Procedure to be followed to contradict a witness u/s 145-
Bhagwan Singh v. The State of Punjab
The Court held that in order to take resort to Section 145 regarding contracting a witness, it is important to prove that the witness had denied what the statement earlier made. The denial has to be proved. If the witness admits the former statement, then no such resort can be taken.
Purpose of Sec 162
Emperor v. Aftab Mohd. Khan
The learned court explained the purpose of Section 162 of Indian Evidence Act. The aim of the provision and its proviso is to safeguard the accused against the wrongful statements made by the witnesses at the time of investigation. The Court felt that the statements made by witnesses might be under the pressure of the police officers investigating the case so it will be prejudicial for the alleged to have such statements admitted as evidence.
Power of Magistrateu/s 73-
Gulzar Khan v. State
It was held that the scope of Section 73 extends to the Court of Magistrate as well. Even before the cognizance begins, the Magistrate may ask the accused for his handwriting specimen, signatures, finger-prints, foot-prints which might be needed by the police in the course of investigation.
Admission of Secondary Evidence u/s 65-
In Ashok Dulichand v. Madahavlal Dube and another [1975(4) SCC 664]
The learned court held that secondary evidence is admissible in case when it is to show the existence, conditions and contents of a document when it appears that the original document is in the custody of the person against whom the document is sought, or is out of reach, or is not legally bound to produce such document.
Validity of Section 113-B-
Mafatlal Industries Ltd. and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.
It was held that a mere possibility of abuse of a constitutionally valid provision by the people who are responsible for administering it, does not give a ground for holding such provision procedurally or substantively unreasonable.
Admissibility of information (Section 27)-
Kottaya v. Emperor
The court was of the opinion that the extent to which information is admissible must depend on the exact nature of the fact discovered to which such information is required to relate. The section 27 seems to be based on the view that if a fact is actually discovered in consequence of information given some guarantee is afforded thereby that the information was true and accordingly can be safely allowed to be given in evidence.
Admissibility under s. 32(5)
Subbiah Mudaliar v. Gopala Mudaliar, It was held that for a statement in a former suit to be admissible under s. 32(5) the fact that the person who made the statement had special means of knowledge must be shown by some independent evidence, otherwise it would be arguing in a circle to hold that the document itself proves the relation and therefore shows special means of knowledge.
Admission under Section 7-
State (NCT of Delhi) vs. Navjot Sandhu alias Afsan Guru [(2005) 11 SCC 600]
It was held that though every confession is an admission, but every admission need not be a confession. An admission made before the police cannot be proved against the accused and cannot be considered as a confession.