Weeks v.

United States – Police searched person’s house without search warrant and

procured documents. Earlier common law rule was that admissibility is not affected

by illegality of means. This case abrogated this rule and directed that the documents

be returned to the person.

Silver Thorne Lumber Co. v. United States – Some books were illegally obtained by the

authorities. Court ruled for them to be returned. The question arose whether they can

ask for those books to be produced again. Court denied such action and said that

asking for this amounted to contempt of court. The essence of the provision

prohibiting acquisition of evidence in these ways is that the prohibition does not

extend merely to the use of such evidence by the court, rather it extends to any use of

such evidence at all.

Nardone v. United States – A provision in an American statute said that no person not

authorised by the court shall intercept or publish the contents of any communication.

Burden was on the accused to prove that the evidence had been collected by illegal

means. Court held that ‘no person’ includes federal agents also.

Dhai Singh Dhivangan v. State of Chattisgarh – Bad decision, important minority

judgement. Husband accused of murdering wife and 5 daughters. No sign of forced

entry. Mother turned hostile. SC said that person was unconscious, so 106 cannot be

invoked. Acquitted.

Ashish Batham v. State of M.P. – 2 sisters allegedly murdered by person because he

failed in love affair with their mother. Bloody jeans and knife recovered. Held that in

cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which

the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in first instance be fully established, and
 all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of

the accused.

Anvar v. Basheer – Electronic records are documentary evidence. Conditions given under

65B applicable only if secondary electronic evidence produced. Can produce directly

if original electronic record (primary evidence) produced. Either the original

electronic record has to be produced or if a copy of the original is being produced,

then a certificate saying that it is an original copy shall accompany it. (In this case,

election of a person was challenged by producing a CD containing a recording of his

speeches, songs used for election propaganda etc., allegedly corrupt practices. Held

that original CD used for playing songs, speeches needs to be produced)

State v. Navjot Sandhu – Discussed S. 8, 65B, 10, 24 and 27.

Malkiat Singh v. State of Punjab – Preparation for an offence is arranging the means

necessary for the commission of an offence. On the other hand, an attempt to commit

the offence is a direct movement towards the commission after the preparations have

been made.

Surat Dhobini case – Vicitm got injured. The other person said that the victim had

attacked. Victim remained silent. This silence was considered a relevant fact under 8.

Arun Kumar Bannerjee v. State – Murder victim wanted to meet husband, asked father

for going to meet him, never returned. Both Arun and father filed complaint. Arun had

asked woman to go outside Calcutta in train. Woman got murdered. 4 people saw

Narayan with Arjun. Identified in identification parade. Held that identification is

relevant under 9.

Surendra Koli v. State of U.P. – Girl murdered and eaten. DNA from body parts matched

with DNA of parents and brother. Rocovery of body parts admissible under 27.
Ram Ghulam Chaudhary v. State of Bihar – Armed persons attacked a person and

murdered him. Took dead body with them. Nephew of the person witnessed the act.

Defence pleaded that there’s no proof of death. Held that for conviction it is not

necessary that corpus should be found.

Prithi v. State of Haryana – Accused in gypsy fired gun shots, killed the person and ran

away along with the body of the person. Victim’s brother witnessed the act. Body of

the person was never found. Held that the account of the brother leaves no doubt that

the appellants are guilty. It is not necessary to prove corpus delicti, but the fact of

death must be established.

Rishi Pal v. State of Uttarakhand – Victim was allegedly taken to a canal and murdered.

Held that if prosecution is successful in providing satisfactory proof of victim having

met a homicidal death, then absence of dead body will not by itself be fatal to a

charge for murder.

Yashpal Mittal v. State of Punjab – Discusses the essentials of section 10:

- There must be an agreement to commit an offence.

- Not necessary that the conspirators know each other.

- There has to be a unity of object or purpose but there may be a plurality of means

unknown to others.

Mirza Akbar v. Emperor - A statement made by one conspirator in the absence of the

other with reference to past acts done in the actual course of carrying out the

conspiracy, after it has been completed is not admissible.

Ghar Baran v. State of Chattisgarh – It is difficult to prove intention, but even more

difficult to prove common intention. To prove a charge of criminal conspiracy, there has

to be substantial prima facie proof.

Sardul Singh Caveeshar v. State of Bombay – Conspiracy to commit criminal breach of

trust. Evidence of the conduct of each individual can be used to show the criminality of

the intention of the individual accused, under S. 14. Under S. 10, evidence of acts done by

co-conspirator outside the period of conspiracy, would not be admissible against the other

conspirators in proof of existence of conspiracy.