Can Google Search Results be cited in Court to portray that a Person is Habitual Offender?

 The complaint was registered for the offence punishable

under Sections 419, 420 of IPC and under Sections 66(C) and

66(D) of Information Technology Act, 2008. However, 419 of IPC is

not attracted in the instant case as there is no impersonation and

the only allegation is that inspite of receiving the amount for supply

of the goods, the petitioner has not supplied the same which is

subject to allegation of cheating. However, further records

discloses that the petitioner has subsequently remitted Rs.8 Lakhs

to the account of the complainant which is admitted by the

prosecution. The argument addressed by the learned HCGP that the google search discloses that the petitioner has cheated number of persons which is evident from the review cannot be accepted as it does not have any legal evidentiary value. {Para 6}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8879/2022

SRI OM PRATAP SINGH Vs THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER CYBER AND ECONOMIC WING 

BEFORE

MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR

DATED:  13TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022

Print Page

Whether Suggestions in cross examination have evidentiary value?

Let me at this stage take a note of one very important aspect. The plaintiffs could be said to have satisfactorily discharged the burden open it for proving the issue No. 2 in the affirmative. The plaintiff in her cross examination-in-chief has stated as to the rash and negligent manner in which the firing was opened by the Army and how the same led to death of her husband. She has made out a case of wrongful deprivation of the life of the deceased resulting into consequence of liability on the part of the State to pay the compensation. The point, I would like to take note of, is that except putting suggestions in the cross examination, the defendants have not been able to discern anything from the evidence of the plaintiff on the strength of which the issue No. 4 could have been in the affirmative. It is a settled position of law that mere suggestions are not sufficient to dislodge or disprove the case of the plaintiff. Suggestions in cross examination have no evidentiary value. In absence of any evidence, nor any material traced in the cross-examination in support thereof, the findings so far could not have been answered in the affirmative by the Trial Court as well as by this Court in the First Appeal.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

Letters Patent Appeal No. 473 of 1996 in First Appeal No. 5952 of 1995

Decided On: 04.08.2017

Umedmiya R. Rathod and Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat

Print Page

Whether recitals made in sale deed will prevail over averments made in objection petition?

In re : whether sale was for legal necessity, and thus binding :

83. It was submitted that sale was for legal necessity for benefit of estate. It has been averred in the objections preferred by the purchasers that sale was made by Hamid Ali Khan, defendant No.1, for payment of land revenue. Thus it was contended that the payment of land revenue has enured for the benefit of the entire estate. Thus sale would be valid and binding on co-heirs. Except making the aforesaid bald statement, nothing has been placed on record to indicate that the sale was for payment of land revenue. On the other hand, when we peruse the sale deed, recital of it makes it clear that the sale was effected by Hamid Ali Khan for his ‘personal necessity’. He had not executed the sale deed for payment of land revenue as its recital is otherwise which would prevail. Nor the sale deed had been executed in the fiduciary capacity acting on behalf of co-sharers rather he has claimed in the sale deed that he was the exclusive owner of 68 acres 10 guntas area of property and was in possession thereof. He had sold the land for a consideration of Rs.2000 in view of his personal necessity. The sale was made after taking permission from the Deputy Collector Division, Distt. West, Hyderabad. Thus, the sale deed negates the aforesaid bald averment made in the objection petition. Even otherwise under the Mohammedan Law, it was not open to Hamid Ali Khan, defendant No.1 to act in fiduciary capacity to sell the property and bind shares of others. It is not mentioned in sale deed that Hamid Ali Khan had sold for any legal necessity or for the benefit of the entire estate. The recital in sale deed has the evidentiary value and Bala Mallaiah and his successors are bound by what has been mentioned therein. Thus, no case is made out on the basis of the aforesaid submission also to make an interference.

Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.4731-4732 OF 2010
T. Ravi & Anr. Vs. B. Chinna Narasimha & Ors. etc.
Dated: 21 MARCH 2017

Print Page

Whether examination in chief of wife can be relied on if she fails to remain present for cross examination?

