09-08-2023
Evidence Law Class III
R.M.Malkani vs State of Maharashtra
Illegally obtained tape recording – u/s 25 of the Telegraph Act, therefore evidence was
admissible.
Telephonic conversation being recorded by the policed is admissible provided:
1. The conversation is relevant to the matters-in- issue.
2. There is identification of voice.
3. The accuracy of tape-recorded conversation is proved.
4. Possibility of tampering ruled out.
State of Punjab vs Baldev Singh
1. Illegally obtained evidence in violation of S.50 of NDPS Act is not admissible, as this
confers to procedural rights of the accused which are statutorily mandated – thereby
cannot be admitted.
2. As long as it is not tainted by an inadmissible confession of guilt, evidence – even if
illegally obtained is admissible (Section 136)
3. But the value of such evidence is to be dealt with care and caution by the Courts.
Relevancy and Admissibility
A fact may be relevant but may not be admissible.
Example: Communication between spouse- one is compelling the other to release
information to the Court – the communication between them is, if forced out, is not
admissible. (The communication may be relevant but not admissible)
Section 5:
When parties want to present every piece of evidence then the Court has power to approve
and accept evidence that is related to the fact-in-issue.
Evidence can be given only on relevant facts and fact-in-issue and not on those facts which
are not relevant. (Covered under Section 5 to Section 55)
Sometimes crime happens at public spot, there will be 100 witnesses. Prosecution job is to
pick up the strongest witnesses.
Hypothetical:
Manya
Khushi
Mayank
Akash
Tuhin
Meera
Aditi
Shiv
Srihari
Chirayu
Location:
Main Mess
Exams Office
Delhi –
CP
Sarojini Market
Red Fort
Vehicle: Van (Red Colour)
Tuhin and Aditi making bombs
Khushi is planting the bombs in Sonipat
Mayank is planting the bombs in New Delhi
Shiv and Akash are in-charge of the money.
Srihari – Spread the word.
Manya – Mastermind
Meera – Cellphones (burners) (Logistics)
Clownfest
Section 6
Facts which, though not in issue, are so connected with a fact in issue as to form part of the
same transaction, are relevant.
Whether they occurred at the same time and place or at different times and places.
Example – Look at Bare Act. Can’t type everything here.
Arjun witness, saw Chirayu driving red van.
This fact still relevant because it is almost part of the same transaction as it happened at the
same time and place or difference place and time.
Res Gestae:
Under Section 6, a transaction includes-
1. The transaction itself
2. Anything said or done before after or during the transaction.
3. In care of series of transaction of crime – chain of links is formulated- and it is
checked whether these chain of links connect to the proximate event – crime
4. Section 6 is not studied in isolation. Other sections such as Sections 7,8,9,14 are
taken into consideration.
Genthla Vardhan Roa vs State of SP AIR 1996 SC 2791
The essence of Res Gestae is that the fact though not in issue also forms part of same
transaction becomes relevant by itself.
This rule, to some extent, becomes an exception to the general rule of hearsay evidence is
not admissible.
However, the particular act should be spontaneous (time proximity is of essence) or
contemporaneous with the main incident.
If there was interval, however, slight, which was sufficient for fabrication then the statement
will not become part of res gestae.
Bishna vs State of WB AIR 2006, SC 302
Witness came immediately after the incident (after the crime, not eyewitness)
Another eye- witness unconscious near the dead body and mother was seen weeping.
Witness who reached later at the spot heard about the incident from the injured witness
when he regained consciousness.
Defence argued that they are not eyewitness, SC said here the mother and injured witness
told what happened to the witness present on spot. Section 6 applicable.
Shabbir vs State of Rajasthan 2016 Cr.LJ 4686 Raj.
PW did not see the accused committing rape and murder – but evidence showed that just
after the event he reached the crime spot and saw the accused fleeing.
PW caught him bloodstained clothes, belt, shoes, which the accused was trying to was with
water.
Said fact form the part of the same transaction. According to rule of res gestae – such
evidence would be admissible due to the proximity of time and continuity of action.
