I PEN THIS BLOGPOST ( IT WILL BE A LONG ONE ) NOT TO SAVE ASARAM BAPU
TO SAVE THE WATAN
I ASK THE PM, LAW MINISTER AND CJI-- INCLUDE THIS POST IN THE COURSE MATERIAL FOR TRAINING LAWYERS AND JUDGES OF INDIA-- AND LAW MINISTRY
ONLY CAPT AJIT VADAKAYIL CAN PRESENT IT IN GREAT LUCIDITY--
HARD HITTING TO SNAP PEOPLE WHO PRETEND TO SLEEP -- AWAKE
OUR COLLEGIUM JUDGES ARE THE BOTTOM DREGS OF THE SCHOOL CEREBRAL BARREL — WE ALL KNOW THIS.
AND IN THE LAWYER POOL THESE JUDGES ( PROMOTED LAWYERS ) ARE THE LOSERS – AGAIN THE BOTTOM DREGS ..
THESE COLLEGIUM JUDGES ARE UNABLE TO GLEAN CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. AS THEY JUST DONT HAVE THE BRAINS..
I DARE THE SOLIS AND FALIS OF INDIA-- TO COME LIVE ON NATIONAL TV-- WHERE I WILL ASK THEM TO GLEAN CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE ..AS AN EXAM ..
I DARE THE SOLIS AND FALIS OF INDIA-- TO COME LIVE ON NATIONAL TV-- WHERE I WILL ASK THEM TO GLEAN CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE ..AS AN EXAM ..
Courts MUST depend on circumstantial evidence to determine the facts of the case.
Circumstantial evidence is a fact that can be used to infer another fact.
Today all over the planet most successful prosecutions rely on circumstantial evidence. Only in India we are unable to do this.. why ?
Why don’t you read the Wiki post below and decide yourself ?
My friends abroad ridicule me – asking “ Is this what India is worth ?”
Circumstantial evidence has an advantage over direct evidence because it is difficult to suppress or fabricate.
Circumstantial evidence is always more persuasive than direct evidence. Every criminals avoids generating direct evidence. Hence the prosecution usually must resort to circumstantial evidence to prove the existence of mens rea, or intent.
If you can collect enough circumstantial evidence as strands -- this rope made is strong enough to hang a man.
IT IS VERY DIFFICULT TO FAKE SEVERAL STRANDS OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE , EVEN IF YOU ARE A GENIUS.
Circumstantial evidence is based on reasoning and inference-drawing through probability. The judge must apply his brains ( non- existent among Indian Collegium judges ) , logic, common sense perception, and experience to the evidence.
They must consider the inherent probabilities and improbabilities, frequently eliminating the possibility of coincidence.
FIBRE / YARN / STRANDS MAKE A STOUT ROPE STRONG ENOUGH TO HANG A CRIMINAL
A popular misconception is that circumstantial evidence is less valid or less important than direct evidence. Many successful criminal prosecutions rely largely or entirely on circumstantial evidence, and civil charges are frequently based on circumstantial or indirect evidence.
In a case of a theft, examples of circumstantial evidence include:-----
Evidence of the defendant's fingerprints at the scene of the crime
The fact that the defendant was found with a large amount of money without being able to give any reason.
In the case of a murder, examples of circumstantial evidence include:--
The fact that the accused had an intense dislike of the victim
The fact that the accused behaved in a bizarre and suspicious way after the offence
The fact that he or she lied about his or her alibi
The fact that he or she was in the area at the time that the offence was committed
The fact that the defendant's blood or DNA corresponds to blood or DNA found on the victim's body.
IN THIS MALAYALAM MOVIE THE HERO , CREATES CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE..
HE USES THE TIME LINE AXIS TO FOOL EVERYBODY.
HE BURIES THE EVIDENCE—THE DEAD BODY OF THE DGP POLICEs ( FEMALE ) ONLY SON IN THE LAST PLACE THEY CAN IMAGINE - THE POLICE STATION ITSELF
REMEMBER – IT IS EXTREMELY EASY TO FOOL EVERY JUDGE USING THE TIME AXIS
I ASK MY READERS –
WILL ANY INDIAN COLLEGIUM JUDGE EVEN UNDERSTAND WHAT FOLLOWS ?