 In a matrimonial dispute, testimony of the contesting spouse to refute
the accusations made in the pleadings in divorce petition plays a major role.
In the instant case, unfortunately the wife (RW-1) failed to appear at the
relevant stage to conclude her cross-examination. Learned Judge, Family
Court has noted, and rightly so, that her incomplete statement cannot be read
in evidence. Now we are left with remaining seven witnesses examined by
her. They are not going to have any significant effect on the defence of the
wife.
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Dated: September 06, 2016
 MAT.APP.(F.C.) 15/2015
GEETA PANDEY 
v
SHEKHAR PANDEY 
CORAM:
 MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
 MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI
Citation: AIR 2017 Delhi 70

Print Page

Whether evidence of witness can be split to grant benefit to some co-accused while maintaining conviction of another?

No doubt, it is an established principle of criminal law in India that only on account of detecting some falsehood in the statement of a witness who is otherwise consistent and reliable, his entire testimony should not be discarded. It is equally settled law that if a witness is found un-dependable and un-reliable his evidence can not be split to grant benefit to some co-accused while maintaining conviction of another when in all respects he stands on same footing and deserves parity.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Ram Laxman  v. State of Rajasthan

Date of judgement : 3.3.2016

Citations: 2016 All SCR (Crl.) 707; 016(3) Scale 225 ; 2016(3) JT 338 ; 2016(2) R.C.R.(Criminal) 360 ;  2016(2) Cri.CC 437; 2016(2) Law Herald (SC) 1117 

Corum : Dipak Misra and Shiva Kirti Singh, JJ.

Print Page

How to appreciate evidence of witness whose memory is refreshed?

 Referring back to the evidence of P.W.3 Vishnu, the independent
panch witness, learned Counsel for the accused submitted that evidence of
complainant Khannubhai on the point of demand and acceptance of bribe on
28­12­1993 do not find trustworthy corroboration from this witness and by
referring to his admission given in the fag end of his cross­examination that
the officers of Ante Corruption Bureau Officers asked him to prepare notes to
give evidence in the Court and that accordingly he had prepared the notes as

per say of Ante Corruption Bureau Officer and further admitting that he had
gone through all such notes before giving evidence, learned Counsel for the
accused submitted that since said witness was not stating the facts from his
memory,   his   entire   evidence   would   be   inadequate   to   provide   any
corroboration   to   the   evidence   of   complainant.     As   against   this,   learned
Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that since the incident was more
than ten years old, there was nothing wrong in the witness refreshing his
memory before deposing about the incident giving minute details.   In that
view of the mater, I find that there would  be nothing wrong in the witness
refreshing his memory, but that ought not to be done before the Court or
outside   the   Court.     In  order  to   test  veracity  of  a   witness,   he   would  be
required to recollect the incident out of his memory and should he falter on
some material aspect, in that case, he could be allowed to refresh his memory
with regard to the contemporaneous records of the incident created by the
police and it would not be permissible for such a witness to stealthily refresh
his   memory   before   entering   the   Court   and   deposing   about   the   entire
evidence giving minute details.   Under these circumstances, I find much
substance in the submissions advanced on behalf of the accused.  
24. In   the   light   of   above   submissions,   I   find   it   necessary   to
reproduce sub­section (1) of Section 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code,
1898, which lays down as follows.  

“No statement made by any person to a police officer in the
course of an investigation under this Chapter, shall, if reduced
to writing, be signed by the person making it; nor shall any
such statement or any record thereof, whether in a police diary
or otherwise, or any part of such statement or record, be used
for any purpose, save as hereinafter provided at any inquiry or
trial in respect of any offence under investigation at the time
when such statement was made :
Provided that when any witness is called for the prosecution in
such inquiry or trial whose statement has been reduced into
writing as aforesaid, any part of his statement, if duly proved,
may be used by the accused, and with the permission of the
Court, by the prosecution to contradict such witness in the
manner provided by S. 145 of the Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of
1872); and when any part of such statement is so used, any
part thereof may also be used in the re­examination of such
witness, but for the purpose only of explaining any matter
referred to in his cross­examination.”
In the backdrop of above provisions, I further find it useful to
refer to the decision in the case of Zahiruddin v. Emperior reported in AIR
1947 PC 75, wherein with regard to use of the statement for refreshing
memory, their Lordships observed as follows :­  
“The use by a witness while he is giving evidence, of a statement
made by him to the police raises different considerations.   The
categorical prohibition of such use would be merely disregarded
if reliance were to be placed on the evidence of a witness who
had made material use of the statement when he was giving
evidence   at   the   trial.     When,   therefore,   the   Magistrate   or
Presiding Judge discovers that a witness has made material use
of such a statement it is his duty under the Section to disregard
the evidence of that witness as inadmissible.”
25. In the light of above, very little value needs to be attached to

