NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY ODISHA

EVIDENCE PROJECT
SUPREME COURT ON APPRECIATION OF
EVIDENCE

Submitted by:
TUSHANT SHARMA
(2012 /BBA.LLB /058)

Table of Contents
Index of Authorities....................................................................................................................1
Introduction................................................................................................................................2
What is Evidence?..................................................................................................................2
Appreciation of Evidence...........................................................................................................3
Proof beyond Reasonable Doubt of the Court........................................................................4
General Rules on the matter of Appreciation of Evidence.....................................................4
The Doctrine of Benefit of Doubt in the Appreciation of Evidence.......................................5
Appreciation of Evidence of Solitary Eye-Witness as a chance witness- Benefit of Doubt. .5
Burden of Proof in a criminal case.........................................................................................5
Standard of Proof in a criminal case.......................................................................................6
Theory of last seen relating to circumstantial evidence......................................................7
Appreciation of Evidence of an Eye-Witness............................................................................8
Appreciation of Evidence of Eye-Witness Related to the Victim..........................................9
Appreciation of Evidence in different categories.....................................................................10
Murder..................................................................................................................................10
Abetment..............................................................................................................................10
Insanity.................................................................................................................................11
Conclusion................................................................................................................................12
Bibliography.............................................................................................................................13

Index of Authorities
Cases
Abdul Rashid Ibrahim Mansuri v. State of Gujarat.....................................................8
Akhilesh v. State of Bihar...................................................................................8
Bageshwar v. Khandari.......................................................................................5
Bodh Raj v. State of Jammu & Kashmir..................................................................9
Chanan Singh v. State......................................................................................11
Chet Ram v. State.............................................................................................7
Criminal Trials, Practice and Procedure, Vinayak D Kakde..........................................9
Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar v. State of Gujarat................................................13
Dalim v. Nandarani...........................................................................................5
Darya Singh v. State of Punjab...........................................................................10
Faguna Kanta v. State of Assam..........................................................................12
Jabbar v. State..................................................................................................5
Jailal v. Delhi Administration.............................................................................13
Kanbi v. State of Gujarat.....................................................................................5
M. Narsinga Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh............................................................8
M.G. Agarwal v. State of Maharashtra....................................................................7
Macchi Singh v. State of Punjab...........................................................................7
Narayan Ganesh Dastane v. Sucheta Narayan Dastane................................................6
Prithvi v. Mam.................................................................................................5
Raj Kishore v. State.........................................................................................10
Raj Singh v. State..............................................................................................5
Rangaswami Gounder v. State..............................................................................4
Ratanlal v. State of Madhya Pradesh,...................................................................13
Sakharam v. State of Madhya Pradesh..................................................................12
Shivaji Sahebrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra....................................................12
State of Maharashatra v. Chandraprakash................................................................8
State of Maharashtra v. Wasudeo Ramchandra Kaidalwar,...........................................8
State of Punjab v. Jugraj Singh...........................................................................10
State of U.P. v. Babu........................................................................................10
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Babu Ram.....................................................................12
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Sarju Prasad...................................................................12
State v. Sashibhusan..........................................................................................5
Vijayee Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh...................................................................6
Yakub Ismailbhai Patel v. State of Gujarat...............................................................5

1 | Page

Introduction
Law of Evidence governs the means and manner in which a party may substantiate his own
case, or refute of that of his opponent.1 The necessity of applying law of evidence
presupposes two things-2
(i)

The existence of a court in the nature of a court, which has the duty to ascertain

(ii)

facts.
The determination of an issue.

WHAT IS EVIDENCE?
The word evidence in the Evidence Act signifies only the instruments by means of which
relevant facts are brought before the court, viz., witnesses and documents and by means of
them the court may consider whether certain facts are proved or not. 3 Evidence may be
defined as that which demonstrates, makes clear or ascertains the truth of the very fact or
point in issue.4
The law of evidence is the system of rules and standards regulating the admission of proof at
the trial of a lawsuit.5 It can be termed as equivalent to proof on the basis of which courts
come to a conclusion about the existence or non-existence of non-disputed facts. 6 It is defined
as all documents produced for the inspection of the courts.7 It also includes electronic
records. All these documents are called documentary evidence.

