Daily Legal News

Circumstantial evidence is used in criminal courts to decide the fate of accused by establishing guilt or innocence through reasoning. According to Benthem witnesses are the "eyes and ears of justice". But testimony of witnesses is not always credible; therefore, facts are provable not only by witnesses but also by circumstances. In words of Stephen Leacock”,“My evidence for this assertion is all indirect, it’s what we call circumstantial evidence the same the people are hang for……”. Giving the importance of circumstantial evidence in criminal cases and discussing the present role of circumstantial evidence, in nailing the two most leading cases, of Manu Sharma and Santosh Kumar, the same evidence that the trial court had dismissed as being insufficient or inadequate for conviction. Although it seems self-evident, that meaning of evidence must be articulated first, before the next steps in the analytical process may be pursued. Historical Background of Circumstantial Evid

What is the definition of an Arrest? There are four components involved: a. a seizure or touching of a person’s body b. followed by words such as "you are under arrest" c. the person’s submission to the compulsion and d. The police informing the person of the true grounds for his arrest. To affect an arrest, a police must simply make clear to a person by what is said and done that he is no longer a free man. There is no fixed formula when it comes to arresting a person but the arresting officer may have to use different procedures with different persons, depending on their age, ethnic origin, knowledge of English, intellectual qualities and physical or mental disabilities. For example: The arrest by a constable of a totally deaf person who could not lip-read would be valid if the constable had done everything that a reasonable person would do in the circumstances. An arrest constitutes an absolute restriction on a person’s freedom of movement. Hence every citizen has a fundam

I kept six honest serving men. They taught me all I knew. Their names were what and why and when And how and where and who - - Rudyard Kipling Introduction It's been said, "A good lawyer turns evidence into fact and fact into truth." Because they bear the burden of proving the case beyond a reasonable doubt, prosecutors must call witnesses in every trial. Examination in Chief is the keystone in the prosecution's arch. It is also important to the defender who will call witnesses in support of the defensive theory. Direct examination is a vastly overlooked skill. Unlike cross-examination, there is very little written material to guide practitioners through the examination of their own witnesses. This is surprising because cases are actually won or lost on the fruits of direct examination. Examination in Chief is one of the most subtle and sophisticated forms of advocacy. It is subtle because a good chief examination focuses entirely on the witness and their evidence. Th

The original Indian Penal Code, 1860 had no provision providing punishment for causing death by negligence. Section 304-A was inserted in the Code in 1870 by the Indian Penal Code (Amendment) Act, 1870. This section did not create a new offence but was directed towards the offences which fall outside the range of section 299 and 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (herein after referred as I.P.C.) when neither intention nor knowledge to cause death is present. The said section reads as follows:304A. Causing death by negligence.--Whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. The provisions of this section apply to cases where there is no intention to cause death, and no knowledge that the act done in all probability would cause death. The Supreme Court has clarified that the section 304-A of I.P.C. i