the   evidence   of   P.W.3   Vishnu   because   he   appears   to   have   deposed   the
particular incident not by recollecting the evidence of that incident but what
has been read out by him from the police statement, short time before he
deposed.   Under these circumstances, in the first place, entire evidence of
this witness becomes inadmissible and even if it be held that it is admissible
evidence,   no   value   whatsoever   can   be   attached   to   his   evidence,   which
evidence even otherwise as already stated aforesaid does not appear to be
convincing and is contrary to the evidence of complainant on the material
aspect of demand and acceptance.  
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.149 OF 1999
Rustam s/o Ukarda Jadhav,

        V
State of Maharashtra, 
  CORAM : P.N. DESHMUKH, J.
   DATED  : 8th  OCTOBER, 2014.
Citation;2016 ALLMR(CRI)248

Print Page

How to appreciate evidence of handwriting expert?

I am in no way inclined to discredit the value of such expert testimony, which, in some cases especially, may be conclusive, or, at any rate, of great importance, but I cannot help thinking that it is extremely dangerous to generalise in the way the experts have done when the questioned writing has been executed daring a state bordering on prostration. It appears to me most unsafe to accept the expert opinion regarding the shakiness, tremulousness, want of care or excess of care in a writer writing under such conditions, and it may be noticed in this case that neither of the experts has even stated that he possesses much experience regarding the writings of a sick man. After all, in such circumstances, it is the human factor which has to be taken into consideration and this human factor is capable of producing many variations and inconsistencies. At the most, I would hold that the handwriting expert evidence in this case has raised some slight suspicion as to the genuineness of the document; but this Blight suspicion is of no moment unless strongly confirmed in other ways.

Equivalent Citation: 59Ind. Cas.220,3LLJ110

IN THE HIGH COURT OF LAHORE

Letters Patent Appeal No. 126 of 1920

Decided On: 04.12.1920

 Hari Singh  Vs. Sardarni Lachhmi Devi

Coram:Shadi Lal, C.J., and Leslie Jones, J.

Print Page

Leading Supreme Court judgment on evidentiary value of Confessional F.I.R. by accused

A confession may consist of severd parts and may reveal not only the actual commission of the crime but also the motive, the preparation, the provocation etc. If the confession is tainted the taint attaches to the whole statement of the accused. [140 B-C]

If a statement contains an admission of an offence, not only that admission but also every other admission of an incriminating fact contained in the statement is part of he confession. Little substance and content would be left in ss. 24, 25 and 26 if proof of admissions of incriminating facts in confessional statement is permitted. [140 D-E, F] The appellant's first information report was a confessional statement to a police officer and as such no part of it could be admitted into evidence on account of the ban in s. 25 except in so far as the ban was lifted by s. 27 and except in so far as it identified the appellant is the maker of the report. 

Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides for the recording of the first information. The information report as such is not substantive evidence. It may be used to corroborate the informant under s. 157 of the Evidence Act or to contradict him under s. 145 of the Act, if the informant is called a,,; a witness. If the first information is given by the accused himself, the fact of his giving the information is admissible against him as evidence of his conduct under s. 8 of the Evidence Art. If the information is a non-confessional statement, it is admissible against the accused as an admission under s. 21 of the Evidence

Act and is relevant,1

Supreme Court of India

Aghnoo Nagesia vs State Of Bihar on 4 May, 1965

Equivalent citations: 1966 AIR 119, 1966 SCR (1) 134

Bench: Bachawat, R.S.