1 HALSBURYS LAW OF ENGLAND , (LexisNexis Butterworths, 5th Edition, 2008).

2 H.K. SAHARAY, M.S. SAHARAY ,LAW OF EVIDENCE, (Eastern Law House, 5th Edition, 2008).
3 Rangaswami Gounder v. State, (1995) AIHC 1153 (Mad).
4 CORPUS JURIS SECUNDUM ON EVIDENCE, (vol.31 pg 343 para 2).
5 MCCORMICK ON EVIDENCE, (5th Ed., vol.1, p. 2).
6 VEPA P. SARATHI, LAW OF EVIDENCE, (6th Ed., pg. 11).
7 The Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 3.
2 | Page

Appreciation of Evidence
A witness may be believed in part and disbelieved as to the rest. 8 The court has to scan the
evidence with care in each case and on full consideration of all the relevant material
circumstances come to a decision as to which part of the testimony of a witness to accept and
which to reject.9 There are instances that the courts have to separate the truths from
falsehoods. But where the two are so intermingled as to make it impossible to separate them,
the evidence has to be rejected in its entirety.10 When a prosecution story is disbelieved as to
its material part, it is not safe to rely on the other part.11
Evidence of every witness is to be judged on its own merits and if there is nothing in his
evidence or in the evidence or in his evidence of other witnesses examined in the case to
discredit them, it cannot be disbelieved on the ground that there is only one witness on the
point, and no other witness has been examined to support him. 12 Court can disbelieve a part
of the evidence and disbelieve the rest.13
In each case, the court has to appraise the evidence to see to what extent it is worthy of
acceptance, and merely because in one respect the court considers it unsafe to rely on the
testimony of a witness, it does not necessarily follow as a matter of law that it must be
discarded in all other respects as well. 14 The court must be careful to examine the entire
evidence and must distinguish the chaff from the grain and must not take any easy course of
discarding the entire prosecution case.15

8 Dharam v. State, AIR 1971 HP 17.

9 Raj Singh v. State, AIR 1971 SC 2505.
10 Kanbi v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1970 SC 219.
11 Bageshwar v. Khandari, AIR 1970 Pat 20.
12 Ram August v. Bindeshwari, AIR 1972 Pat 142.
13 Dalim v. Nandarani, AIR 1970 Cal 292.
14 Raj Singh v. State, AIR 1971 SC 2505.
3 | Page

Evidence which is not completely reliable cannot be accepted when corroborated by reliable
evidence.16 For example, an injured witness who has blows on his head is not expected to
count number of blows given so as to correlate them mathematically to post-mortem
certificate.17 In the same way sole eye-witness cannot be branded as related or interested
witness.18 Post occurrence conduct of witnesses cannot be ground to discard their evidence.19
genuine doubt on the prosecution version indirectly succeeds. However, it must be the doubt
of the prudent man who is assumed to possess the capacity to separate the chaff from the
grain.20

GENERAL RULES ON THE MATTER OF APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE

The Supreme Court, in a leading case, held that- Courts, in search of truth, have to be
beware of being misled by half-truths or individually defective pieces of evidence. Firstly,
undeniable facts and circumstances should be examined. Secondly, the pattern of case thus
revealed in the context of a whole sequence of proved facts must be scrutinized to determine
whether a natural, or probable and therefore a credible course of events is disclosed. Thirdly,
the minutiae of evidence including established discrepancies should be put in the crucible of
the whole context of an alleged crime or occurrence and tested particularly with reference to
proved circumstances which generally provide a more reliable indication of truth than the
faulty human testimony, so that the process of separating the grain from the chaff may take
place. Fourthly, in arriving at an assessment of credibility of individual witnesses, regard
must be had to the possible motives of either deliberate medacity of subconscious mind.
Lastly, the demeanour and bearing of a witness in court should be carefully noticed and

