharashtra |
(2002) 6 SCC 710 |
Fitness can be inferred from evidence. |
| Multiple dying declarations |
Amol Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh |
(2008) 5 SCC 468 |
If inconsistent, court must scrutinize carefully. |
🔹 IV. CHARACTER EVIDENCE (Sections 52–55)
| Issue |
Case |
Principle |
| Bad character irrelevant |
Harinath v. State of Uttar Pradesh |
Character generally irrelevant unless accused gives evidence of good character. |
🔹 V. ORAL EVIDENCE (Sections 59–60)
| Issue |
Case |
Principle |
| Hearsay inadmissible |
Tehsildar Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh |
Hearsay not admissible unless covered by exception. |
🔹 VI. DOCUMENTARY & PRIMARY/SECONDARY EVIDENCE (Sections 61–65)
| Issue |
Case |
Citation |
Principle |
| Secondary evidence conditions |
H. Siddiqui v. A. Ramalingam |
(2011) 4 SCC 240 |
Foundational facts must be proved before admitting secondary evidence. |
| Best evidence rule |
J. Yashoda v. K. Shobha Rani |
(2007) 5 SCC 730 |
Secondary evidence cannot replace primary evidence unless conditions satisfied. |
🔹 VII. ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE (Section 65B)
| Issue |
Case |
Citation |
Principle |
| 65B mandatory |
Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer |
(2014) 10 SCC 473 |
Electronic evidence admissible only with 65B certificate. |
| Clarification & reaffirmation |
Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal |
(2020) 7 SCC 1 |
Certificate mandatory unless original device produced. |
| CCTV evidence |
Sonu v. State of Haryana |
(2017) 8 SCC 570 |
Objection to 65B must be taken at trial stage. |
🔹 VIII. PRESUMPTIONS (Sections 101–114)
| Issue |
Case |
Citation |
Principle |
| Burden of proof |
Kali Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh |
(1973) 2 SCC 808 |
Prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. |
| Presumption under 113B (Dowry death) |
Baijnath v. State of Madhya Pradesh |
(2017) 1 SCC 101 |
Presumption arises only when foundational facts proved. |
| Presumption of innocence |
Narendra Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh |
Accused entitled to benefit of doubt. |
|
🔹 IX. ESTOPPEL (Section 115)
| Issue |
Case |
Principle |
| Doctrine of estoppel |
B.L. Sreedhar v. K.M. Munireddy |
Estoppel prevents party from denying earlier representation. |
🔹 X. WITNESSES (Sections 118–134)
| Issue |
Case |
Citation |
Principle |
| Child witness |
Dattu Ramrao Sakhare v. State of Maharashtra |
(1997) 5 SCC 341 |
Conviction possible if child witness reliable. |
| Hostile witness |
State of U.P. v. Ramesh Prasad Misra |
(1996) 10 SCC 360 |
Reliable portion can be relied upon. |
| Sole witness |
Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras |
AIR 1957 SC 614 |
Conviction can be based on testimony of single wholly reliable witness. |
🔹 XI. ACCOMPLICE (Section 133 & 114 Illustration b)
| Issue |
Case |
Principle |
| Corroboration rule |
Rameshwar v. State of Rajasthan |
Corroboration is rule of prudence, not law. |
🔹 XII. TEST IDENTIFICATION PARADE (TIP)
| Issue |
Case |
Principle |
| TIP evidentiary value |
Budhsen v. State of Uttar Pradesh |
TIP is corroborative; not substantive evidence. |
🔹 XIII. CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
| Issue |
Case |
Citation |
Principle |
| Five golden principles |
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra |
(1984) 4 SCC 116 |
Chain must be complete; consistent only with guilt. |
| Suspicion vs proof |
Hanumant Govind Nargundkar v. State of Madhya Pradesh |
AIR 1952 SC 343 |
Circumstances must exclude every hypothesis except guilt. |
🔹 XIV. BENEFIT OF DOUBT
| Issue |
Case |
Principle |
| Two views theory |
Kali Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh |
If two views possible, one favouring accused must be adopted. |
🎯 WHAT THIS TABLE COVERS
✔ Admissions
✔ Confessions
✔ Dying declaration
✔ Documentary evidence
✔ Electronic evidence
✔ Burden of proof
✔ Presumptions
✔ Witnesses
✔ Hostile witness
✔ TIP
✔ Circumstantial evidence
✔ Estoppel
✔ Accomplice