NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY ODISHA

LEGAL HISTORY PROJECT ON:

DEVELOPMENT OF PERSONAL LAWS OF HINDUS AND MUSLIMS

UNDER THE GUIDANCE OF:

XXXXXXXXXX

SUBMITTED BY

XXXXXX
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

ABSTRACT

2|Page
 INTRODUCTION

Admissibility Generally - ... Related to the qualification of a witness, the existence of a

privilege, or the admissibility of proof shall be decided through the courtroom ... Not sure by
using the principles of evidence besides those with recognize to privileges.

Limited Admissibility
When proof admissible to at least one occasion or for one rationale however now not
admissible as to a further celebration or for yet another motive is admitted, the court, upon
request, shall preclude the proof to its right scope and coach the jury accordingly

 Defn: All the means by which any alleged matter of fact, truth of which is submitted to
investigation at judicial trial is established or disproved
 Includes testimony (primary source in criminal) as well as records, documents,
exibits, photographs, etc.
 It’s information, not proof (proof = induces belief)
 Autopic Evidence: purest form; tells its own story (rare)
 Goal is to facilitate ascertainment of facts; but not at any cost
 But failings such as the Morin case make us question the law of evidence yet it is
about fundamental rules
 Basic rule: All relevant material is admissible
 Trier of law should admit it and let trier of fact weigh it
 Should not have a high standard of admissibility
 Rules of Exclusion – but need some hurdles to ensure only what seems reasonable
is admitted

3|Page
 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Doctrinal mode of research has been followed. And the content has been collected from
various primary sources such as bare acts, cases etc. And secondary sources such as books,
journals, websites etc.

OBJECTIVES
1) To study To study the development of Muslim laws in British period.
2) To study the
3) .
4) To

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

1) What?
2) F,mfrg

SCOPE

The scope of the project is restricted to the personal laws of Hindus and Muslims and their
respective developments in the ancient, British and independent India. Further, the project
places emphasis on marriage laws, inheritance laws, divorce laws and adoption laws of
Hindus and Muslims.

MODE OF CITATION

OSCOLA mode of citation has been followed.

4|Page
5|Page
 CHAPTER 1:
Introduction

Course of Evidence (Civil usually 1 & 2)

1. Plaintiff’s E in chief
 Examination in chief
 Cross-examination
 Re-examination
 Re-cross
2. Defendant’s main case (repeat 4 steps – reverse parties)
3. Plaintiff’s rebuttal
4. Defedants’s rejoinder

 Voir-dire: Judge decides what E will be presented to jury (controversial E - esp. re:
confessions)

3 types of Presumptions
1. Irrebutable presumptions of law
- Of interest to us: when A proved, follows that B necessarily proved
2. Rebutable presumptions of law - holds until rebutted with E
3. Rebuttable presumptions of fact - not relevant here

6|Page
 CHAPTER 2:
Rules of Evidence

Some key provisions

Oregon rule numbers followed by federal rule numbers

General Rules of Evidence

40.150 Rule 401. Definition of "relevant evidence." "Relevant evidence" means evidence
having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the
determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the
evidence. [1981 c.892 §21]

40.155 Rule 402. Relevant evidence generally admissible. All relevant evidence is
admissible, except as otherwise provided by the Oregon Evidence Code, by the Constitutions
of the United States and Oregon, or by Oregon statutory and decisional law. Evidence which
is not relevant is not admissible. [1981 c.892 §22]

40.160 Rule 403. Exclusion of relevant evidence on grounds of prejudice, confusion or

undue delay. Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is
substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or
misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay or needless presentation of
cumulative evidence. [1981 c.892 §23]

Character Evidence

40.170 Rule 404. Character evidence; evidence of other crimes, wrongs or acts. (1)
Evidence of a person’s character or trait of character is admissible when it is an essential
element of a charge, claim or defense.

(2) Evidence of a person’s character is not admissible for the purpose of proving that the
person acted in conformity therewith on a particular occasion, except:

(a) Evidence of a pertinent trait of character offered by an accused, or by the prosecution to

rebut the same;

7|Page
(b) Evidence of a pertinent trait of character of the victim of the crime offered by an accused,
or by the prosecution to rebut the same or evidence of a character trait of peacefulness of the
victim offered by the prosecution to rebut evidence that the victim was the first aggressor;

(c) Evidence of the character of a witness, as provided in ORS 40.345 to 40.355; or

(d) Evidence of the character of a party for violent behavior offered in a civil assault and
battery case when self-defense is pleaded and there is evidence to support such defense.