15 State v. Sashibhusan, ILR (1963) Cut 67.

16 Jabbar v. State, AIR 1966 All 64.
17 Prithvi v. Mam Raj, AIR 2004 SC 2729.
18 Yakub Ismailbhai Patel v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2004 SC 4209.
19 State of U.P. v. Devendra Singh AIR 2004 SC 3690.
20 Vijayee Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1990 SC 1459.
4 | Page

appellate court should remember that a trial court has had in this respect, an advantage which
it does not possess.21

THE DOCTRINE OF BENEFIT OF DOUBT IN THE APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE

The doctrine of benefit of doubt has been explained as- When a piece of evidence
introduced and relied upon the prosecution itself creates a doubt as regards the complicity of
the accused, even if there are no infirmities in other evidence, the doctrine of benefit of doubt
must be invoked by the court in favour of the accused.22
If the circumstances proved in a case are consistent either with the innocence of the accused
or with his guilt, then the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt, but in applying this
principle it is necessary to differentiate between the primary facts and inference of facts to be
drawn from such facts.23
On the other hand, only ordinary human possibilities should be considered in such cases and
not the imaginary ones. If any of the said circumstances are consistent with the innocence of
the accused or the chain of the continuity of the circumstances is broken, the accused is
entitled to benefit of doubt.24

APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE OF SOLITARY EYE-WITNESS AS A CHANCE WITNESSBENEFIT OF DOUBT

The evidence of a lone eye-witness is highly doubtful if he claims to be a chance witness. If
he does not inform anyone else about the incident, then his conduct seems to be aberrant. The
accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt in this case.25

BURDEN OF PROOF IN A CRIMINAL CASE

The expression burden of proof has two discrete meanings; first one being the burden of
establishing the guilt, i.e., the legal burden and, the second one being the burden of leaving
21 Chet Ram v. State, Cr LJ 1246.
22 Macchi Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1983 SC 957.
23 M.G. Agarwal v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1963 SC 200.
24 Kishore Chand v. State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR 1990 SC 2140.
25 Shankarlal v. State of U.P., AIR 1994 SC 1624.
5 | Page

evidence, i.e., the evidential burden. The general rule is that the burden of proof lies upon the
prosecution in an exclusive sense. But it may also be laid upon the accused in certain cases.
Section 106 of the Evidence Act defines burden of proof in a secondary sense. It means
introducing the evidence is a duty.26
Also, the Supreme Court has held in a case that burden of proof would be discharged if the
prosecution conveys that the accused did not have the required intention or the knowledge to
commit the crime. It does not matter if the accused has not adduced evidence which he has
produced himself.27

STANDARD OF PROOF IN A CRIMINAL CASE

Standard of proof is required to convict a person accused. In a case, Supreme Court held
that- What is necessary is that the court must be alive and conscious of the fact that is
dealing with the evidence of a person who is interested in the outcome of the charge levelled
by her....If for some reason the court is hesitant to place implicit reliance on the testimony of
prosecutrix, it may look for evidence which may lead assurance to her testimony short of
corroboration required in the case of an accomplice.....If the totality of circumstances disclose
that the prosecutrix does not have a strong motive to falsely involve accused, court should
accept her evidence....The degree of proof required must not be higher than is expected of an
injured witness.28
Further, the word proof should be understood in accordance to the Evidence Act as proof
depends upon the admissibility of evidence. A fact is considered to be proven when the court
believes it to exist under the circumstances of a particular case.29
But in a leading case the Supreme Court held that even if a suspicion is strong, it does not
constitute a legal proof, and further stated that if the charge is graver then the standard of
proof has to be greater.30

26 State of Maharashtra v. Wasudeo Ramchandra Kaidalwar, AIR 1981 SC 1186.

27 Abdul Rashid Ibrahim Mansuri v. State of Gujarat, AIR SCW 375.
28 State of Maharashatra v. Chandraprakash, AIR 1990 SC 658.
29 M. Narsinga Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 2001 SC 318.
6 | Page

