Section 138 BSA Is The Misconceived Product Of Judicial Misinterpretation
https://www.livelaw.in/articles/accomplice-testimony-and-section-138-bharatiya-sakshya-adhiniyam-analysis-307532

🔪🤝 Section 138 BSA and jurisprudence regarding testimony of an accomplice.

Why evidence of an accomplice?

Conspiracies are hatched in secrecy and executed in darkness”. (Badri Rai v. State of Bihar AIR 1958)
direct evidence is seldom available.

Approver v. Accomplice v. co accused.

Slight answer to-
https://t.me/CurrentLegalGK/6204

✓Accomplice- Partner in crime.
✓Co-accused- Charged along with other accused.
✓Approver- Granted pardon under 343/344 BNSS.

An “approver” is an “accomplice” who has received pardon under Section 306 Cr.P.C ( Somasundaram @ Somu v. State rep. by the Deputy Commissioner of Police AIR 2020)

Also in order to be examined as a witness, an “accomplice” need not necessarily become an “approver” or even an “accused”. (Chandran Manichan v. State of Kerala AIR 2011)

Can courts interpret Indian statute using decisions of English cases on their statutes?

1. General Rule-
State of West Bengal v. B. K. Mondal AIR 1962 SC 1961 
where we are dealing with the problem of construing a specific statutory provision it would be unreasonable to invoke the assistance of English decisions dealing with the statutory provisions contained in English law.

2. Exception- Ramanandi Kuer v. Kalawati Kuer, AIR 1928 PC (not binding but pursuasive value only)

If the words used in the Indian statute are obscure or ambiguous perhaps it may be permissible in interpreting them to examine the background of the law or to derive assistance from English decisions bearing on the point;.

Loosened standards of Evidence permissible

Firozuddin Basheeruddin v. State AIR 2001 SC 3488 = (2001) The Apex Court in this verdict in paragraph 26 has taken Judicial notice of the fact that in “conspiracy cases” loosened standards of evidence outside the Evidence Act, is permissible.

3 classification of witnesses

Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras AIR 1957 
1. Wholly reliable – No corroboration is needed
2. Wholly unreliable – Deserves to be rejected even if there is corroboration
3. Partly reliable and partly unreliable corroboration necessary

What is 114 evidence act.

It says court may oresume existence of certain facts which have likely to have happened regard being had to human conduct etc... in their relation to the facts of the particular case.

illustration (b) says court may presume that uncorroborated testimony of accomplice is unworthy of credit.

Section 113 of evidence act said it is legal to convict an accused on uncorroborated testimony of an accused.

Why incorrect Interpretation???

Now what Judiciary have interpreted using English cases like Rex v. Baskarville (1916) and Buboni Sahu v. The King AIR 1949 PC 

that as a rule of prudence became rule of law.

It positions an illustration (b) of one section (114) in a prevailing position over a substantive provision(133)

No conflict between 114 and 133

114 deals with "Particular cases" and that illustration (b) cannot be applied as a rule in every case to make a provision redundant.

Section 138 has worsened the position by substituting uncorroborated with corroborated and even standing committe report has praised it.

Why corroboration should not be required (in law it is required)

Ravinder Singh v. State of Haryana, 1975
“An Approver is the most unworthy friend, if at
all, and he, having bargained for his immunity, must prove his worthiness for credibility in Court.

Sarwan Singh Rattan Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1957 — 2 Tests for accomplice testimony to be admissible.

1. whether as an accomplice, the approver was a reliable witness (which is common to all witnesses) and his version was intrinsically credible, and

2. if so, whether his evidence was corroborated against each accused in material particulars by other evidence direct or circumstantial.

The author argues that why corroboration is required when the antecedents of the witness, whether good or bad, are also factors which go into the process of evaluating the credibility of the testimony of any witness including an approver. (test 1 is sufficient)

Continued.......

#BSA@CurrentLegalGK

Conclusion: In present legal situation section 138 BSA there is a mandate that corroboration is required and as regards 133 Evidence Act the rule of prudence or caution as mentioned in 114 (b) (now in 119(b) is rule of law that means rarely courts will allow conviction on uncorroborated testimony of accomplice.

Landmark Judgment

Rameshwar v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1952 (relied by SC in 2007 and subsequently in various cases)
Judges must mention that why conviction eithout corroboration to mention that rule of caution was considered before delivering judgment and if corroboration is required then-
1. All that is required is evidence rendering it probable that the story of the accomplice is true and that it is reasonably safe to act upon it.
2. independent evidence must not only make it safe to believe that the crime was committed but must in some way reasonably connect or tend to connect the accused with it by confirming in some material particular the testimony of the accomplice.
3. Corroboration must come from independent sources and thus ordinarily the testimony of one accomplice would not be sufficient to corroborate that of another. But of course the circumstances may be such as to make it safe to dispense with the necessity of corroboration and in those special circumstances a conviction so based would not be illegal.
4. Corroboration need not be direct evidence that the accused committed the crime. It is sufficient if it is merely circumstantial evidence of his connection with the crime. 

Comment if anything is left 😊

#BSA@CurrentLegalGK

☪️👶🍼 Adoption in Islam and Christianity.

