2 Important Supreme Court Judgments Pronounced Today [Thursday, July 4, 2019]

1. Ramesh Dasu Chauhan v. The State of Maharashtra

The Indian Penal Code, 1908 - Section 302, 392 / 34 - Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 25, 26 and 27 - Recovery of Stolen Articles.

The Investigating Officer, Sevakram Thaokar (P.W.11) has very emphatically deposed that out of the stolen items, Onida T.V. set was got recovered at the instance of the first appellant from his house. Similarly, the silver coin and a part of the stolen currency was recovered from the second appellant. This is not the appellants’ case that they were forced to make the incriminating statements under any threat. They have chosen to defend themselves only on the basis of denial. The revelation made by the Investigating Officer to the limited extent of recovery of the stolen items pursuant to the disclosure statements made by the appellants, therefore, falls within the four-corners of Section 27 of the Evidence Act and has been rightly relied upon by the Courts below.



Evidence Law - 'Circumstantial Evidence' - Definition of - a combination of such facts that there is no escape for the accused because the facts taken as a whole do not admit to any inference but of his guilt. It has also been coined as a Complete Chain Link Theory, putting onus on the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt, the chain of events which lead to only one conclusion, namely, the culpability of the accused.

In order to prove a criminal charge by means of circumstantial evidence, it was imperative on the prosecution to establish beyond any doubt that – (i) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn must be fully established; (ii) the facts so established should be consistent 4 only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused; (iii) the circumstances should be of conclusive nature and they should exclude any possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and (iv) the chain of evidence should be complete leaving no reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused.

Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 25 and 26 - The statement made by an accused while in police custody can be split in two parts and to the extent of it being a disclosure statement which is the immediate cause of discovering new facts, would be legally admissible in evidence though the remainder of such statement may be liable to be discarded.

There is no gainsaying that confession made to a police officer cannot be proved as against a person accused of any offence and no confession made by a person while in police custody except made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate, can be proved against him in view of embargo created by Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act. Section 27 of the Act nevertheless carves out an exception as it provides that when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence while he is in police custody, “so much of such information”, regardless of it being a confession or not, may be proved, if it relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered. Section 27 of the Evidence Act thus enables the cliched use of a custodian statement made in the ordinary course of events. The statement made by an accused while in police custody can be split in two parts and to the extent of it being a disclosure statement which is the immediate cause of discovering new facts, would be legally admissible in evidence though the remainder of such statement may be liable to be discarded.

Evidence Law - the statement of a police officer has to be scrupulously scrutinised and the Court would cautiously and suspiciously read the same for evaluating the cumulative effect of the entire evidence on record.



Evidence Law - The Identification Parade of the accused before the Court is not the main substantive piece of evidence, rather it is corroborative in nature.

Circumstantial Evidence - the standard of proof necessitated for recording a conviction on the basis of circumstantial evidence - five golden principles of standard of proof required to be established in such a case.

1. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established; 

2. The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, these should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty; 

3. The circumstances should be conclusive in 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 acts must have been committed by the accused.

Case Number : Crl.A. No. 1682 of 2012 04-07-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : Ajay Kumar Talesara
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surya Kant




2. Niravkumar Dilipbhai Makwana v. Gujrat Public Service Commission

Service Law - Whether a candidate who has availed of an age relaxation in a selection process as a result of belonging to a reserved category, can thereafter seek to be accommodated in/or migrated to the general category seat ?

Case Number : C.A. No. 5185 of 2019 04-07-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : O.P. Bhadani
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Abdul Nazeer, Hon'ble Ms. Justice Indira Banerjee

Post a Comment

Previous Post Next Post