Recording of Evidence

RECORDING OF
EVIDENCE
:Prepared by:
H. S. MULIA
1

Disclaimer
Views expressed in this
document are for
information and
academic purpose only.
2

When the accused appears or
is brought before court
pursuant to the commitment of
the case, the P.P. should open
the case by describing the
charge brought against the
accused and stating by what
evidence he proposes to prove
the guilt of the accused.
3

Where the accused does not
plead guilty, the court shall
call upon the prosecution to
adduce evidence in support
of its case. Evidence for the
prosecution shall be taken
on a day-to-day basis
(Section 309 of the CrRC).
4

Section 317 of the CrPC speaks
about inquiries or trial being held
in the absence of accused. Said
section provides that when
accused is represented by the
pleader, Judge may proceed with
such trail in absence of the
accused. But when the issue of
identity of the accused is involved,
trial may not proceed with in the
absence of accused.
5

Question:- At which stage
a prosecution witness can
be declared hostile?
6

It is enough if the witness deviates
from his previous statements made to the
police or when the Court considers it
necessary to grant the permission under
Section 154 of the Evidence Act, from the
witness's demeanour, temper, attitude,
bearing, tenor or tendency of his answers or
otherwise. It is open to the party who calls
the witness to seek permission of the court
under Section 154 of the Evidence Act, at
any stage of the examination. Please refer to
the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in
the case of Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai
Thakker v. State of Gujarat - AIR 1964
SC 1563.
7

When the P.P. makes a request to declare
prosecution witness as hostile witness, the
court is actually granting permission under
two separate provisions of law. The first
permission that is granted is under Section
154 of the Evidence Act, permitting the P.P.
to put questions to his own witness which
might be put in cross-examination by the
adverse party. The second permission which
is granted is one under the proviso to
Section 162(1) of the CrPC wherein the P.P.
is permitted to confront the witness with his
statements made to the police.
8

Before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the
case of Bhagwan Dass v/s State (NRC)
Delhi, reported in AIR 2011 SC 1863,
the facts were:-
Mother of the accused stated before the
I.O. that her son had told her that he
killed the deceased but before the Court
she resiled form her statement made
before the police and was declared
hostile. Hon'ble Supreme Court under
these facts and circumstances held that
her statement before the police can be
taken into account.
9

Question:- What do
you reckon, how many
kind of witnesses can
be examined during
the sessions trial?
10

Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Manglu
Jivabhai Jalsaniya Vs. State Of Gujarat,
reported in 2014 (3) GLH 42, in para No.28 has
held that:-
A Panchnama which can be used only to
corroborate the panch has to be read over to the
panch and only, thereafter, it can be exhibited. If
the panch has omitted to state something which is
found in the panchnama, then, after reading over
the panchnama, the panch has to be asked whether
that part of the panchnama is correct or not and
whatever reply he gives has to be recorded. If he
replies in the affirmative, then only that part of the
panchnama can be read to corroborate the
substantive evidence of the panch.
Continued...
11

If he replies in negative, then that part of
the panchnama cannot be read in
evidence for want of substantive
evidence on record. It is, therefore,
necessary that due care is taken to see
that such a procedure is followed while
examining the panch as a witness. It is
also necessary that the Trial Judge
ensures that the panchnama is read over
to the panch witness and, thereafter,
panchnama is exhibited after following
the procedure, as indicated above.
12

Witness:-
Hostile witness – previous
statement made by him before I O
is contradicted by him in his
testimony before the court – such
previous statement, when can be
relied upon and what procedure
has to be followed?
13

Please refer para No.19 of the
ratio laid down by Full Bench of
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of V. K. Mishra v/s
State of U.K., reported in
2015 (9) SCC 588, which is
followed in the case of
Krishan Chandra v/s State
of (NTC) Delhi, reported in
2016 (3) SCC 108.
14

Section 162 Cr.P.C. bars use of
statement of witnesses recorded by
the police except for the limited
purpose of contradiction of such
witnesses as indicated there. The
statement made by a witness before
the police under Section 161(1) Cr.P.C.
can be used only for the purpose of
contradicting such witness on what he
has stated at the trial as laid down in
the proviso to Section 162 (1) Cr.P.C.
15