(3) Evidence of other crimes, wrongs or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a
person in order to show that the person acted in conformity therewith. It may, however, be
admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan,
knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident.

(4) In criminal actions, evidence of other crimes, wrongs or acts by the defendant is
admissible if relevant except as otherwise provided by:

(a) ORS 40.180, 40.185, 40.190, 40.195, 40.200, 40.205, 40.210 and, to the extent required
by the United States Constitution or the Oregon Constitution, ORS 40.160;

(b) The rules of evidence relating to privilege and hearsay;

(c) The Oregon Constitution; and

(d) The United States Constitution. [1981 c.892 §24; 1997 c.313 §29]

Opinions and Expert Testimony

40.405 Rule 701. Opinion testimony by lay witnesses. If the witness is not testifying as an
expert, testimony of the witness in the form of opinions or inferences is limited to those
opinions or inferences which are:

(1) Rationally based on the perception of the witness; and

(2) Helpful to a clear understanding of testimony of the witness or the determination of a fact
in issue. [1981 c.892 §57]

8|Page
40.410 Rule 702. Testimony by experts. If scientific, technical or other specialized
knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in
issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training or education
may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise. [1981 c.892 §58]

40.415 Rule 703. Bases of opinion testimony by experts. The facts or data in the particular
case upon which an expert bases an opinion or inference may be those perceived by or made
known to the expert at or before the hearing. If of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in
the particular field in forming opinions or inferences upon the subject, the facts or data need
not be admissible in evidence. [1981 c.892 §59]

40.420 Rule 704. Opinion on ultimate issue. Testimony in the form of an opinion or
inference otherwise admissible is not objectionable because it embraces an ultimate issue to
be decided by the trier of fact. [1981 c.892 §60]

40.425 Rule 705. Disclosure of fact or data underlying expert opinion. An expert may
testify in terms of opinion or inference and give reasons therefor without prior disclosure of
the underlying facts or data, unless the court requires otherwise. The expert may in any event
be required to disclose the underlying facts or data on cross-examination. [1981 c.892 §61]

Some Important Case Law

Frye v U.S. (1923) 293 Fed 1013

 "the thing from which the deduction is made must be sufficiently established
to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs"

Dyas v U.S. (1977) DC App 376 A.2d 827

 The subject matter "must be so distinctly related to some science, profession,
business or occupation as to be beyond the ken of the average layman."
 “The witness must have sufficient skill, knowledge or experience in that field
or calling as to make it appear that his opinion or inference will probably aid
the trier in his search for truth."

9|Page
  Expert testimony is inadmissible if "the state of the pertinent art or scientific
knowledge does not permit a reasonable opinion to asserted even by an
expert"

DAUBERT v. MERRELL DOW PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., (1993) 509 U.S. 579

 Petitioners, two minor children and their parents, alleged in their suit against
respondent that the children's serious birth defects had been caused by the
mothers' prenatal ingestion of Bendectin, a prescription drug marketed by
respondent. The District Court granted respondent summary judgment based
on a well-credentialed expert's affidavit concluding, upon reviewing the
extensive published scientific literature on the subject, that maternal use of
Bendectin has not been shown to be a risk factor for human birth defects.
Although petitioners had responded with the testimony of eight other well-
credentialed experts, who based their conclusion that Bendectin can cause
birth defects on animal studies, chemical structure analyses, and the
unpublished "reanalysis" of previously published human statistical studies,
the court determined that this evidence did not meet the applicable "general
acceptance" standard for the admission of expert testimony. The Court of
Appeals agreed and affirmed, citing Frye v. United States, 54 App. D.C. 46,
47, 293 F. 1013, 1014, for the rule that expert opinion based on a scientific
technique is inadmissible unless the technique is "generally accepted" as
reliable in the relevant scientific community.

Held:

The Federal Rules of Evidence, not Frye, provide the standard for admitting expert scientific
testimony in a federal trial. Pp. 4-17.