In the cases of circumstantial evidence, the standard of proof required to convict a person is
not well settled. The circumstances from which the guilt of the accused can be derived should
be conclusive and consistent with the conjecture of the guilt and at the same time it should
not be explained by some other conjecture.31

Appreciation of Evidence of an Eye-Witness

In the case of State of Karnataka v. Mohamed Nazir32, the Supreme Court has held that
statement by an eye-witness that a blow or kick was given by accused on a particular part the
body is sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused. On a different matter, for example in a
murder case, the prosecutor has the discretion to decide the witnesses whom he wants to
examine in order to reveal the truth. Also, it is the duty of the prosecutor to act fairly and
honestly in case he has an apprehension that the eye-witnesses are likely to go against the
prosecution case, as it is the duty of a prosecutor to assist the court and help it reaching on a
conclusion on a case which has been brought before it for trial. It is no doubt open to the
prosecutor not to examine witnesses who, in his opinion, have not witnessed the incident, but
normally he ought to examine all the eye-witnesses in support of his case.33
If the persons who had witnessed the incident have not been allowed to be produced before
the court and if it has been shown in the trial, then the court can draw inference against the
prosecution. It can be regarded as a failure of the prosecution as it is not able to examine the
aforementioned witnesses. This can constitute as a serious frailty in the proof of the case of
prosecution. But the court can examine such witnesses under section 311 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973. The powers of the court under section 311 of CrPC ought to be
exercised in the interests of justice whenever the court feels that the interests of justice so
require.34 The testimony of eye witnesses that the accused armed with double barrel gun fired

30 Ashish Batham v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 2002 SC 3206.

31 Akhilesh v. State of Bihar, (1995) 3 SCR 864.
32 AIR 2003 SC 999.
33 Darya Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1965 SC 328.
7 | Page

two gun shots which hit the deceased and as such disbelieving the eye-witnesses on finding a
number of injuries on person of the deceased was not proper.35
The fact that some of the witnesses were relatives of the victims family is no ground to reject
their evidence as untrustworthy.36 Where medical evidence is conflicting with oral evidence
of eye-witnesses which is not corroborated in material particulars by any circumstantial
evidence, conviction of the accused on such evidence of eye-witness is wrong. 37 In a case
where the conduct of the eye-witness was abnormal in that he slipped away unnoticed
without caring to inform relatives of the victim or the police, the Supreme Court held that his
evidence cannot be believed.38

APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE OF EYE-WITNESS RELATED TO THE VICTIM

There are cases where the witness is a close relative of the victim (in a murder case), and
further he is shown the aggression of the victim. In those cases, the criminal courts are
compulsorily required to examine the evidence which is given by such witness. The court will
also inspect all the infirmities related to such evidence before it decides to act upon it. But
according to the principle, it cannot be accepted that such witness, which is in relation with
the deceased and shares the aggression of the victim and that towards his attacker, will not be
accepted at any point lest it is corroborated on material facts. Hence, the evidence of a
witness who is in relation to the victim should not be corroborated.39

34 Ibid.
35 State of Punjab v. Jugraj Singh, AIR 2002 SC 1083.
36 State of U.P. v. Babu, AIR 2003 SC 3408.
37 Raj Kishore v. State, AIR 1969 Cal 321.
38 Chanan Singh v. State, AIR 1971 SC 1554.
39 Bhupendra v. State of Punjab, AIR 1968 SC 1438.
8 | Page

Appreciation of Evidence in different categories

MURDER
A criminal offence has four ingredients, namely, a criminal offence, intention, motive,
preparation and finally an act to compliment all these ingredients.
Motive is a relevant factor in all criminal cases whether based on the testimony of eyewitness or circumstantial evidence. It cannot be laid down that motive may not be very much
material in cases depending on direct evidence whereas motive is material in cases depending
on direct evidence whereas motive is material only when the case depends upon the
circumstantial evidence.40
Further, in a case the Supreme Court held that proof of motive satisfies the judicial mind
about the likelihood of the authorship but its absence only demands deeper forensic search
and cannot undo the effect of evidence otherwise sufficient.41 Absence of motive is an
advantage for the accused where only circumstantial evidence seems to exist against him.42

