Evidence for prosecution

Related judgements & precedents

These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.

1. State of Haryana vs Ram Mehar and OTHERS Etc Etc

   Supreme Court of India 24 Aug 2016 Binding (Supreme Court of India - Landmark) Reportable 2016 SCC Online SC 1049 (reported judgment)

   Court's Decision & Legal Precedent

   The power to recall and re-examine witnesses under Section 311 Code of Criminal Procedure, despite its broad language permitting exercise at any stage of trial, cannot be exercised merely on the ground that defense counsel was ill or inadvertently failed to put certain questions to witnesses. The exercise of such power must be justified by established legal principles requiring that the evidence appears essential to just decision of the case, and must serve the ends of justice by discovering truth and obtaining proper proof of facts. Mere illness of counsel or subsequent discovery of inadvertent omissions in cross-examination by a changed counsel do not constitute valid grounds for recall when substantial trial has proceeded, accused have had multiple opportunities to defend, and no showing is made that justice has been denied. The concept of fair trial, while fundamental to Article 21, must be balanced against the interests of victims and society, and cannot be stretched to such extent that it mortgages the systemic order of conducting trials per the Code of Criminal Procedure or permits abuse of process in the name of fairness.

   On this section: Mentioned alongside Section 311 in trial court's rejection of petition for recall of witnesses

   Read the full order on eCourts India

2. Surender Singh vs State (NCT Of Delhi)

   Supreme Court of India 02 Apr 2012 Binding (SC) Reportable 2024 INSC 462

   Court's Decision & Legal Precedent

   When an accused pleads self-defence under Section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act, the burden of proof lies on the accused to establish the plea by credible evidence. The burden, though not as onerous as beyond reasonable doubt, requires some degree of reasonable satisfaction. In the absence of credible evidence supporting the plea of self-defence, the court shall presume the absence of such circumstances. Similarly, the plea of grave and sudden provocation under Exception 1 to Section 300 IPC requires that the provocation be such as would temporarily deprive a reasonable person of self-control. The test is whether a reasonable man belonging to the same class of society as the accused, placed in the situation in which the accused was placed, would be so provoked as to lose self-control. The fatal blow should be clearly traced to the influence of passion arising from provocation and not after passion had cooled down. In the present case, the overwhelming eyewitness testimony of four police personnel, corroborated by forensic evidence, establishes that the appellant deliberately and intentionally killed the deceased out of jealousy and motive, not in self-defence or under grave provocation. Therefore, the conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC is upheld.

   On this section: Cross-examination deferral - the court discussed the proper procedure for deferring cross-examination and emphasized that such deferral should only be granted in exceptional cases with recorded reasons

   Read the full order on eCourts India

The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.