Question
In which of the following cases Supreme Court rejected
the relevancy of hearsay evidence?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.
рд╕рдВрд╕рджреАрдп рд░рд╛рдЬрднрд╛рд╖рд╛ рд╕рдорд┐рддрд┐ рдореЗрдВ рд░рд╛рдЬреНрдпрд╕рднрд╛ рдХреЗ рдХрд┐рддрдиреЗ рд╕рджрд╕реНрдп рд╣реЛрддреЗ рд╣реИрдВ ?
рдирд┐рдореНрдирд▓рд┐рдЦрд┐рдд рдореЗрдВ рд╕реЗ рдХреМрди рд╕рд╛ рд╕реБрдореЗрд▓рд┐рдд рдпреБрдЧреНрдо рдирд╣реАрдВ рд╣реИ ┬а
рд╣рд┐рдВрджреА рдн...
рдиреАрдЪреЗ рджрд┐рдП рдЧрдП рд╢рдмреНрджреЛрдВ/рд╡рд╛рдХреНрдпреЛрдВ рдХреЗ рд╕рд╣реА рдЕрдиреБрд╡рд╛рдж рдХрд╛ рдорд┐рд▓рд╛рди рдХрд░реЗрдВ рдФрд░ ...
рдиреАрдЪреЗ рджрд┐рдП рдЧрдП рд╢рдмреНрджреЛрдВ рдХрд╛ рд╕рд╣реА рд╣рд┐рдВрджреА рдЕрдиреБрд╡рд╛рдж рд╡рд┐рдХрд▓реНрдкреЛрдВ рд╕реЗ рдЪрдпрди рдХрд░я┐╜...
рдХреЗрдиреНрджреНрд░реАрдп рд╣рд┐рдВрджреА рд╕рдВрд╕реНрдерд╛рди рдХрд╛ рдореБрдЦреНрдпрд╛рд▓рдп рдХрд╣рд╛рдБ рд╕реНрдерд┐рдд рд╣реИ?
рдиреАрдЪреЗ рджрд┐рдП рдЧрдП рд╡рд╛рдХреНрдпреЛрдВ рдХреЗ рд╕рд╣реА рдЕрдиреБрд╡рд╛рдж рдХрд╛ рдорд┐рд▓рд╛рди рдХрд░реЗрдВ рдФрд░ рдЙрдЪрд┐рдд рд╡рд┐я┐╜...
‘рдорд╣рд╛рддреНрдорд╛ рдЧрд╛рдБрдзреА рдЕрдВрддрд░рд░рд╛рд╖реНрдЯреНрд░реАрдп рд╣рд┐рдВрджреА рд╡рд┐рд╢реНрд╡рд╡рд┐рджреНрдпрд╛рд▓рдп я┐╜...
рд╢реБрджреНрдз рд╡рд░реНрддрдиреА рдХрд╛ рдЪрдпрди ┬а рдХреАрдЬрд┐рдП тАУ
рд░рд╛рдЬрднрд╛рд╖рд╛ рдЕрдзрд┐рдирд┐рдпрдо 1963 рдХреА рдзрд╛рд░рд╛ 3 (3) рдХреЗ рддрд╣рдд рдХрд┐рддрдиреЗ рдкреНрд░рдХрд╛рд░ рдХреЗ рдХрд╛рдЧрдЬрд╛рдд...
рд╣рдорд╛рд░реЗ рджреЗрд╢ рдореЗрдВ рднрд╛рд╖рд╛ рдХрд╛ рдлрд╛рд░реНрдореВрд▓рд╛ рд╣реИ ?