(a) Frye's "general acceptance" test was superseded by the Rules' adoption. The Rules
occupy the field, United States v. Abel, 469 U.S. 45, 49 , and, although the common
law of evidence may serve as an aid to their application, id., at 51-52, respondent's
assertion that they somehow assimilated Frye is unconvincing. Nothing in the Rules
as a [509 U.S. 579, 2] whole or in the text and drafting history of Rule 702, which

10 | P a g e
specifically governs expert testimony, gives any indication that "general acceptance"
is a necessary precondition to the admissibility of scientific evidence. Moreover, such
a rigid standard would be at odds with the Rules' liberal thrust and their general
approach of relaxing the traditional barriers to "opinion" testimony. Pp. 4-8.
(b) The Rules - especially Rule 702 - place appropriate limits on the admissibility of
purportedly scientific evidence by assigning to the trial judge the task of ensuring that
an expert's testimony both rests on a reliable foundation and is relevant to the task at
hand. The reliability standard is established by Rule 702's requirement that an expert's
testimony pertain to "scientific . . . knowledge," since the adjective "scientific"
implies a grounding in science's methods and procedures, while the word
"knowledge" connotes a body of known facts or of ideas inferred from such facts or
accepted as true on good grounds. The Rule's requirement that the testimony "assist
the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue" goes
primarily to relevance by demanding a valid scientific connection to the pertinent
inquiry as a precondition to admissibility. Pp. 9-12.
(c) Faced with a proffer of expert scientific testimony under Rule 702, the trial judge,
pursuant to Rule 104(a), must make a preliminary assessment of whether the
testimony's underlying reasoning or methodology is scientifically valid and properly
can be applied to the facts at issue. Many considerations will bear on the inquiry,
including whether the theory or technique in question can be (and has been) tested,
whether it has been subjected to peer review and publication, its known or potential
error rate and the existence and maintenance of standards controlling its operation,
and whether it has attracted widespread acceptance within a relevant scientific
community. The inquiry is a flexible one, and its focus must be solely on principles
and methodology, not on the conclusions that they generate. Throughout, the judge
should also be mindful of other applicable Rules. Pp. 12-15.
(d) Cross-examination, presentation of contrary evidence, and careful instruction on
the burden of proof, rather than wholesale exclusion under an uncompromising
"general acceptance" standard, is the appropriate means by which evidence based on
valid principles may be challenged. That even limited screening by the trial judge, on
occasion, will prevent the jury from hearing of authentic scientific breakthroughs is
simply a consequence of the fact that the Rules are not designed to seek cosmic
understanding but, rather, to resolve legal disputes. Pp. 15-17.

11 | P a g e
 CHAPTER 3:
Evidence: The Concept Of "Admissibility

Evidence comes in four basic forms:

1. Demonstrative evidence
2. Documentary evidence
3. Real evidence
4. Testimonial evidence
Some policies of evidence observe to all 4 kinds and some guidelines practice to at least one
or two of them. All of those varieties of proof need to be admissible, even though, earlier than
they can be considered as probative of an trouble in a trial.
Basically, if proof is to be admitted at court, it have to be relevant, material, and in a position.
To be considered relevant, it should have a few reasonable tendency to assist prove or
disprove some fact. It need no longer make the truth positive, but at least it ought to have a
tendency to boom or decrease the chance of some truth.
Once admitted as relevant evidence, the finder of truth (judge or jury) will determine the
correct weight to offer a particular piece of proof. A given piece of evidence is taken into
consideration fabric if it's far provided to show a truth this is in dispute in a case. Competent
proof is that proof that accords with certain conventional notions of reliability. Courts are
progressively diminishing the competency rules of proof with the aid of making them issues
related to the load of proof.
Certain Admissibility Issues With Testimonial Evidence
Testimonial proof is typically the greater not unusual shape of proof, in which someone takes
the stand and is asked questions on a case. Because this proof includes the statements of
different people regarding sure records, which may be tainted via poor memories or bias,
there are some of admissibility policies that follow.
For example, even as witnesses can also testify as to what they discovered or perceived for
the duration of an event, in some situations they may additionally testify approximately
statements they heard outdoor of courtroom (and no longer beneath oath). Such statements
often constitute rumour evidence and are typically not admissible due to the fact they are not
as reliable as statements made in courtroom and under oath. However, there are numerous

