New Register here for RBI, SEBI & NABARD strategy workshop! April 9 at 7 PM

    Question

    In which of the following cases Supreme Court rejected

    the relevancy of hearsay evidence?
    A Roop Kumar v. Mohan Thedani Correct Answer Incorrect Answer
    B Bodh Raj @ Bodha and Ors v. State Of Jammu and Kashmir Correct Answer Incorrect Answer
    C Kalyan Kumar Gogoi v. Ashutosh Agnihotri and Anr Correct Answer Incorrect Answer
    D Anvar P.V v. P.K.Basheer & Ors Correct Answer Incorrect Answer

    Solution

    The Supreme Court of India in the case of Kalyan Kumar Gogoi v. Ashutosh Agnihotri and Anr. (2011) took a note of the fact as to why hearsay evidence is not considered as relevant evidence under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The fundamentals of the evidence law state that the hearsay evidence is inadmissible in the court of law on grounds that the same is inaccurate and vague by its very nature. The case of Roop Kumar v. Mohan Thedani (2003) revolves around the scope and ambit of Sections 91, and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 that deals with ldquo;How much of information received from accused may be provedrdquo; is nothing but a proviso to Section 25 and 26 of the Act, as has been observed by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Bodh Raj @ Bodha And Ors v. State Of Jammu And Kashmir (2002). The issue before the Apex Court in this present case has been whether the weapon used to assault that has been discovered on the reliance of the information provided by the accused in custody, be sufficient enough to fasten the guilt of the accused or not. The case of Anvar P.V v. P.K.Basheer Ors (2014) holds immense importance in todayrsquo;s technology-driven world as the Supreme Court in this noteworthy case decided on the admissibility of electronic evidence in a court of the law taking into account Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. By interpreting the application of provisions 63, 65, and 65B of the Act of 1872, the Apex Court, in this case, overruled its earlier decision made in the case of State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu (2005), commonly known as the Parliament Attack case. The three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Chief Justice R M Lodha, and Justices Kurian Joseph and Rohinton Fali Nariman by observing that an electronic record as a shred of secondary evidence shall not be admissible before the Court as evidence unless the requisites laid down by Section 65B are abided by.

    Practice Next