DOES HE HAVE THE INTELLIGENCE ?
On its own, circumstantial evidence allows for more than one explanation. Different pieces of circumstantial evidence may be required, so that each corroborates the conclusions drawn from the others.
Together, they may more strongly support one particular inference over another. An explanation involving circumstantial evidence becomes more likely once alternative explanations have been ruled out.
Circumstantial evidence allows a trier of fact to infer that a fact exists. In criminal law, the inference is made by the trier of fact in order to support the truth of an assertion (of guilt or absence of guilt).
Circumstantial evidence is often is much more powerful than direct evidence
In practice, circumstantial evidence can have an advantage over direct evidence in that it can come from multiple sources that check and reinforce each other.
Eyewitness testimony can be inaccurate at times, and many persons have been convicted on the basis of perjured or otherwise mistaken testimony.
If the circumstantial evidence suggests a possibility of innocence, the prosecution has the burden of disproving that possibility.
Circumstantial Evidence is also known as indirect evidence.
It is distinguished from direct evidence, which, if believed, proves the existence of a particular fact without any inference or presumption required. Circumstantial evidence relates to a series of facts other than the particular fact sought to be proved.
The party offering circumstantial evidence argues that this series of facts, by reason and experience, is so closely associated with the fact to be proved that the fact to be proved may be inferred simply from the existence of the circumstantial evidence.
Circumstantial evidence is based largely on inference and uses inductive reasoning. Inductive inference is based on observations - and deductive inference is based on theory.
The term "inductive reasoning" requires a CONSCIOUS BRAIN refers to reasoning that takes specific information and makes a broader generalization that is considered probable, allowing for the fact that the conclusion may not be accurate.
Inductive reasoning is bottom-up reasoning; it starts with a probable conclusion and induces premises.
Deductive reasoning is also known as 'top-down reasoning' because it goes from general and works its way down more specific
Inductive reasoning is reasoning where the premises support the conclusion. The conclusion is the hypothesis, or probable. This means that the conclusion is the part of reasoning that inductive reasoning is trying to prove .
Inductive reasoning is also referred to as 'cause and effect reasoning' or 'bottom-up reasoning' because it seeks to prove a conclusion first. This is usually derived from specific instances to develop a general conclusion.
Inductive reasoning is a logical process in which multiple premises, all believed true or found true most of the time, are combined to obtain a specific conclusion . Inductive reasoning is used in applications that involve prediction, forecasting, or behavior.
Inductive reasoning is the opposite of deductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning makes broad generalizations from specific observations. In inductive inference, we go from the specific to the general. We make many observations, discern a pattern, make a generalization, and infer an explanation or a theory
Inductive reasoning has its place in the scientific method. Scientists use it to form hypotheses and theories. Deductive reasoning allows them to apply the theories to specific situations.
Inductive reasoning is, unlike deductive reasoning, not logically rigorous.
Inductive reasoning is sometimes confused with mathematical induction, an entirely different process. Mathematical induction is a form of deductive reasoning, in which logical certainties are "daisy chained" to derive a general conclusion about an infinite number of objects or situations.
In inductive reasoning, we begin with specific observations and measures, begin to detect patterns and regularities, formulate some tentative hypotheses that we can explore, and finally end up developing some general conclusions or theories.
Inductive reasoning, by its very nature, is more open-ended and exploratory, especially at the beginning. Deductive reasoning is more narrow in nature and is concerned with testing or confirming hypotheses.
Inductive and deductive reasoning are both forms of propositional logic. Propositional logic is the branch of logic that studies ways of joining and/or modifying entire propositions, statements or sentences to form more complicated propositions, statements or sentences.