12 | P a g e
exceptions to the rumour rule making an allowance for the admission of statements made
outside of courtroom.
There are also times when a witness may seek to provide testimony about a person's
individual, frequently to make the factor that the character is the "type" of person who could
or could now not say or do what's at issue in a case. This form of evidence additionally has
reliability issues because it does no longer at once show whether the individual without a
doubt did or stated what is at problem. Because of this, character evidence is usually no
longer admissible, but there are exceptions.
In addition, there are times while sure evidence is so complicated, like DNA evidence, that it
calls for an professional to interpret and provide an explanation for. This form of expert
testimony is most effective admissible as soon as the information of the witness is mounted
and his or her testimony is located to be based totally on reliable techniques and recounted
inside the medical community.
Suppressing Inadmissible Evidence
When one side of a case attempts to introduce proof that is not applicable, fabric or in a
position, the alternative facet can ask, earlier than or during trial, to have the proof suppressed
on admissibility grounds. One location in which a movement to suppress is commonly raised
is with chain of custody issues where a chunk of evidence isn't properly secured from its
series to trial.
So, as an instance, if one side can display that a blood pattern was now not nicely classified
or a weapon changed into now not properly locked in an proof room, there may be no way to
accept as true with the consequences of any next blood check or a fingerprint analysis. While
this proof may be relevant and cloth, it would not be equipped due to intervening custody
troubles that could have caused inaccurate check outcomes.

CHAPTER 3:
Accomplice Witness and its admissibility as Evidence
In the primary experience Accomplice Witness imply a witness to a crime who, both as
principal, Accomplice, or Accessory, turned into linked with the crime by using unlawful act
or omission on his or her part, transpiring both earlier than, at time of, or after fee of the
offense, and whether or not or no longer she or he become gift and took part inside the crime.
The phrase ‘associate’ has not been described by using the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. An
13 | P a g e
accomplice is one of the responsible pals or partners inside the fee of against the law or who
in a few manner or the alternative is connected with the commission of crime or who admits
that he has a conscious hand within the commission of crime.

To the lay guy, companion evidence might appear untrustworthy as accomplices are
commonly usually involved and notorious witnesses but their evidence is admitted as a result
of necessity as it's miles regularly not possible without having recourse to such proof to bring
the main offenders to justice. Thus accomplice proof may appear unreliable however it is
often a very beneficial or even useful device in crime detection, crime fixing and delivering
justice and therefore a completely important a part of the Law of Evidence.

Section 133 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 offers with the Accomplice Witness. It says
that an companion shall be a competent witness towards an accused character; and a
conviction isn't always unlawful merely because it proceeds upon the uncorroborated
testimony of an associate.

Usually maximum of the crimes are devoted at secluded locations in which there will not be
any eye – witness to testify regard to these offences, and it might not be possible for the
police to get enough proof to show the guilt of the accused. In such instances what police
does is that it choices up one of the suspects arrested who is normally least guilty and offers
to him an warranty that if he is willing to expose all records referring to the fee of the crime
and give proof against his very own colleagues, he could be pardoned. So one of these person
who's picked up or who is taken by the police for the cause of giving proof in opposition to
his very own colleagues is called an accomplice or an approver.

An associate is a ready witness furnished he isn't always a co accused below trial within the
identical case. But such competency which has been conferred on him by a process of
regulation does no longer divest him of the man or woman of an accused. An associate via
accepting a pardon under Section 306 CrPC(Code of Criminal system,1973) turns into a
competent witness and may as any other witnesses be tested on oath.

14 | P a g e
Definition:
In the fundamental experience Accomplice Witness imply a witness to against the law who,
either as essential, Accomplice, or Accessory, become related with the crime with the aid of
unlawful act or omission on his or her element, transpiring both before, at time of, or after
commission of the offense, and whether or not he or she changed into present and
participated in the crime. The word ‘associate’ has now not been defined by using the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872. An companion is one of the guilty friends or companions in the fee of a
criminal offense or who in some manner or the alternative is connected with the fee of crime
or who admits that he has a aware hand in the commission of crime.

An associate is one concerned with another or others inside the commission of against the
law or person who knowingly or voluntarily cooperates with and enables others within the
commission of crime. It was held in R.K Dalmia v. Delhi Administration that “an associate is
someone who participates within the fee of the actual crime charged in opposition to an
accused.