The statements under Section 161
Cr.P.C. recorded during the
investigation are not substantive
pieces of evidence but can be used
primarily for the limited purpose:-
(i) of contradicting such witness by an
accused under Section 145 of Evidence
Act;
(ii) the contradiction of such witness
also by the prosecution but with the
leave of the Court and
(iii) the re-examination of the witness if
necessary. 16

Under Section 145 of the
Evidence Act when it is intended
to contradict the witness by his
previous statement reduced into
writing, the attention of such
witness must be drawn to those
parts of it which are to be used
for the purpose of contradicting
him, before the writing can be
used.
17

While recording the deposition of a witness,
it becomes the duty of the Trial Court to
ensure that the part of the police statement
with which it is intended to contradict the
witness is brought to the notice of the
witness in his cross-examination. The
attention of witness is required to be drawn
to that part and this must reflect in his cross-
examination by reproducing it. If the witness
admits the part intended to contradict him,
it stands proved, and there is no need for
the further proof of contradiction and it will
be read while appreciating the evidence.
18

If he denies having made that part of the
statement, his attention must be drawn to
that statement and must be mentioned in
the deposition. By this process the
contradiction is merely brought on record,
but it is yet to be proved. Thereafter, when
investigating officer is examined in the
court, his attention should be drawn to the
passage marked for the purpose of
contradiction, it will then be proved in the
deposition of the investigating officer who
again by referring to the police statement
will depose about the witness having made
that statement.
19

The process again involves referring to
the police statement and culling out
that part with which the maker of the
statement was intended to be
contradicted. If the witness was not
confronted with that part of the
statement with which the defence
wanted to contradict him, then the
Trial Court cannot suo motu make use
of statements to police not proved in
compliance with Section 145 of
Evidence Act that is, by drawing
attention to the parts intended for
contradiction. 20

For example, if the witness has stated in the
complaint & statement under Section 164
statement that ‘A’ gave the lethal blow on the
head but in the witness box, if he says that ‘B’
gave the lethal blow on the head, then there is
contradiction between the complaint & Section
164 statement on one hand and the substantive
evidence in the witness stand on the other
hand. Many a time defence counsel remain
silent in the fond hope that they can highlight
the contradiction by simply reading to the Judge
and comparing the former statements
(Complaint & Section 164 statement) and the
deposition of the witness. This is impermissible.
21

The former statement/s should be put
to him and his attention should be
drawn to the contradiction between
what he stated in the former
statement/s and the substantive
evidence.

In the above example he should be
asked, you have stated in the Court
that 'B' inflicted the lethal blow, but in
your complaint & Section 164
statement you have stated 'A' has
inflicted the lethal blow, is it not? 22

Defence counsels will get scared
to ask this question because of
fear that he may explain away.
For that sake, mandates of
Section 145 Evidence Act
cannot be thrown of. If he wants
to contradict the witness with a
former statement there is no
escape route other than Section
145 of the Evidence Act.
23

Only contradictions between two
substantive evidences can be read
out to the judge. For example, in a
case, if P.W.1 says in his evidence
that ‘A’ gave the lethal blow and
P.W.2 says that ‘B’ gave the lethal
blow, then there are two
contradictory substantive pieces
of evidences. Then the defence
counsel can read P.W.1 and P.W.2’s
evidence and show the
contradictions. 24

Question: When Defence tries to
elicit from the prosecution
witnesses that even before the
lodging of the F.I.R, police had
come to the scene of crime and
questioned the witnesses and had
taken their statements and
request the court to discard such
statements, as one hit by Section
162 of the CrPC, Whether this can
be allowed?
25

Very often the defence would elicit
from the prosecution witnesses
that even before the lodging of the
F.I.R, police had come to the scene
of crime and questioned the
witnesses and had taken their
statements. This is obviously to
offset such statements with a view
to request the court to discard
such statements as one hit by
Section 162 of the CrPC.
26

Make sure as to whether the visit
of the police was only to ensure
some unconfirmed report which
they might have received about
the occurrence and their
questioning of persons was only
towards that end or not.- Satish
Narayan Sawant v. State of
Goa, 2009 (17) SCC 724.
27

Section 161 and 162 of CrPC
read with Section 145 of
evidence Act:-
Question:-Whether prosecution
can be allowed to confront with
the previous statement of
Defence Witness whose
statement had been recorded
by I O u/s 161 of CrPC? 28

