Esheria India Case Law
Sign in
India Source-linked decisions Coverage checked

India Case Law

Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.

Courts on this page
0 court collections
Last checked

Search and filter India case law

Results update automatically as you type.

India decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters
Penal code, 1860

RAJ KUMAR @ BHEEMA versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

The conviction could not be sustained because the sole identifying witness's dock identification was unreliable (elderly witness with weak distance vision not wearing spectacles, identification after about eight and a half years via video conferencing, material improvements and denial of attendance at the alleged TIP), the TIP itself was shown to be fundamentally flawed or of doubtful authenticity, and recoveries were not credibly connected to the crime (no identification of recovered articles at trial and blood on the pant did not match the scene/deceased/victim); accordingly no substantive…

Source excerpt

  • Test identification parade (tip)
  • Identification by sole eyewitness
  • Evidence recorded over video conferencing
  • Cross-examination as to previous written statements
  • Recoveries and forensic serology
  • Identification after long delay
Read case analysis
Penal code, 1860

RAJAN versus THE STATE OF HARYANA

The trial court and High Court correctly and thoroughly appreciated the direct ocular evidence of the two eyewitnesses (including an injured eyewitness); absence of recovery of the alleged firearm did not undermine reliable direct evidence; although the High Court's delay of about 2 years 5 months in uploading the reasoned judgment is a matter of grave concern, on the facts of this case the delay did not cause such prejudice as to warrant setting aside the conviction, and therefore the appeal is dismissed.

Source excerpt

  • Murder (ss.302/34 ipc)
  • Offences under arms act (ss.25, 27)
  • Ocular evidence and injured eyewitness
  • Appreciation of ocular evidence
  • Discovery or recovery of weapon
  • Delay in uploading high court judgment
Read case analysis
Customs act, 1962

ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL ADJUDICATION, DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE versus SURESH KUMAR AND CO. IMPEX PVT. LTD. & ORS.

The Supreme Court held that there was due compliance of Section 138C(4) in the facts of the case by virtue of the Record of Proceedings and statements recorded under Section 108, which acknowledged the seizure, printing and authenticity of computer printouts; strict formalism of a certificate in the exact statutory form is not mandatory where authenticity is undisputed and compliance in substance is established. Consequently the Tribunal's order setting aside penalty solely on ground of non-compliance of Section 138C(4) was set aside and the appeals before the Tribunal were restored for rehea…

Source excerpt

  • Section 138c(4) compliance
  • Admissibility of electronic records (section 65b)
  • Statements under section 108 of customs act
  • Search and seizure; computer printouts
  • Penalty for duty evasion
Read case analysis
Evidence act, 1872

NILIMA DAS GUPTA (DECEASED) THROUGH ITS LRS. versus ON THE DEATH OF ABDUR ROUF HIS LEGAL HEIRS & ORS.

Section 120 alone does not render the son (D.W.5) incompetent to testify; while D.W.5 cannot give evidence as to matters within his mother's exclusive personal knowledge, his evidence cannot be discarded entirely on the basis of Section 120. The High Court's exclusion of his evidence in toto was incorrect; the High Court's impugned judgment is set aside and the matter remanded for fresh consideration including formulation and decision on the substantial question of law.

Source excerpt

  • Competence of witnesses
  • Section 120 indian evidence act
  • Nemo in propria causa
  • Witness testifying on behalf of another
Read case analysis
Penal code, 1860

SD. SHABUDDIN versus THE STATE OF TELANGANA

The High Court erred by shifting the burden to the accused via Section 114 Evidence Act and by sustaining conviction under Section 411 IPC despite both Courts having acquitted the accused of theft under Section 379 IPC; because prosecution failed to prove the foundational fact of theft and to link the recovered cash to the deceased, possession alone and inability to account cannot sustain conviction under Section 411, and the initial burden remained on the prosecution under Section 102 Evidence Act.

