Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.61 seconds)
Rashid Ansari vs The State Of Bihar on 13 October, 2023 cites

Shafhi Mohammad vs The State Of Himachal Pradesh on 3 April, 2018

73.2. The clarification referred to above is that the required certificate under Section 65-B(4) is unnecessary if the original document itself is produced. This can be done by the owner of a laptop computer, computer tablet or even a mobile phone, by stepping into the witness box and Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.609 of 2015 dt.13-10-2023 14/23 proving that the device concerned, on which the original information is first stored, is owned and/or operated by him.
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 243 - A K Goel - Full Document

Arjun Panditrao Khotkar vs Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal on 14 July, 2020

"21. Lastly, this appeal also raised an important substantive question of law that whether the call records produced by the prosecution would be admissible under Sections 65-A and 65-B of the Evidence Act, given the fact that the requirement of certification of electronic evidence has not been complied with as contemplated under the Act. The uncertainty of whether Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer [Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer, (2014) 10 SCC 473] occupies the field in this area of law or whether Shafhi Mohammad v. State of H.P. [Shafhi Mohammad v. State of H.P., (2018) 2 SCC 801] lays down the correct law in this regard has now been conclusively settled by this Court by a judgment dated 14-7-2020 in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal [Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal, (2020) 7 SCC 1 : (2020) 4 SCC (Civ) 1 : (2020) 3 SCC (Cri) 1 : (2020) 2 Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.609 of 2015 dt.13-10-2023 12/23 SCC (L&S) 587] wherein the Court has held that : (Arjun Panditrao Khotkar [Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal, (2020) 7 SCC 1 : (2020) 4 SCC (Civ) 1 : (2020) 3 SCC (Cri) 1 : (2020) 2 SCC (L&S) 587] , SCC pp. 56 & 62, paras 61 & 73) "61.
Supreme Court of India Cites 91 - Cited by 462 - R F Nariman - Full Document

Dudh Nath Pandey vs The State Of U.P on 11 February, 1981

11. With reference to issue no. (III), it is found upon thorough examination of the material available on record that the present case is completely based on circumstantial evidence as there is no direct evidence to connect the appellants with the alleged offence. Upon the perusal of the deposition of the Investigating Officer (PW 10), it is found that one country made sixer gun, one 315 bore country made pistol, one 12 bore country made pistol, four 315 bore live cartridges and one empty bullet shell have been recovered upon the confession of appellant, Rajesh Uraon, and the same has been seized but none of these were sent for examination by ballistic experts. It would be relevant to take note of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dudh Nath Pandey versus State of U.P. reported in (1981) 2 SCC 166, wherein it has been observed that:
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 507 - Y V Chandrachud - Full Document

Pritinder Singh @ Lovely vs The State Of Punjab on 5 July, 2023

In light of the discussions made above, we are of the considered opinion that the recovery of weapons is not sufficient to prove the guilt of the appellants regarding the commission of the alleged offence. Moreover, there was no attempt made by the prosecution to obtain the opinion of a ballistic expert to ascertain whether the bullet could have been fired from the recovered weapon. Also, in this context, it becomes imperative to refer to the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Pritinder Singh versus State of Punjab reported in (2023) 7 SCC 727, wherein it has been observed that in view of the circumstances, non- examination by ballistic expert has created a significant doubt to the case of the prosecution. Thus, in the absence of a ballistic report, it is not possible for the Court to ascertain whether the recovered weapon has been used by the appellants in the commission of the present offence and thereby, such failure on the part of prosecution has caused serious infirmity to the case. Therefore, in light of the above discussions and upon thorough Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.609 of 2015 dt.13-10-2023 19/23 application of the above-settled law on the facts of the present case no inference can be drawn that it were the appellants who had fired or used the recovered weapons which has resulted into the death of the deceased persons.
Supreme Court of India Cites 21 - Cited by 13 - B R Gavai - Full Document

State (N.C.T. Of Delhi) vs Navjot Sandhu@ Afsan Guru on 4 August, 2005

"22. The evidence relating to electronic record, as noted hereinbefore, being a special provision, the general law on secondary evidence under Section 63 read with Section 65 of the Evidence Act shall yield to the same. Generalia specialibus non derogant, special law will always prevail over the general law. It appears, the court omitted to take note of Sections 59 and 65-A dealing with the admissibility of electronic record. Sections 63 and 65 have no application in the case of secondary Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.609 of 2015 dt.13-10-2023 10/23 evidence by way of electronic record; the same is wholly governed by Sections 65-A and 65-B. To that extent, the statement of law on admissibility of secondary evidence pertaining to electronic record, as stated by this Court in Navjot Sandhu case [State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu, (2005) 11 SCC 600 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 1715] , does not lay down the correct legal position. It requires to be overruled and we do so. An electronic record by way of secondary evidence shall not be admitted in evidence unless the requirements under Section 65-B are satisfied. Thus, in the case of CD, VCD, chip, etc., the same shall be accompanied by the certificate in terms of Section 65-B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible."
Supreme Court of India Cites 180 - Cited by 1292 - P V Reddi - Full Document
1   2 Next