No.
Please refer to the ratio laid
down in the case of Tilok
Ram Jat v/s State of
Rajasthan, reported in
2015 (2) Crimes 664
(Raj).
29

Hearsay Evidence:-
Barring the statutorily exempted category,
hearsay evidence is not acceptable as legal
evidence in view of the implied prohibition
under Section 60 of the Evidence Act. Very
often non-occurrence witnesses may testify
before court that other persons told them
that the accused had stabbed the deceased
and so on. Such statements as such, need
not be recorded unless they constitute res
gestae evidence, extra judicial confession or
any other exempted category.
30

There may be, in a given case, more than one
accused or one witness having the same name.
Ensure that no mistake is committed on account
of this. After the initial mention by a witness of
the full name of an accused person or a witness
it is desirable to give in parenthesis the rank of
the accused or the witness as A2, C.W.5 or
P.W.3, as the case may be, so that whenever
the name of the same accused or witness is
made mention of by a witness, his full name
need not be repeated. This can help you to
avoid needless confusion. - Munney @ Rahat
Jan Khan v. State of U.P, reported in 2006
Cr.L.J. 4064 (SC).
31

Question 1 :- The evidence of
witnesses shall ordinarily be
taken down in which form?
Question 2:- If the witness
denies the correctness of any
part of the evidence, whether
the correction can be carried
out in the deposition?
32

The evidence of witnesses shall ordinarily be
taken down in the form of a narrative. (please
refer to Section 276(2) of the CrPC). After
recording the evidence of each witness it has to
be read over to the witness in the presence of
the accused as enjoined by Section 278(1) of
the CrPC. If the witness denies the correctness
of any part of the evidence then the correction
should not be carried out in the deposition but
instead the judge has to make a memorandum
incorporating the objection raised by the
witness and the remarks of the judge. (please
refer to Section 278(2) of the CrPC). Section
280 of the CrPC enables a court to record
remarks regarding the demeanour of the
witness. 33

Principle for relying on Multiple Dying
Declaration (DD) u/s 32 of Evidence Act:-
An important question is, in a case of multiple
variable dying declarations, which of the dying
declaration would be taken into consideration by
the Court, what principles shall guide the judicial
discretion of the Court or whether such
contradictory dying declarations would
unexceptionally result in prejudice to the case of
the prosecution, arises in the present case.
Held- Each DD to be considered independently
and only such DD which appears to be voluntary
and corroborated and reflect the correct
perspective, such DD is to be accepted.
Reference: Raju Devade Vs. State of Maharastra,
2016 (2) GLH 622. 34

Recording of evidence in the trail of
supplementary Charge-sheet:-
Evidence produced during the course of
earlier trail can be taken into consideration.
But said evidence (oral or documentary) can
be taken on record as it is. All depositions
and documents are required to be exhibited
in the current trail.
Please refer ratio laid down in the case of
State of Gujarat v/s Hanu Dharsi Vaghri,
reported in 2008 (4) GLR 2964 (DB) and
State of Gujarat vs. Hanu Dharshi
Vaghri, reported in 2017(2) GLR 1059
(DB). 35

Question :- When an
objection is raised with
respect to giving tentative
exhibit number to the
particular document,
whether such objection can
be decided at the time of
final arguments of the case
or at the very moment? 36

There are two categories of
objections:-
(1) an objection that the document
which is sought to be proved is itself
inadmissible in evidence for example
hearsay evidence
(2) where the objection does not
dispute the admissibility of the
document in evidence but is directed
towards the mode of proof alleging the
same to be irregular or insufficient.
37

For example of the Second Category:- If a
true copy which is prepared on the basis of
the original has been produced by the
witness during his examination in chief and
a prayer has been made to exhibit the
same on the ground that as same is the
certified copy of a public document and the
original had been brought before the court.
Said prayer has been objected by the
otherside on the ground that in terms of
section 76 of the Indian Evidence Act, the
questions are yet to be put during the
course of cross-examination and that the
decision for exhibiting the document be
taken after the cross-examination in respect
of such document is over.
38

In the first category of case,
objection can be raised at any time
whereas, in the case of second
category, the objection would be
required to be raised and dealt
with at the time when such
document is sought to be admitted
in evidence.- Ramnik S. Bhavishi
Vs. Tulsidas C. Gorvadiya, 2016 (2)
GLH 733.
39