Deductive reasoning is reasoning where true premises develop a true and valid conclusion. In the case of deductive reasoning, the conclusion must be true if the premises are also true. Deductive reasoning uses general principles to create a specific conclusion
To be convincing (and admissible in court), circumstantial evidence must:----
Be relevant, of course, that is, tend to prove or disprove a fact in issue
Be cumulative, that is, not limited to one, isolated piece of evidence, but of several inter-connected parts
Be tightly organized and clearly presented: many circumstantial cases fail not because the evidence is weak, but because it is presented in a disorganized and confusing manner which the fact finder cannot understand;
And finally, to be persuasive (and admissible in court) circumstantial evidence must exclude all plausible innocent explanations.
A case based on circumstantial evidence may be just as convincing and reliable as a case based upon direct evidence.. It is important that you approach a circumstantial case by considering and weighing, as a whole, all the facts you find established by the evidence.
It is wrong to consider any particular fact in isolation and ask whether that fact proves the guilt of the accused, or whether there is any explanation for that particular fact or circumstance which is inconsistent with guilt of the accused.
SOMEONE ASKED ME
CAPTAIN , WHY DO YOU USE THIS TERM " THROW SOME BREAD CRUMBS IN HIS GENERAL DIRECTION "
WHEN I SIGNED OFF SHIPS AT THE END OF MY CONTRACT , THE OWNERS OF THE SHIP USUALLY WOULD WANT TO MEET ME TO "DEBRIEF ME "
THEY NEVER DID THIS TO HUNDREDS OF WHITE CAPTAINS , WHO COMMANDED THEIR FLEET.
MOSTLY IT WAS ABOUT FINDING OUT FROM A "CEREBRAL CAPTAIN " IF THERE WERE LOOP HOLES IN THEIR DIGITAL SYSTEM , FROM WHERE PEOPLE ( IN THE SHORE OFFICE ) WERE MAKING MONEY.
I WOULD BE TALKING TO THE REAL OWNER --NOT A TOP EMPLOYEE.
IF I LIKE HIM I GAVE HIM A FEW LOOP HOLES, WHICH BLED MONEY ( STEALING )
IF I DID NOT LIKE THE GUY, I WOULD " THROW SOME BREAD CRUMBS IN HIS GENERAL DIRECTION"--
FUCK YOU!. FIND OUT YOURSELF THE HARD WAY.
ALL THIS "INDUCTIVE" AND "DEDUCTIVE" INFERENCE IS ALL LIFTED FROM OUR VEDANTA WITH HALF BAKED UNDERSTANDING.
TO READ BETWEEN THE LINES OF VEDANTA YOU NEEDED BRAINS-- OTHER WISE IT WILL REMAIN AT THE REALM OF " MUNDI OOPAR " --"CHOOTHAD OOPAR " LEVEL.
ALMOST 99 % OF WESTERN PHILOSOPHERS ARE MAD MEN OR MENTALLY LAME MEN -- WHO HAVE LIFTED FROM VEDANTA WITHOUT UNDERSTANDING IT.
HOW DO I KNOW?
I AM SMART ENOUGH TO JUDGE THEM.
MY CHARACTER HAS BEEN MOLDED BY THE HOLLYWOOD MOVIE "MY COUSIN VINNY"-- A CLASSIC MASTERPIECE , WHICH WILL STAND THE TEST OF TIME..
THE HEROINE MAKES A CHOOT OUT OF THE JUDGE AND THE EXPERT WITNESS--WITH DEAD ON BALLS ACCURACY !
TWO BOYS ARE ON DEATH ROW --AND ONE BOY WANTED HIS COUSIN VINNY ( WHO HAS NEVER FOUGHT A CASE ) TO REPRESENT THEM --WITHOUT FEES OF COURSE.
WHEN THE OTHER BOY OBJECTS , HE SAY " LISTEN THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A MAGICIAN TILL TODAY WHOM MY COUSIN VINNY HAS NOT CAUGHT WITH HIS PANTS DOWN.
A MAGICIAN IS NOTHING BUT A CONMAN--WHO MAKES A CHOOT OUT OF YOU.