ABETMENT
A person abets the doing of a thing when he instigates any person to do that thing, or engages
one or more other persons in a conspiracy for the doing of that thing, or intentionally aids, by
act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.43
A person will be liable for aiding the commission of any offence of abetment if he does
something in order to facilitate the commission of that act.44 However, an unintentional aiding
does not amount to abetment within the meaning of section 107 of the IPC, as intentional
aiding and active complicity is the gist of the offence of the abetment.45
40 State of Uttar Pradesh v. Babu Ram, AIR 2000 SC 1735.
41 Shivaji Sahebrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1973 SC 2622.
42 Sakharam v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1992 SC 758.
43 Faguna Kanta v. State of Assam, AIR 1959 SC 673.
44 State of Uttar Pradesh v. Sarju Prasad, 1996 Cr LJ 3833.
9 | Page

In the case of Joseph Kurien v. State of Kerala, the Supreme Court held that when direct
involvement is not established then the accused cannot be held guilty of abetment without a
formal charge, as the roles of the perpetrator and abettor are different.46

INSANITY
When a reasonable doubt is created in the mind of the court relating to the evidence produced
by the prosecution or the accused in the court regarding the mens rea of the accused, then the
accused is entitled to be acquitted in that matter on the ground that the general burden of
proof resting on the prosecution was not discharged.47
In the case of Ratanlal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the Apex Court, regarding the plea of
insanity, held that the crucial point of time at which unsoundness of mind should be
established is the time when the crime was committed.48 Further, the mental state of the
accused must be destroyed to an extent where he is not able to recognise the disposition of
the act.49 The disorder or disturbance in his mind must be of a degree which would affect
perpetual or volitional capacity of the accused.50

45 Anandha Thandavam v. Udaya Sundaram, 1989 (3) Crimes 209.

46 Joseph Kurien v. State of Kerala, AIR 1995 SC 4.
47 Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1964 SC 1563.
48 Ratanlal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1971 SC 778.
49 Jailal v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1969 SC 15.
50 S. Murthy v. State, (1988) 1 Crimes 326 (Mad).
10 | P a g e

Conclusion
There are observations made by the judge in a case and these observations play a role in the
deciding the final judgement. But it should be noted that there is no alternative of evidence in
a case and the observations should be kept aside and it should not be included in the
judgement as a replacement of evidence. If the judge decides a case and convicts a person on
the basis of his observations instead of considering evidences then the judgement will not
meet the ends of justice and the final judgement can turn out to be a bad law. This can be
elaborated by the fact that in the case of circumstantial evidence, only one conclusion can be
derived from the evidence and set of facts that points towards the crime committed by the
accused and consequently holding him guilty. On the other hand, several observations made
by the court can influence the outcome of the case the judgement.
Referring to the documents part, it is attractive to allude to them with their point by point
depiction including the way of the report. As it would be awkward to allude to the documents
comprehensively, with reference to their claim over and over, suffice it if the imply of the
documents is expressed at one spot and the record may be alluded to from that point.

11 | P a g e

Bibliography

Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, The law of evidence, (Lexis Nexis, Butterworths Wadhwa, 23 rd

edition, 2009).
Vinayk D kakde, Criminal Trial, Practice and Procedures, (Universal Publication,

2009).
Sarkar, Law of Evidence, (Lexis Nexis, Butterworths Wadhwa, 17th edition, 2010)
H.K. Saharey , M.S. Saharay, Law of evidence, (Eastern law house, 2008).
Phipson on Evience, (Sweet and Maxwell, 16th edition, 2007).
Kesava Rao, Sir John Woodroffe and Syed Amir Ali Law of Evidence, (Lexis Nexis,
Butterworths Wadhwa, 18th edition, 2009).

Halsburys Law of England, (LexisNexis Butterworths, 5th Edition, 2008).

12 | P a g e