Question:- Whether
defence can be
allowed to recall a
prosecution witness
u/s 311 of CrPC for re-
examination?
40

Recalling of witness u/s 311 of Cr PC:-
Simple reading of provisions contained u/s
137 and 138 of the Evidence Act leads to
the conclusion that only prosecution has
right to 'recall witness for re-examination'.
Newly appointed advocate of the accused
can not be allowed to recall the prosecution
witness on the ground that earlier advocate
has failed ask certain questions (please refer
the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Bombay
High Madanmohan Chandak Kundanlal
v/s State of Maharashtra, reported in
2008 Cr LJ 968).
41

Even witnesses can not be
recalled on the ground that after
the recording of the deposition
of some witnesses, case has
been amicably settled between
the parties (please refer the
ratio laid down in the case of
Kali Vishwakarma v/s State
of Jharkhand, reported in
2007 (11) SCC 191).
Continued...
42

Witnesses can not be recalled on
the ground that the counsel for
the accused was sick and
therefore, he could not ask
relevant questions to the
concerned witness. (please refer
the ratio laid down in the case of
State of Haryana v/s Ram
Mehar, reported in AIR 2016
SC 3942).
Continued...
43

Recalling the witness u/s 311 of
the CrPC:- when can be called or
allowed?
Guideline issued in the case of Special
Criminal Application No.4902 of
2014 and Special Criminal
Application No.2583 of 2015 and
judgment delivered in the case of R.
H. Vadhiya v/s State of Gujarat,
reported in 2015 (2) GLR 1320 may
be taken into account.
44

45
Question:- When court on its
own summons any witness
u/s 311 of CrPC and records
his deposition, whether in
such situation, prosecution /
complainant has right to cross
examine such witness?

46
Held – Yes.
Please refer ratio laid down in the
case of Godrej Pacific v/s
Computer joint India, reported
in 2008 (3) Crimes 322 (SC).

47
Question:- Whether re-
examination be confined to
ambiguities alone which
arose in cross examination?

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Rammi v/s State of M. P,
reported in AIR 1999 SC 3544
has held that in the re-
examination u/s 137 & 138 of
Evidence Act, questions can not be
confined to ambiguities alone
which arose in cross examination,
and question can be put to witness
to obtain explanation required for
any matter referred into Cross.48

Plea of Alibi, u/s 11 of the
Evidence Act:-
How plea of Alibi has to be established
– Guideline thereof, issued in the ratio
laid down in the case of Vutukuru
Lakshmaiah v/s State of A.P.,
reported in 2015 (5) SCALE 478.
Plea of Alibi has to be raised by the
accused at the very first instance i.e.
at the time of opposing remand
application or at the time of seeking
bail. 49

U/s 133 of the Evidence Act, 1872 read with
Illustration (b) of Section 114 of the
Evidence Act:- Section 133 of the Evidence
Act provides that an Accomplice shall be a
competent witness against an accused
person and conviction is not illegal merely
because it proceeds upon the
uncorroborated testimony of an Accomplice.
Whereas, Illustration (b) of Section 114
provides that an Accomplice is unworthy of
credit, unless he is corroborated in material
particulars. Conjoint reading of both these
sections leads to confusion.
Question:- What is to be done is such
situation? 50

Section 133 of the Evidence Act provides
that an Accomplice shall be a competent
witness against an accused person and
conviction is not illegal merely because it
proceeds upon the uncorroborated
testimony of an Accomplice.
Whereas, Illustration (b)Section 114 of the
Evidence Act provides that an Accomplice is
unworthy of credit, unless he is corroborated
in material particulars. Conjoint reading of
both these sections leads to confusion.
Therefore, intricacies of both these sections
are required to be kept in mind by the
Sessions Judges. 51

The difficulty in understanding the combined
effect of the aforementioned two provisions
arises largely due to their placement at two
different places of the same Act. It may be
noticed that Illustration (b) attached to
Section 114 is placed in Chapter VII of
Evidence Act while Section 133 is inserted in
Chapter IX of the Evidence Act.
The better course was to insert the
Illustration (b) to Section 114 as an
Explanation or in any case as Proviso to
Section 133 of the Act instead of their
insertion at two different places and that too
in different chapters of Evidence Act. 52

