Conviction based on Circumstantial Evidence

In paragraph 8 of the judgement in Ravinder Kumar v State of NCT of Delhi [2024 INSC 211 ], the Supreme Court (SC) says that the law regarding conviction on the basis of circumstantial evidence is crystallized in Sharada Birdhichand Sarada v State of Maharashtra [ AIR 1984 SC 1622].

By Adverse Possession One can Seek Declaration of Title

Adverse possession is a peculiar kind of possession of land where a person not having legal title to the land enters and occupies the land for long period with no continuing permission of the legal owner and the true owner subsequently loses his ownership rights after a legally permissible period of his inaction in recovering the possession from the possessor. The owner might have initially permitted the possessor in entering the land on the basis of a lease or licence.

Right to Private Defence :SC Guidelines on its Exercise

Right to private defence is a right every citizen has when faced with grave danger to his life or property, under Sections 96 to 106 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860. The IPC states nothing is an offence which is done in the exercise of self-defence. In order to ascertain whether any act done falls under right to self-defence, the Sections 96 to 106 of the IPC need to be examined as a whole.

Case & Counter Case: Trial Procedures

Two different versions of the same incident resulting into two criminal cases are described as “case and counter case” by some High Courts or just “cross cases” by some others, says the High Court of Kerala in Faizal v State of Kerala [2024 (3) KHC 322].

Proving Unsoundness of Mind of Executant of a Sale Deed

n proving that an executant in a sale deed is of sound mind, mere production of a medical certificate is not enough while determining the mental state at the time of the execution of a sale deed, and capacity of the executant, but the opinion of the doctor who treated the executant brought on record by examining and cross examining him in the court is necessary, the High Court of Kerala states in Kunhalima vs Mahammed [2024(3)KHC SN 15(Page No 70].

Corroboration of Evidence u/s 157 of IEA

A former statement given by a witness before any authority legally competent to investigate the case at or about the time when the fact took place, needs to be proved to corroborate any later testimony (relating to the same fact or event) given by the witness in the court. Then the former statement is admitted as corroborative evidence when it is consistent with the later testimony, under Section 157 of the Indian Evidence Act.