Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302–Murder–Expert Evidence-Recovery of bones on basis of disclosure statement—Merely because no expert opinion was
obtained to prove as to whether bones recovered were human or animal bones, would not weaken the case of prosecution in the light of overwhelming
evidence available on record to prove the complicity of the appellants- Evidence Act, 1872, S.45 & S.27.
Evidence Act, 1872-lnterested Witness-A close relative cannot be characterised as an “interested” witness-He is a “natural” witness-His evidence, howevers must be scrutinised carefully- If on such scrutiny, his evidence is found to be intrinsically reliable, inherently probable and wholly trustworthy , conviction can be based on the “sole” testimony of such witness-Close relationship of witness with the deceased or victim is no ground to reject his evidence-On the contrary, close relative of the deceased would normally be most reluctant to spare the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent one. (Para 53)
Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302–Murder- Interested Witness-Sister of deceased who was living next door-She gave graphic illustrations of incident which is not possible for middle aged illiterate woman unless she had seen the incident- Evidence Act, 1872. (Para 51)
Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302«Murder–Disclosure Statement-Recovery of bones and ashes from canal-Held; since it was not proved that whether there was water in canal or not therefore it cannot be said that bones and ashes could not be recovered from canal-Evidence Act, 1872, S.27.
Ram Chander & Ors. v. State of Haryana
2017(1) Law Herald (P&H) 1 (SC) : 2017 LawHerald.Org 503