In which of the following case, the Supreme Court of

Solution

In Sadhu Singh vs State of Uttar Pradesh, law is settled that the evidence of a hostile witness cannot be rejected out right. Both parties are entitled to rely on such part of his evidence which assists their case. In Anil Sharma vs State of Uttarakhand, the admissibility of extra-judicial confession was discussed. The extra-judicial confession is a weak evidence by itself. It has to be examined by the court with greater care and caution. (ii) It should be made voluntarily and should be truthful. (iii) It should inspire confidence. (iv) An extra-judicial confession attains greater credibility and evidentiary value if it is supported by a chain of cogent circumstances and is further corroborated by other prosecution evidence. (v) For an extra-judicial confession to be the basis of conviction, it should not suffer from any material discrepancies and inherent improbabilities. (vi) Such statement essentially has to be proved like any other fact and in accordance with law. In State of Karnataka v Yarappa Reddy, the Supreme Court held that investigating officer can refer to records while giving evidence in Court. There is nothing wrong if the trial court has permitted the investigating officer from the police department to refresh his memory by referring to his investigation records while recording his evidence. But, at the same time, you will also get a right to see such investigation papers and a right to cross-examine the I.O. on the basis of such papers.