EVIDENCES IN DEPARTMENTAL PROCEEDINGS AND ROLE OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCES IN CRIMINAL MATTERS

Apparel Export Promotion Council v. A.K. Chopra

(AIR 1999 SC 625) Dr. A.S. Anand, C.J.I. And V. N. Khare, J. 

Quoted following with approval

21. In B. C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India (1995) 6 SCC 749 : (1995 AIR SCW 4374), this Court opined ( at P. 4379 of AIR SCW) :

       'The disciplinary authority is the sole Judge of facts. Where appeal is presented the appellate authority has coextensive power to reappreciate the evidence or the nature of punishment. In a disciplinary Enquiry, the strict proof of legal evidence and findings on that evidence are not relevant. Adequacy of evidence cannot be permitted to be canvassed before the Court/ Tribunal.'

SIMILARLY IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS INSISTENCE ON DIRECT EVIDENCES ARE ARGUED. IN THE CASE OF Surinder Singh v. State of Haryana [Criminal Appeal No. 1791 of 2008] Decided on November 13, 2013.  Justice Ranjana Prakash Desai and Madan B. Lokur, JJ. Unanimous decision of division bench following para (para 25)is worth quoting:

'The presumption under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and the presumption under Section 304B of the IPC have a purpose. These are beneficent provisions aimed at giving relief to a woman subjected to cruelty routinely in an Indian household. The meaning to be applied to each word of these provisions has to be in accord with the legislative intent. Even while construing these provisions strictly care will have to be taken to see that their object is not frustrated.'