K.Heerajohn
Vs.
The District Registrar,

“ A combined reading of Section 1(4) and 63 of the JJ Act, 2015 in the light of Article 15(3) of the Constitution of India leads me to conclude that it will prevail over Muslim Personal Law and an adopted child will have the same status of a biological child in all matters and an adopted child cannot be given a second class status,” the court said.

Shabnam Hasmi v. UOI, 2014

It is open to such a person either to adopt by following the JJ Act or choose not to do by following the dictates of the Personal law applicable to him. The effect of the decision is that a Christian or a Muslim, is free to adopt a child in terms of the statutory scheme even though Islam and Christianity do not recognise adoption. The case of Hindus is altogether different. Adoption is expressly permitted but it is subject to the provisions laid down in Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. Section 56(3) of the JJ Act, 2015 makes it clear that its provisions shall not apply to adoption of children made under the provisions of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 195

#Adoption@CurrentLegalGK
#Muslimlaw@CurrentLegalGK
#JJ@CurrentLegalGK

We— share only relevant to the point latest law and the landmark judgment of that Particular issue combindly. 😎

And you (except few)— don't share even a single post from here. 🙂😞

#Reality@CurrentLegalGK

Hidden Doctrine In Gayatri Balasamy: How Supreme Court Used Implied Powers To Transform Arbitration Law
https://www.livelaw.in/articles/supreme-court-judgment-modification-of-arbitral-award-analysis-307119

Doctrine of Implied Powers to broaden the jurisdiction of courts under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,

AURELIANO FERNANDES v. STATE OF GOA 2023

Principles of Natural Justice, Article 311, service law and Posh act.

Thus, the golden thread that weaves through Articles 309, 310 and 311 is public interest, directed towards larger public good. Together, they form a triad and symbolize the overarching Doctrine of Public Policy.

Maneka Gandhi gave natural justice a constitutional status.

#COI@CurrentLegalGK
#POSH@CurrentLegalGK

S.187 BNSS | Period Of Release On Interim Bail Not To Be Computed As 'Detention Period' For Granting Statutory Bail: Kerala High Court
https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/kerala-high-court/kerala-high-court-section-187-bnss-interim-bail-statutory-bail-detention-period-307747 statutory or default bail


The amicus curiae in the case referred to the J&K High Court's decision in Amir Hassan Mir v. UT of J & K and submitted that the period of release under temporary bail cannot be treated as in detention or custody.
#BNSS@CurrentLegalGK

Legislative Flaws in Arbitration Law

Drafting errors in arbitration and conciliation act 1996
https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2024/08/20/legislative-flaws-in-arbitration-law/

#Arbitration@CurrentLegalGK

Who owns India’s palaces?
https://www.livemint.com/Sundayapp/t7Lm0nVYwzpKgQXtGLy7gJ/Who-owns-Indias-palaces.html

This is important for us to know that police cannot parade accused but more frequently this happens when the action is backed by state, police doesn't care.

*जब तस्कर वीरप्पन ने किया सुपरस्टार राजकुमार का अपहरण:* कवि के स्टैच्यू लगाने जैसी डिमांड; गिरते-गिरते कैसे बची थी कर्नाटक सरकार
https://dainik-b.in/7jFZGjPFyzb

A famous case on 364A IPC kidnapping or abducting for ransom Where to save a film star government had to withdraw a case.

SC intervened and devlared the withdrawal illegal.

#HINDI@CurrentLegalGK

Memorandum of procedure of appointment of Supreme Court Judges | Department of Justice | India
https://doj.gov.in/memorandum-of-procedure-of-appointment-of-supreme-court-judges/

Madras High Court Recognises Cryptocurrency as Property, Says It Can Be “Held in Trust”
https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/madras-high-court/madras-high-court-recognises-cryptocurrency-as-property-says-it-can-be-held-in-trust-307853

How to delete your digital footprint in 5 steps
https://indianexpress.com/article/technology/how-to-delete-your-digital-footprint-in-5-steps-10326176/

DRAFT CRIMINAL RULES ON PRACTICE, 2021

IN RE: TO ISSUE CERTAIN GUIDELINES REGARDING INADEQUACIES AND DEFICIENCIES IN CRIMINAL TRIALS
3 judge bench decision.

Read all abd see whether trial court is adhering to these guidelines or not.

#BNSS@CurrentLegalGK

Can Another Bench Pursue Contempt Action When CJI Has Pardoned Advocate For Shoe-Hurling Bid? Supreme Court Asks In SCBA Plea
https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/supreme-court-scba-versus-rakesh-kishore-shoe-attack-on-cji-br-gavai-307914

Whether contempt proceedings can be initiated by another bench once the presiding judge who faced the act has chosen not to do so.

“Throwing of a shoe or shouting slogans are contemptuous acts on the face of the court under Section 14. In such cases, it is left to the judge concerned to decide whether to initiate contempt. The CJI in his magnanimity chose to ignore. Is it within the domain of another bench or even the Attorney General to give consent for contempt? Please see Section 15,” Justice Bagchi remarked.

It would consider issuing guidelines to prevent the glorification of such acts.

#Contempt@CurrentLegalGK

But whether CJI was the alone judge in the bench?

Because it is Contempt of Court and not Contempt of Judge and no single judge can chose to decide for the contempt of the court.

It may be a person attack under BNS might be compoundable etc but contempt is altogether on a different footing it affects the whole institution.

😄You see the power of CJI

#Contempt@CurrentLegalGK