Categories of Accomplice:

1. Principal offender of First Degree and Second Degree: The main perpetrator of first degree
is someone who certainly commits the crime. The major perpetrator of the second one
diploma is someone who both abets or aids the fee of the crime.

2. Accessories before the fact: They are the person that abet, incite, procure, or recommend
for the commission of a criminal offense and they do not themselves participate inside the fee
of the crime.

3. Accessories after the truth: They are the humans who acquire or consolation or shield
persons who've committed the crime knowing that they have got dedicated the crime. If they
assist the accused in escaping from punishments or help him from now not being arrested,
such character are called harbourers. These people can be accomplices due to the fact they all
are the contributors inside the fee of the crime in a few manner or the opposite. Therefore all
of us of them may be an accomplice.

Competency of Accomplice as Witness:

15 | P a g e
An associate is a capable witness supplied he isn't a co accused below trial inside the same
case. But such competency which has been conferred on him by means of a procedure of
regulation does no longer divest him of the individual of an accused. An partner by accepting
a pardon underneath Section 306 CrPC will become a competent witness and might as
another witnesses be tested on oath; the prosecution must be withdrawn and the accused
officially discharged under Section 321 CrPC earlier than he can become a capable witness.
Even if there is an omission to record discharge an accused turns into a capable witness on
withdrawal of prosecution. Under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India, 1950 no accused
will be pressured to be a witness towards himself. But as an accomplice accepts a pardon of
his loose will on condition of a real disclosure, in his very own interest and is not pressured to
present self-incriminating proof the law in Sections 306 and 308, Code of Criminal Procedure
is not affected. So a pardoned accused is sure to make a full disclosure and on his failure to
achieve this he can be tried of the offence at the beginning charged and his statement can be
used in opposition to him beneath Section 308.

When Accomplice becomes a equipped witness:

Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act says approximately competency of witness.
Competency is a circumstance precedent for examining someone as witness and the only take
a look at of competency laid down is that the witness should now not be averted from
knowledge the questions posed to him or from giving rational solutions predicted out of him
by his age, his intellectual and physical state or disorder. At the identical time Section 133
describes approximately competency of accomplices. In case of accomplice witnesses, he
need to no longer be a co-accused underneath trial in the equal case and can be tested on oath.

Some propositions had been made by way of Courts in this regard:

First, courts have opined that such competency, which has been conferred on him by a system
of law, does no longer divest him of the individual of an accused and he stays a participes
criminis and this stays the genesis of the principal problem surrounding the credibility of such
proof.

16 | P a g e
Secondly, an companion by means of accepting a pardon beneath Section 306 CrPC becomes
a capable witness and may as every other witness be examined on oath, the prosecution need
to be withdrawn and the accused officially discharged below Section 321 of the Criminal
Code earlier than he would be a competent witness18 however even if there's omission to
record discharge, an accused is vested with competency as soon because the prosecution is
withdrawn.

Thirdly, Article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution says that no accused will be compelled to be
a witness in opposition to himself. But as a co-accused accepts a pardon of his free will on
condition of a true disclosure, in his personal hobby, and is not forced to present self-
incriminating evidence, the law in Section 306 and 308 of CrPC is not affected and a
pardoned accused is certain to make a full disclosure and on his failure to accomplish that he
can be attempted of the offence at the start charged and his declaration can be used in
opposition to him under Section 308. This shows that a participes criminis remains the
identical and in that case then notwithstanding the truth that his involvement has been
pardoned through a judicial act can be used for self-incrimination and to expect a “authentic
and full disclosure” is unreal.

In order to be an companion a person need to participate in the commission of the identical

crime because the accused and this he might also do in diverse ways. In India all add-ons
before the reality if the participate inside the coaching for the crime are accomplices however
if their participation is constrained to the know-how that crime is to be dedicated they're now
not accomplices. However opinion is split as to whether or not add-ons after the reality are
accomplices or not. In some instances it's been held that during India there may be no such
thing as an accent after the reality while in a few cases add-ons after the truth had been held
to be accomplices. Three conditions need to unite to render one an accent after the truth:

17 | P a g e
Importance of Section 114 and 133:

These are the 2 provisions coping with the equal issue. Section 114 of the Indian Evidence
Act says that the court docket may presume that an companion is unworthy of any credit
score until corroborated in fabric particulars.