LATER VINNY MEETS THE TWO BOYS IN JAIL AND TELL THEM ( TO THE EFFECT ) -- " I AM SMART ENOUGH TO LOOK AT THE CASE MUNDI OOPAR AND CHOOTHAD OOPAR --DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES AND GLEAN CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE"
THIS MOVIE SHOULD BE SEEN BY EVERY JUDGE--WHO WANTS TO KNOW WHAT CREATING A ROPE OUT OF STRANDS OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IS ALL ABOUT.
IN THE END VINNY AND HIS GIRL FRIEND ( PRETENDING TO BE AN EXPERT WITNESS ) MAKES A CHOOT OUT OF THE JUDGE AND JURY AND WINS THE CASE.
JUDGES SHOULD SEE YOUTUBE VIDEOS OF "MAGICIANS DECODED " --IT HELPS THEM TO STAY GROUNDED AND NOT BE MADE A CHOOT OF IN COURT.
I JOINED A JEWISH COMPANY ( ROTHSCHILDs AGENT ) BASED IN LONDON. WHEN I WENT ON BOARD THE RUSSIAN CHIEF OFFICER ( AN INTELLIGENT MAN ) TOLD ME " IN THIS COMPANY THEY DONT CARE HOW MUCH BEER WE DRINK ..
THE LAST CAPTAIN HAS BOUGHT THOUSAND CASES OF BEER AND SINCE IT DID NOT FIT IN THE BONDED LOCKER, IT WAS KEPT IN THE FOAM ROOM AND WE COULD NOT OPEN THE DOOR UNLESS 20 CASES FELL OUT"
I SAID " YOU LAST SENIOR LATVIAN CAPTAIN WILL NOT BE REEMPLOYED "
THEN I MADE THREE SPREAD SHEETS ON ACCOUNTS ( MANUAL / SEMI AUTOMATIC AND AUTOMATIC ) SEND IT TO THE COMPANY " CONGRATULATIONS-- I AM IMPRESSED. FOR DECADES YOU HAVE FOOLED HUNDREDS OF SHIP CAPTAINS THAT YOU DONT CARE HOW MUCH BEER IS CONSUMED BY CREW-- BUT YOU KNEW IT ALL THE TIME "
USUALLY I KEEP QUIET UNLESS SOMEONE PUTS HIS FINGER IN MY PIE. THERE IS NO TIME TO FIGHT SUPERFLUOUS BATTLES
ONCE IN A COMPANY RUN BY AN INDIAN MARWARI JEW Kx RAJxANxHx
THEY PUT A FINGER IN MY PIE. I BLASTED THE HEAD CHINESE ACCOUNTANT.
I SAID " THE COMPANY ( NOT SHIPS INTERNAL ACCOUNTS ) ARE NOT BALANCED . YOU MOTHERFUCKERS ARE CHEATING THE JAP OWNERS AND MINTING MONEY
THE CHINESE CHIEF ACCOUNTANT WAS LITERALLY CRYING AND BEGGING.
I WILL PUT AN EQUIVALENT BELOW-- THIS WAS WHAT WAS HAPPENING --
Three friends go to a bar for drinking beer ( costing 10 dollars a bottle )
As usual they take out one 10 dollar bill each from their wallets and gives the waiter, 3 nos 10 dollar notes or 30 dollars.
The bar owner is in a expansive mood and he tells the waiter -- "happy hour time! -- give them 5 dollars back!!-- i will charge only 25 dollars for 3 beers today ".
The clever waiter knows 5 dollars cannot be split between 3 regular dutchmen. so he pockets 2 dollars and returns 3 one dollar notes .
The three of them put back one dollar each into their respective wallets. Initially each wallet had one 10 dollar bill--now it has only one single dollar bill.
Now comes the perception part:--
All three of them spent 9 dollars each-- 27 dollars total.
The waiter got 2 dollars.
WHERE IS ONE DOLLAR GONE-- POOF???
Be honest to yourself and dont read further, till you figure this out.
You tell an accountant without perception to give you a debit/ credit accounts statement--and see the way he sweats.
See literacy has nothing to do with perception. A illiterate chaiwala boy in mumbai can make an ass out of you, when it comes to accounts.