In any case since an approver is guilty
companion in crime and, therefore, Illustration
(b) to S.114 provides a rule of caution, to which
the Courts should have regard. It is now well
settled that except in circumstances of special
nature it is the duty of the Court to raise the
presumption in S.114 Illustration (b) and the
Legislature requires that the Courts should
make the natural presumption in that section.
Though a conviction can be based on
uncorroborated evidence of an accomplice u/s
133 of the Act but as a rule of prudence it is
unsafe to place reliance on the uncorroborated
testimony of an approver as required by
Illustration (b) of S.114 of the Act.
53

Please refer to the ratio laid down
in the case of Suresh Chandra
Bahri v. State of Bihar, reported in
AIR 1994 SC 2420, which has been
followed in the cases of Francis
Stanly alias Stalin v. Intelligence
Officer, Narcotic Control Bureau,
Thiruvananthapuram, reported in
AIR 2007 SC 794 and Jarnail Singh
v. State of Punjab, reported in AIR
2010 SC 3699
54

Section 30 of the Evidence Act provides
that when more persons than one are being
tried jointly for the same offence or
offences, and a confession made, before the
commencement of trial, by one of such
persons affecting himself and some other
persons in respect of same offence or all the
offences affecting himself and some other
persons is proved, the Court may, where
there is other relevant evidence against
such other person or persons, take into
consideration such confession as lending
credence against such other person or
persons as well as against the person who
makes such confession. 55

To make such confessional statement
admissible following conditions should
be satisfied:-
(1) there has to be a joint trail of
accused and person making
confessional statement
(2) such confessional statement is
made before the commencement of
trial
(3) such statement must be affecting
himself and other accused of same
offence and
(4) such statement should be proved
as admissible. 56

Question :- How many
kinds of role Ld.
Magistrate plays while
committing the case to
the Court of Sessions?
57

Balveer Singh v/s State of Rajastha,
reported in 2016 (6) SCC 680 :-
An FIR was lodged against the appellants (In-
Laws of the deceased) and husband of the
deceased for offences punishable u/s 498A
and 304-B of IPC. Police did not file
chargesheet against the In-laws and filed
chargesheet against husband only for an
offence punishable u/s 306 of IPC. Father of
the deceased moved an application before
Magistrate to array In-laws of the deceased
as accused and also for addition of offences
punishable u/s 498A and 304-B of IPC, before
the case is committed to the Sessions court.
58

While committing the case to the Court of
Sessions, Magisterial dismissed said application
and same attained finality in eye of law as same
was not challenged. Before the Sessions Court,
father of the deceased moved another
application to issue summons against In-laws of
the deceased and for addition of offences
punishable u/s 498A and 304-B of IPC, which
was allowed. Matter went to the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court
has held that the Court of Sessions can take
cognizance of the offence in term of Section
193 of the Code and need not to wait till the
stage of Section 319 of CrPC.
59

While committing the case to the Court of
Sessions, Magisterial plays two kind of roles,
Active and passive.
Now the question arises as to what is active role
and what is passive role?
When Magistrate does not agree with closure
report filed by the investigating agency and
decides to issue process against the accused by
passing reason order, it falls under the first
category – Active Role.
The case in hand falls under the second
category i.e. passive role.
60

Procedure to be followed by the
trial Court in the event of cross
cases:-
Nathilal v. State of U. P., reported
in 1990 (Supp) SCC 145 has pointed
out the procedure to be followed by
the trial Court in the event of cross
cases. It was observed thus:-
61

"We think that the fair procedure to adopt in
a matter like the present where there are
cross cases, is to direct that the same
learned Judge must try both the cross cases
one after the other. After the recording of
evidence in one case is completed, he must
hear the arguments but he must reserve the
judgment. Thereafter, he must proceed to
hear the cross case and after recording all
the evidence he must hear the arguments
but reserve the judgment in that case. The
same learned Judge must thereafter dispose
of the matters by two separate judgments”.
62

In deciding each of the cases, he can rely
only on the evidence recorded in that
particular case. The evidence recorded in
the cross case cannot be looked into. Nor
can the Judge be influenced by whatever is
argued in the cross case. Each case must be
decided on the basis of the evidence which
has been placed on record in that particular
case without being influenced in any manner
by the evidence or arguments urged in the
cross case. But both the judgments must be
pronounced by the same learned Judge one
after the other."
63