Source excerpt

  • Section 411 ipc
  • Section 379 ipc
  • Burden of proof
  • Presumption under section 114 evidence act
  • Initial burden under section 102 evidence act
  • Possession of alleged stolen property
Read case analysis
Penal code, 1860

SHANTI DEVI versus STATE OF HARYANA

The prosecution failed to establish a complete and cogent chain of incriminating circumstances: the alleged motive was unsubstantiated and contradictory, the last-seen-together and extra-judicial confession evidence were unreliable and likely fabricated, the recoveries were doubtful and rendered inconsequential by a negative FSL/serology report; therefore convictions and sentences under Sections 302/34 and 201/34 IPC could not be sustained and the accused (appellant and non-appealing co-accused) were to be acquitted.

Source excerpt

  • Murder
  • Illegal occupation
  • Chain of incriminating circumstances
  • Appellate jurisdiction
  • Testimony of the witnesses
  • Last seen together theory
Read case analysis
Penal code, 1860

CHETAN versus THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

The Court upheld the convictions under Section 302 IPC, Section 404 IPC insofar as misappropriation of the gold chain, and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act (for unlawful possession and use of the gun), holding that the cumulative circumstantial evidence—last-seen together, abscondence and misleading conduct, recoveries at the appellant's instance, and ballistic/forensic linkage between the recovered gun and pellets/wads found in the deceased—proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt; the conviction under Section 404 IPC as regards the Nokia mobile phone was set aside due to benefit of doubt.

Source excerpt

  • Circumstantial evidence
  • Last-seen theory
  • Ballistic/forensic evidence
  • Abscondence
  • Motive
  • Recovery of articles
Read case analysis
Penal code, 1860

RAJU @ UMAKANT versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

The Court upheld convictions under Sections 366, 342 and 376(2)(g) IPC because the prosecutrix's consistent and credible testimony, together with evidence of abduction and wrongful confinement, established that the appellant and co-accused acted in concert with a common intention to sexually assault her under Explanation 1 to s.376(2)(g); however, there was no evidence that caste identity was one of the grounds for the offence and therefore conviction under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act could not be sustained; sentence of life imprisonment under s.376(2)(g) was modified to 10 years rigorou…

Source excerpt

  • Gang rape and explanation 1 to s.376(2)(g)
  • Common intention and joint liability
  • Prosecutrix testimony and corroboration
  • Presumption under s.114a of the evidence act
  • Application of s.3(2)(v) of the 1989 act and patan jamal vali
  • Two-finger test and medical examination
Read case analysis
Evidence act, 1872

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH versus BALVEER SINGH

The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in discarding the child witness PW-6; her testimony was competent, reliable and not shown to be tutored, the delay in recording her police statement was not shown to be deliberate or sinister, and the prosecution had established sufficient incriminating circumstances (including clandestine nocturnal cremation, accused's flight and silence) to invoke s.106 Evidence Act shifting the evidential burden to the accused who failed to explain; accordingly the Trial Court conviction under Sections 302, 201 read with 34 IPC was restored and the High Cour…

Source excerpt

  • Child witness
  • Competency to testify
  • Tutored testimony
  • Section 118 evidence act
  • Section 106 evidence act
  • Circumstantial evidence
Read case analysis
Evidence act, 1872

IVAN RATHINAM versus MILAN JOSEPH

Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act creates a strong conclusive presumption that a child born during a subsisting marriage is the legitimate child of the husband and determines paternity unless that presumption is successfully rebutted by proof of non-access; a DNA test may be ordered only if evidence is insufficient to displace the presumption and the balance of interests (including privacy and dignity) warrants it; the Family Court lacked exclusive jurisdiction to entertain a declaration of legitimacy absent a claim on the marital relationship, the Family Court properly kept the maintena…

Source excerpt

  • Legitimacy
  • Paternity
  • Dna test
  • Privacy and dignity
  • Maintenance
  • Jurisdiction of family court
Read case analysis

About this LexChat collection

India decisions are organised by court, judge, legal area and indexed issue so a practitioner can move from a proposition to a citable authority with the surrounding context intact.

Source links and collection timestamps are retained alongside the indexed records.