Supreme Court: Whether there must be communication to qualify for statement U/S 157 of Evidence Act?

Then comes section 157, which we have already set out above. Here also the words used are 'Statement made by'. We see no reason why the word 'statement' should not have been used in its primary meaning in this section also. There is nothing in the section which in any way requires that an element of communication to another person should be imported into the meaning of the word 'statement' used therein. It was urged that if we do not imply communication to another person in the meaning of the word 'statement' in this section, it would result in a witness corroborating himself by producing some writing made by him and kept secret and that this would be very dangerous. Now, a distinction must be made between admissibility of such a writing and the value to be attached to it. Section 157 makes previous statements even of this type admissible; but what value should be attached to a corroboration of this nature is a different matter to be decided by the court in the circumstances of each case. The witness who is sought to be corroborated is produced in the witness-box and is liable to cross-examination. The cross-examiner may show that no reliance should be placed on such an earlier statement. The danger, therefore, which the learned counsel for the appellant emphasised is really no danger at all for the witness is subject to cross-examination. The main evidence is the statement of the witness in the witness-box and a document of this nature is only used to corroborate him. If the main evidence is shaken by cross-examination, corroboration by such a document would be of no use. There is, therefore, no reason to give a different meaning to the word 'statement' in this section because of this alleged danger, which really does not exist. {Para 12}

17. It is clear, therefore, the word 'statement' used in section 157 of the Act means 'something that is stated' and the element of communication to another person is not included in it. As such the notes of attendance prepared by Santook were statements within the meaning of section 157 of Evidence Act and admissible in evidence.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 31 of 1958

Decided On: 04.11.1958

Bhogilal Chunilal Pandya Vs. The State of Bombay

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

K. Subba Rao, K.N. Wanchoo and N.H. Bhagwati, JJ.

Author: K.N. Wanchoo, J.

Citation: 1959 AIR SC 356,1958 INSC 93, MANU/SC/0035/1958

Print Page

Digital Rape: Not a Cybercrime — A Crime of the Hand

The moment most people hear "digital rape," their mind jumps to hacking, deepfakes, or online abuse. That instinct is entirely wrong, and the mix-up matters because it shapes how victims are heard, how police respond, and how the public understands consent.

The word "digital" here has nothing to do with computers, phones, or the internet. It comes from the Latin word digitus, meaning finger. In plain terms, "digital rape" is medico-legal shorthand for non-consensual sexual penetration using a finger — sometimes extended to a toe or thumb. It is not a term found in any statute book. No law in India names an offence called "digital rape." It survives purely as descriptive language used by doctors, investigators, and the media to specify the manner of assault.

Where the Law Actually Places It

Print Page

Allahabad HC: Could police expect the complainant to first produce electronic or other corroborative evidence before registering an FIR?

 The Call Detail Records, location records, subscriber details and other electronic evidence, if legally obtainable and available, can be collected by the investigating agency after registration of the FIR. It was not proper for the police to treat the non-production of such material by the prosecutrix as a reason to refuse registration of the FIR. The burden of conducting a lawful investigation cannot be shifted upon the prosecutrix at the stage when she approaches the police with information disclosing cognizable offences. {Para 53}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD

Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 18961 of 2026

Decided On: 06.08.2026

Arpit Gupta Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Chandra Dhari Singh and Tarun Saxena, JJ.

Author: Chandra Dhari Singh, J.

Citation: 2026:AHC:168404-DB),MANU/UP/1934/2026

Print Page

Supreme Court Lays Down Law On Using ITRs (Income tax return)To Assess Victim's Income in Motor Accident Claims

 In the considered view of this Court, there can be no hard and fast formula for computing the annual income of a deceased person/claimant. ITRs being a statutory document are an important reference point when it comes to assessing one’s income, for the purposes of compensation under the Motor Vehicle Act. {Para 17}

18. We find force in the submission put forth by Mr. J.R Midha, learned senior counsel. There must be a bifurcation made between salaried individuals and self-employed individuals when it comes to assessment of annual income. In our view, for salaried individuals, only the ITR of the previous year will be sufficient for showcasing the annual income from salary. The reason for considering only the preceding year is that the financial impact of promotions is significant and may be reflected in the ITR for only that year. A situation may also arise whereby the deceased/claimant might not have completed a year in the promoted position before the accident or might not have filed ITR for such period. In such cases the Court concerned shall take reference to the promotion letter and other corroboratory financial statements.

19. When it comes to self-employed / individuals carrying out their own business, in our view, the average of the income specified in the ITRs of up to the previous three years is to be taken as a reference point for assessment of annual income from their business. There may also be a scenario where only one or two ITRs have been filed. Given such scenarios and the fluctuation of income in these professions, surrounding circumstances are also to be taken into consideration. These would include:

a) The nature of the business (including geographic location,

category etc.);

b) Growth pattern of the business and impact of death on the

business;

c) Potential growth of business (for instance certain

businesses are capital intensive at the outset and are

profitable at scale/in the future);

d) Negative income (certain businesses may require losses in

the initial years, which may not reflect the true financial

standing); and

e) Any other relevant factor relating to the business.

20. The date when the ITRs are filed would also become a relevant consideration, as there may be scenarios where inflated income is showcased after death/injury. In these circumstances, the surrounding factors of the business would become more relevant. However, if sufficiently supported by financial statements, such ITRs may also be taken into consideration.

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026

(Arising out of SLP(C) No. 27220 of 2024)

RASHMIREKHA TRIPATHY AND ANR. Vs THE BRANCH MANAGER (LEGAL CLAIMS), SRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED AND ORS.

Author: SANJAY KAROL, J.

Citation: 2026 INSC 661

Print Page