⚖ 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