Daft accountants make a mistake when it comes to "receipts" and " balance ".
Here in this case it is - 30 + 0 = 27 + 3.
Opening cash + receipts = spent cash+ balance cash.
It can never ever be 30 - 3 + 2 = 29
See, you cant argue with dorks.
2 dollars is something which happened in the mann mandir of the waiter.
How do you know that he stole 2 dollars ?
Accounting has to be objective.
IF I GIVE ANOTHER CASE LIKE THIS TO OUR COLLEGIUM JUDGES – HONESTLY , HOW MANY WILL BE ABLE TO FIGURE IT OUT ?
NOBODY – ZERO PERCENTAGE PASS !
THIS IS WHY WE WANT TO DO AWAY WITH THIS “UNSUCCESSFUL LAWYERS TURNED JUDGES “ COLLEGIUM SYSTEM – WHERE JUDGES ARE NOT BRAINY ENOUGH TO GLEAN CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE .
LET US HAVE DIRECT JUDGE RECRUITMENT OF BRILLIANT PEOPLE LIKE IN IIT/ IAS.
We need All India Judicial Services (AIJS) — not even NJAC
The Law Commission itself had recommended the formation of AIJS in its 116th Report released back in 1986.
In fact, the Supreme Court had, in 1992, ruled that the recommendations of the Law Commission “be examined expeditiously and implemented as early as possible” by the Centre.
Article 312 of the Constitution provides for the creation of an all-India Judicial Service common to the Union and the States
HINDUS ARE ANGRY TODAY --- WITH INJUSTICE BEING METED OUT IN THEIR OWN LAND
WHY ARE HOMOSEXUALS EXEMPTED FROM POSCO ?
99.9% HOMOSEXUALS ARE PEDOPHILES !!
BELOW APPEARS TO BE PUT OUT BY POPE -- THE ACTUAL AMOUNT IS MORE THAN 21 BILLION USD
FOR FUNDS THE POPE USED FLY TRAPS LIKE MOTHER TERESA
Circumstantial evidence is used in civil courts to establish or refute liability. It is usually the most common form of evidence, for example in product liability cases and road traffic accidents.
One example of circumstantial evidence is the behavior of a person around the time of an alleged offense. If a beggar was charged with theft of money and was then seen in a shopping spree purchasing very expensive items, the shopping spree might be circumstantial evidence of the individual's guilt.
Circumstantial evidence is used during a trial to establish guilt or innocence through reasoning. This indirect evidence is the result of combining different, but seemingly unrelated, facts that the prosecution uses to infer the defendants guilt.
Criminal prosecutors depend on circumstantial evidence to prove their case. Civil cases are often based expressly on circumstantial evidence, when trying to establish or deny liability.
Examples of circumstantial evidence:-
motive (past hostility to victim)
opportunity (including exclusive opportunity)
means, capacity and skills
post-offence conduct (flight, false alibi, destruction of evidence)
knowledge and state of mind
disposition for violence by victim
Circumstantial evidence, whether it is in the form of testimony or physical evidence may have an advantage-- because it comes from several different sources, which can be used as a check on each other.
Its disadvantage is that it is indirect: you must piece it all together and then determine whether or not it leads to a reasonable conclusion about the fact which is to be proved— a halfwit cant do it well.
In a circumstantial case no individual fact can prove the guilt of the accused. The judge/ jury MUST find certain basic facts established by the evidence. Those facts do not have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Taken by themselves they cannot prove the guilt of the accused. The jury is then asked to infer or conclude from a combination of those established facts that a further fact or facts existed.
NO CONCLUSIONS SHALL BE BASED ON MERE SPECULATION, CONJECTURE OR SUPPOSITION AS DONE ON ASARAM BAPU BY THE JUDGE MADHUSUDAN SHARMA
In a case in which a witness admits paying a cash bribe to a government official, for which there is no other direct evidence, the steps of proof might include circumstantial evidence to corroborate the direct evidence.