Section 133 of the Indian Evidence Act says that an companion will be a able witness as
towards the accused individual and a conviction the accused primarily based at the testimony
of an associate is legitimate even though it isn't corroborated in fabric details.

Necessity of Corroboration:

Reading Section 133 of the Evidence Act along with Section 114(b) it's miles clear that the
most critical difficulty with recognize to companion evidence is that of corroboration. The
fashionable rule concerning corroboration that has emerged isn't always a rule of regulation
however merely a rule of practice which has obtained the force of rule of regulation in both
India and England. The rule states that: A conviction based at the uncorroborated testimony
of an companion isn't unlawful but according to prudence it isn't always safe to rely upon
uncorroborated evidence of an companion and therefore judges and juries should exercise
extreme warning and care while thinking about uncorroborated accomplice evidence.

An approver on his very own admission is a criminal and a man of the very lowest character
who has thrown to the wolves his erstwhile buddies and pals on the way to store his own
pores and skin. His proof, therefore need to be received with the greatest warning if not
suspicion. Accomplice proof is held untrustworthy and therefore must be corroborated for the
following motives:

q An accomplice is likely to swear falsely if you want to shift the guilt from himself.

Q An partner is a participator in crime and accordingly an immoral man or woman.

18 | P a g e
Q An associate offers his evidence underneath a promise of pardon or inside the expectation
of an implied pardon, if he discloses all he knows towards people with whom he acted
criminally, and this hope might lead him to favour the prosecution.

Like the Supreme Court has laid down what's known as idea of “double test” within the case
of Sarwan Singh v. State of Punjab. In this situation Sarwan Singh who became the 0.33
accused, become tried in conjunction with two others, i.E. Gurdayal Singh and Harbans
Singh, underneath Section 302 for the murder of one Gurdev Singh who became the brother
of the first accused, Harbans Singh. The case became that Sarwan Singh at the side of
Gurdayal Singh and Banta Singh, who have become an approver later on , precipitated the
loss of life of Gurdev Singh and all the accused have been convicted on the idea of the
evidence of Banta Singh. So the proof of Accomplice is subject to corroboration.

Nature of Corroboration:

Generally speaking corroboration is of types. Firstly the court has to meet itself that the
assertion of the approver is credible in itself and there's evidence other than the
announcement of the approver that the approver himself had taken part inside the crime.
Secondly the court seeks corroboration of the approver’s proof with respect to the a part of
other accused men and women inside the crime and this proof has to be of the sort of nature
as to connect the opposite accused with the crime. The corroboration want no longer be direct
proof of the commission of the offence by means of the accused. If it's miles simply
circumstantial proof of his reference to the crime it is going to be sufficient. The
corroboration want now not include proof which, status alone would be enough to justify the
conviction of the accused. If that have been the regulation it would be useless to look at an
approver. All that seems to be required is that the corroboration ought to be sufficient to have
enough money a few sort of unbiased proof to show that the approver is talking the fact in
regards to the accused person whom he seeks to implicate.

Detectives, Decoys and Trap Witness:

Detectives, decoys and trap witness cannot be placed on a par with the accomplice. These are
19 | P a g e
the persons who act for the development of public justice and their purpose is to bring the
culprits to e book. Although they pretend to collaborate with the culprits within the
commission of crime they do not share the detail of Mens rea. These people consequently
can't be taken into consideration as accomplices and their evidence calls for no corroboration.

Where a servant of the accused changed into a mute spectator to the crime being devoted by
the accused, he can not be appeared as an companion witness as he cannot set to have
participated in crime with the needful mens region.

Honest Trap Witness:

In C.R. Mehta v. State of Maharashtra, the accused acting in consort presented a sum of Rs. 3
Lacs to the Home Minister of State Government for cancellation of a detention order. The
Minister giving an impact that he would take into account the provide filed a complaint with
Anti – Corruption Bureau and a entice became laid. While delivering the bribe money to the
Minister the accused alongside with his 3 different co – accused were arrested. It changed
into held that the complainant Minister can't be equated with position of an accomplice and as
a witness the first-class of his evidence as also his popular integrity being of excessive order
conviction of the accused can be based even on his uncorroborated proof.