Question:- During the cross
examination of the investigating
officer, question by the defence
lawyer is put to him regarding the
manner of perpetrating the crime
by the accused and accused
explained the same to I.O. and the
alleged version of the accused as
given by the I.O. during his
deposition is recorded by the Trial
Judge, whether this is permissible?64

Very often inadmissible statements made by
investigating officers are blindly recorded by
the Trial Judges. The defence lawyer might
ask the investigating officer whether a
particular witness made a particular
statement before him when he questioned
the said witness.
The investigating officer may readily answer
the question. The defence lawyer is not
entitled to ask such a question, as the
answer to which would be in clear violation
of the bar under Section 162 of the Code.
65

Question:- When
investigating officer writes a
letter to any person and
such person responses by
reply letter, such reply letter
can be taken into
consideration?
66

This is not permissible, hence
cannot be allowed. When
investigating officer writes a letter
to any person and such person
responses by reply letter, such
reply letter is hit by Section 162
of the Code. -
Kali Ram v. State of H.P.,
reported in AIR 1973 SC 2773
(Three Judge). 67

Suppose, in a murder case a Post-
mortem report is admitted by
the defence lawyer and its
genuineness and authenticity is
not disputed, whether in such a
situation, can it be read as
substantive evidence to prove its
contents without doctor concerned
being examined?
68

Held- Yes. Please refer to the ratio
laid down by the Three Judges of
Akhtar v. State of Uttaranchal
– AIR 2009 SC (Supp) 1676
(Three Judges).
69

When a recovery falling under Section 27 of
the Evidence Act is sought to be proved through
the investigating officer, the necessary word or
words indicating authorship of concealment are
not seen elicited in many cases. The
investigating officer should depose to the exact
words of the accused which distinctly led to the
fact discovered. The words attributed to the
accused must find a place in the deposition of
the investigating officer. Please refer to ratio
laid down by Hon'ble Division Bench of Hon'ble
Gujarat High Court in the case of Rameshbhai
Hajabhai Chachiya v. State of Gujarat,
reported in 2012 (3) GLR 2250.
70

Question:-
When recovery is effected
pursuant to any statement
made by the accused and
document / panchnama
prepared by the Investigating
Officer, must necessarily be
attested by independent
witnesses?- 71

Held- No.
Please refer to ratio laid down
in the case of State Govt. of
NCT of Delhi v. Sunil,
reported in AIR 2000 SCW
4398; Satbir alias Lakha v.
State of Haryana, reported
in AIR 2012 SCW 5780 and
Musir Mubark v. State of
Haryana, reported in AIR
2013 SC 992. 72

Most of the time advocates for the
accused raise a defence that,
though accused and
witnesses/victim are knowing each
other since long, names of the
assailants were not given to the
doctor who treated the victim.
Whether injured witness is
required to give details/names
of the assailants, before the
Doctor? 73

Held- No. Please refer to ratio
laid down in the case of P.
Babu v. State of Andhra
Pradesh (1994 (1) SCC 388)
= AIR 1993 SCW 3174.
74

Above referred ratio i.e. P. Babu v.
State of Andhra Pradesh (supra) has
been followed in the following cases:-
a) Valson v/s State of Kerala, reported
in AIR 2008 SCW 5203, para 40.
b) Mulla v/s State of U. P., reported in
2010 Cr.L.J. 1440.
c) Kilakkatha Parambath Sasi v/s State
of Kerala, reported in AIR 2011 SC
1064, para 11.
d) Dalwadi Govind Amarsing v/s State
of Gujarat, reported in 2004 GLR 1258,
para 22. 75

In the following categories of cases
prosecution is not required to call witness
for examination:
- Report of Test Identification Parade of the
Executive Magisterial u/s 291-A of the Code.
- Officers of the Mint u/s 292 of the Code.
- Government Scientific Officers mentioned u/s
293(4) of the Code.
- Evidence of any person whose evidence is of a
formal character – u/s 296 of the Code.
- Confession/Statement recorded by Judicial
Magistrate u/s 164 of the Code. (Kasmira Singh
v/s. State of M.P., reported in A.I.R. 1952 SC 159
which is followed by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court
in Special Criminal Application No.141 0f 2014,
dated 7/11/2014). 76

Recording of Evidence

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Recording of Evidence

Similar to Recording of Evidence (20)

More from Legal

More from Legal (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Recording of Evidence