For example, the investigator could:
1. Record in detail (when, where, how, why, etc.) the statement of the witness that he paid the government official in cash (this is the direct evidence);
2. Prove that the government official spent or deposited a significant amount of cash shortly after he allegedly received the cash bribe;
3. Eliminate all other potential sources of income for the official’s cash expenditures or deposits, to the extent possible;
4. Interview the subject official, and show that the official cannot explain the source of the cash expenses or deposits, or lied about it (the last three points are the circumstantial evidence).
Such evidence, if believed by the judge/ jury, would be legally sufficient to convict a defendant in most courts.
Intent may be proved by circumstantial evidence. Indeed, it can rarely be established by any other means. We simply cannot look into the head or mind of another person.
Circumstantial evidence is the proof of a series of facts which tend to show whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty. The law makes no distinction between the weight to be given to direct or circumstantial evidence.
The judge should decide how much weight to give to any evidence and as such he cannot be a halfwit. All the evidence in the case, including the circumstantial evidence, should be considered by the judge/ jury in reaching the verdict.
Circumstantial evidence is equally effective as direct evidence--as most criminals take care to eliminate direct evidence . The difference between the two is that direct evidence, on its own settles a fact in dispute (i.e. a confession, eye witness to the crimes, video tape of the crime-- the judge/ jury is not required to draw inferences, the evidence speaks for itself)--
-- whereas circumstantial evidence on its own does not prove anything, but taken in the totality, it is a chain that proves a chain of circumstances the lend itself to guilt.
As a prosecutor, forensic evidence like DNA, is almost always circumstantial.
Circumstantial evidence is a collection of facts that, when considered together, can be used to infer a conclusion about something unknown.
Circumstantial evidence is used to support a theory of a sequence of events. The sum total of multiple pieces of corroborating evidence, each piece being circumstantial alone, build an argument to support how a particular event happened.
In civil and criminal investigations, corroboration is often supplied by one or more expert witnesses who provide forensic evidence.
Factors essential to prove guilt by circumstantial evidence:--
1. That the circumstances from which guilt is established must be fully proved;
2. That all the facts must be consistent with the hypothesis of guilt and inconsistent with
3. That the circumstances must be of conclusive nature and tendency;
4. That the circumstances should, to a moral certainty, actually exclude every hypothesis
except the one proposed to be proved.
The circumstantial evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused, but should be inconsistent with his innocence.
Forensic evidence supplied by an expert witness is usually treated as circumstantial evidence. For instance, a forensic scientist may provide results of ballistic tests proving that the defendant’s firearm fired the bullets that killed the victim, but not necessarily that the defendant fired the shots.
Forensic analysis of skid marks can frequently allow a reconstruction of the accident. By measuring the length of such marks and using dynamic analysis of the car and road conditions at the time of the accident, it may be found that a driver underestimated his or her speed. Forensic science and forensic engineering are common as much in civil cases as in criminal.
Other examples of circumstantial evidence are fingerprint, blood analysis or DNA analysis of the evidence found at the scene of a crime.
Similarly, fingerprint evidence, videotapes, sound recordings, un-photoshopped pictures and many other examples of physical evidence that support the drawing of an inference, i.e., circumstantial evidence, are considered very strong possible evidence.
Circumstantial evidence normally requires a witness, such as the police officer who found the evidence, or an expert who examined it, to lay the foundation for its admission. This witness, sometimes known as the sponsor or the authenticating witness, is giving direct (eye-witness) testimony, and could present credibility problems in the same way that any eye witness does
The rule in Hodge’s Case is no longer considered mandatory instruction when it comes to circumstantial evidence, but it still is relevant
The rule says that one can only convict on circumstantial evidence if the evidence is consistent with guilt and inconsistent with any other rational conclusion. Other rational conclusions must be based on inferences from facts and not merely speculative. Underlying the rule, is the principle of reasonable doubt.
Hodge's Case Definition: A rule limiting the use of circumstantial evidence in the trial of a criminal offence. ... " Where all the evidence is circumstantial the accused can be found guilty only if the evidence is both consistent with guilt and inconsistent with any other rational conclusion
In Hodge’s Case, from 19th century England, the accused was charged with robbing and murdering a woman on her way home from the market.