Application of the Concept of Accomplice witness in numerous instances:

Janendra nath Ghose v. State of West Bengal the accused changed into attempted for the
offence of homicide and the jury determined him guilty at the proof of the approver
corroborated in cloth details. It changed into contended that there was a misdirection because
the jury have been no longer advised of the double check when it comes to the approver’s
proof laid down in Sarwan Singh case.

Raghubir Singh v. State of Haryana – In this case it become observed:

“To condemn roundly each public respectable or man of the humans as an partner or quasi –
20 | P a g e
accomplice for collaborating in a raid is to damage the public reason. May be a judicial
officer should hesitate to get involved in police traps when the police gives inducements and
instruments to devote crimes, because that might suffer the photo of the independence of the
judiciary.” In the prevailing case the Magistrate become no longer a complete – blooded
judicial officer, no de novo temptation or bribe money became supplied by using the police
and no ground to discredit the veracity of the Magistrate were elicited.

Lachi Ram v. State of Punjab - the accused was charged with murder and was convicted at
the evidence of an approver corroborated in material details. On the question whether right
assessments were applied in carried out in appreciating the approver’s proof the Supreme
Court held:

“It was held with the aid of this Court in Sarwan Singh case that an approver’s evidence to be
usual should satisfy two exams”.

The first case to be implemented is that his evidence should show that he's a dependable
witness, and that may be a take a look at that is common to all witness. The truth that High
Court did not receive the proof of the approver on one part of the story does not mean that the
excessive Court held that the approver was an unreliable or untruthful witness. The test
glaringly means that the Court must find that there may be not anything inherent or
improbable in the proof given by means of the approver and there's no finding that the
approver has given fake evidence.

The second case which thereafter still stays to be carried out within the case of an approver
and which isn't always important whilst judging the evidence of the witness, is that his proof
have to get hold of sufficient corroboration. In the present case the proof of the approver
turned into reliable and was corroborated on fabric details via desirable prosecution
witnesswho were belived by means of the decrease courts.”

21 | P a g e
 CONCLUSION

The Courts on this usa have by way of harmoniously studying Section 114(b) and Section
133 together laid down the guiding principle with recognize to associate evidence which truly
lays down the law with none ambiguity. This principle which the courts have advanced is that
although a conviction based upon the uncorroborated testimony of an partner isn't always
unlawful or unlawful however the rule of thumb of prudence says that it's far unsafe to act
upon the evidence of an companion until it is corroborated with respect to material
components so one can implicate the accused. This guiding precept although very clear is
frequently confronted with problems with respect to its implementation. While imposing this
principle exclusive judges would possibly have one-of-a-kind degrees of corroboration for
associate evidence and for that reason with out a difficult and speedy regulations referring to
the quantity and nature of corroboration an detail of subjectiveness creeps in which can bring
about injustice.

Accomplice witness may be a in a position witness with the aid of pleasurable sure condition.
One vital condition for being Accomplice Witness is that he should be worried inside the
crime. So, the Accomplice Evidence may be taken as a robust proof when it is challenge to
corroboration

22 | P a g e
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

PRIMARY SOURCES

1) Dr. V. Krishnamachari, Law of Evidence, (Hyderabad: S.Gogia &Co.), 2010

2) Singh Avtar, Priniciples of the Law of Evidence, (Allahabad : Central Law Publications),
2007
3) Dhiraj Lal & Ratanlal, TheLaw of Evidence,(Nagpur : Wadhwa & Company), 2008
4) Tandon M.P., Indian Evidence Act, 1872, (Faridabad : Sri Sai Law Publication), 2006
5) Sarathi P. Vepa, Law of Evidence,(Lucknow : Eastern Book Company), 2006
6) Myeni S.R., The Law of Evidence, ( Hyderabad : Asia Law House), 2008
7) Basu S.D., The Law of Evidence, ( Faridabad : Allahabad Law Agency), 2010

SECONDARY SOURCES

1) http://www.airwebworld.com/articles/index.php?article=900 - A Critical Analysis Of

Accomplice Witness In India
2) http://www.oppapers.com/essays/A-Critical-Analysis-Of-Accomplice-Witness/507650 -
An Essay on A Critical Analysis Of Accomplice Witness In India
3) http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Accomplice Witness – Legal Definition of
Accomplice Witness
4) http://legalsutra.org/507/accomplice-evidence/ - Accomplice Evidence

23 | P a g e