The Indian Evidence Act, 1872, now known as the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, has been subject to various interpretations by the Supreme Court in the first half of 2026. One key aspect is that the Act is not strictly applicable to Consumer Forums, where the Principles of Natural Justice must be followed.
In the case of ITC Limited v. Aashna Roy, the court ruled that if a party seeks to cross-examine a witness or expert whose affidavit is on record, the Commission should evolve a procedure to permit such cross-examination. This can be done through written questions, video conferencing, or a court-appointed Commission to ensure fair play.
The Evidence Act, 1872 also deals with the appreciation of evidence, where the dictum of common sense and common wisdom serves as a vital canon for evaluating evidence and judging human conduct in criminal trials. Applying the yardstick of common sense to day-to-day affairs and natural human activities helps the court look past technical assumptions and arrive closer to the truth.
In Mohammad Hanif Jainum Khalifa v. State of Karnataka, the court applied this principle to evaluate the evidence presented in the case. The court noted that the prosecution’s case relied on circumstantial evidence, which must be fully established and consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt.
Related: The Essential Role of Pharmacists in Modern Healthcare
An affidavit does not fall within the definition of “evidence” under Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. It can only be treated as evidence if the Court passes a specific order for sufficient reasons under Order XIX of the CPC. In the absence of an opportunity for cross-examination, or where the circumstances surrounding the filing of such affidavits appear suspicious or self-created prior to the submission of pleadings, they cannot be relied upon to determine factual situations or invalidate a proved document.
In Parvathi Nairthi v. Laxmi Nairthy, the court relied on previous judgments to establish that mutation entries in revenue records do not confer, create, or extinguish title over immovable property. Such entries are effected purely for fiscal purposes to enable the State to realize land revenue from the person recorded therein.
For a conviction based solely on circumstantial evidence, the conditions outlined in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra must be fulfilled. These include: (1) circumstances from which guilt is drawn must be fully established; (2) facts must be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt; (3) circumstances must be of a conclusive nature; (4) they must exclude every possible hypothesis except guilt; and (5) the chain of evidence must be so complete as to leave no reasonable ground for the conclusion of innocence.
In Neelu @ Nilesh Koshti v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the court applied these principles to evaluate the circumstantial evidence presented in the case. The court noted that the prosecution’s case relied on the “last seen” theory, which failed due to significant inconsistencies and interpolations in police records regarding the date and time of the accused’s prior arrest for a different matter.
Related: The Creator of the First Lab Diamond Ring
In Neelu @ Nilesh Koshti v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the court noted that the investigation was “botched” and “inept,” leaving the chain of circumstances incomplete and failing to eliminate other hypotheses, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt – Conviction set aside.
The Supreme Court’s decisions in these cases demonstrate the importance of carefully evaluating evidence and applying the principles of natural justice to ensure that the rights of all parties are protected, as seen in the work of a bar association president who upholds the law.
They show that the court is committed to upholding the principles of natural justice.
This commitment is essential.