BENCH:

BACHAWAT, R.S.

SUBBARAO, K.

DAYAL, RAGHUBAR

Print Page

Whether mere suggestion not supported by any specific evidence has evidentiary value?

SUGGESTION:

65. The word, 'suggestion', in common parlance, as found regularly in the procedure of the Court, means that a fact has been suggested to a witness either inviting his admission or denial on that fact during his cross-examination. Though scope of 'suggestion' is not found in any statute, especially, in the law of evidence, yet it is a time honoured practice of courts that the lawyers or the party himself, while cross-examining a witness, either in the form of offering a denial to the facts deposed to by that witness or to place a new fact into the mouth of a witness to test whether he admits the same or not, suggests a fact or puts a suggestion of fact or facts to the witness. A mere suggestion, if not supported by any specific evidence, has no evidentiary value. We may gainfully refer here to the observations made by a Division Bench of this Court in The State Vs. Md. Misir Ali & Ors, reported in MANU/GH/0005/1963 : AIR 1963 Ass 151, wherein it has been observed, at paragraph 9, as follows:

Mere suggestions not supported by any specific statements made by accused person and not supported by any defence evidence would have no evidentiary value. No importance could be attached to the above suggestions made during cross-examination of PWs. 1 and 3 in this case....

66. The Division Bench of Patna High Court, in Sitaram Pandey & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar, reported in MANU/BH/0169/1974 : 1976 CRI LJ 800, has also expressed the similar view.

2012(5)GLT209;2013 CR L J(NOC)67 gauhati

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI (AGARTALA BENCH)

Crl. Ref. Nos. 02 and 94 of 2005

Decided On: 05.09.2012

ApeState of Tripura  Vs. Ashok Debbarma @ Achak Debbar ma & Anr.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Iqbal Ahmed Ansari and Swapan Chandra Das, JJ.

Print Page

Whether Suggestions in cross-examination have evidentiary value?

 Shri Joshi argued that the Doctor ought to have made it clear as to from where and when anticoagulant and preservative were brought and at what place that substances were preserved. Looking to Rule 4, no such requirement is necessary. Once he says that he had prepared the phial with anticoagulant and preservative, then Rule 4 is substantially complied with. Only a suggestion was put in the cross-examination that he did not personally add the anticoagulant and preservative in the phial. That suggestion has been denied by the Doctor. In cross-examination, more than one suggestions were put to which the Doctor has denied. In case of KHIMJIBHAI KURJIBHAI vs. THE STATE OF GUJARAT, reported in 1982 Cr.L.R. (Guj), P. 381, it has been held that

" Suggestion in cross-examination are no evidence. This proposition of law is good both in the case of the prosecution and the defence. Mere hurling of some such suggestions which are denied, can hardly take the place of proof or evidence. The Law of Evidence is alike both for the prosecution and for the defence. If the accused wants to establish a certain fact, he has to lead evidence on that score. Such suspicion cannot have any place in the realm of appreciation of evidence. We reiterate that a suggestion denied by a witness remains only a suggestion and has no evidentiary value at all".

Gujarat High Court

Avadh Bihari Amrutlal vs State Of Gujarat on 11 August, 2000

Equivalent citations: (2000) 3 GLR 506

Print Page

Whether Wikipedia is having evidentiary value in court proceedings?

It is the submission of the appellant that it is now an established position, internationally in law that Wikipedia does not have any evidentiary value in the court proceedings. The same has been held by the US Court of Federal Claims in Taylor Mary Campbell v. Secretary of Health and Human Services 69 19

Fed. Cl. 775 (2006) and by the US Court of Appeals in Lamilem Badasa v. Michael B. Mukasey 540 F.3d 909. 

Supreme Court of India

T.V. Venogopal vs Ushodaya Enterprises Ltd. & Anr. on 3 March, 2011
Bench: Dalveer Bhandari, K.S. Panicker Radhakrishnan

Print Page