The evidence was circumstantial: He knew the victim; he had been seen near the spot where she was murdered; on the same day as the murder he was seen some distance away burying something in the ground, which turned out to be money of approximately the same amount that the murder victim had in her possession before being robbed."
Pain writes because the case was circumstantial, the jury was charged that before it could find Hodge guilty, it would have to be convinced of two things: (1) that the circumstances were consistent with Hodge having committed the crime, and (2) the facts were inconsistent with any other rational conclusion.
In essence, the jury had to be satisfied that the only rational inference it could draw was that Hodge was guilty.
While there is no longer any legal requirement for a special instruction to be given in a circumstantial evidence case, the principle from Hodge’s Case remains, and "provides an important process of reasoning that assists the trier of fact to determine whether she is convinced of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt
Evidence of motive goes to prove intent as well as the act. Evidence of insolvency or debt can be admitted to establish motive for an offence of theft, fraud or arson.
Circumstantial evidence of knowledge and intent in a fraud investigation might include, among many other things, proof that the subject, or someone acting at his or her direction, e.g., deliberately:---
Altered or forged a relevant document, such as a supporting document submitted with a bid or invoice;
Deliberately destroyed a relevant document, or improperly withheld it from investigators;
Lied to investigators or to another party about a material point to hide their guilt, for example, in a bribery case, lied about the source of sudden new wealth (such lies are known in court as a “false exculpatory”);
Obstructed the investigation, by, for example, instructing or threatening a potential witnesses not to meet with or cooperate with investigators;
Committed prior similar acts, which demonstrated that the acts currently under investigation were done knowingly and willfully, and not accidentally or innocently (also known as “pattern evidence”).
The rationale for the above methods of proof, often referred to as “badges of fraud,” is that such acts betray a certain willfulness by the subject and are inconsistent with a defense of accident or mistake.
Factors that affect the credibility of a witness include:--
The plausibility, or the lack thereof, of the witness’s statements when compared to other evidence in the case (i.e., the extent to which the witness’s statement is corroborated);
The consistency or inconsistency of the witness’s current and prior statements;
Whether the witness’s statements promote his or her self-interest, or are neutral or even contrary to it (the latter are termed “statements against interest’ and are considered to be more credible);
Whether the witness has a “reputation for truthfulness” or the contrary, and whether the witness previously has been convicted of a criminal offense (these factors are often admissible in court to attack the credibility of a witness);
To a lesser extent, because of many witnesses’ legitimate concerns for their safety, whether the witness is willing to be identified, sign a statement, or give testimony.
Cases that actually go to trial are almost always based on circumstantial evidence. It's difficult for the defense to get around a video that shows the defendant robbing
Mens rea is a legal phrase used to describe the mental state a person must be in while committing a crime for it to be intentional. It can refer to a general intent to break the law or a specific, premeditated plan to commit a particular offense. Most crimes require "mens rea," which is simply Latin for a "guilty mind."
In other words, what a defendant was thinking and what the defendant intended when the crime was committed. Mens rea allows the criminal justice system to differentiate between someone who did not mean to commit a crime and someone who intentionally set out to commit a crime.
To give an example, imagine two drivers who end up hitting and killing a pedestrian. Driver 1 never saw the person until it was too late, tried his or her best to brake, but could do nothing to stop the accident and in fact ended up killing the pedestrian. Driver 1 is still liable, but likely only in civil court for monetary damages.
Driver 2, on the other hand, had been out looking for the pedestrian and upon seeing him, steered towards him, hit the gas pedal and slammed into him, killing him instantly. Driver 2 is probably criminally liable because he intended to kill the pedestrian, or at least he intended to cause serious bodily harm. Even though the pedestrian is killed in both scenarios (the outcome is the same), the intent of both drivers was very different and their punishments will be substantially different as a result.
The fact that a defendant did something does not explain his state of mind. Absent a statement of intent made by the defendant, a defendant’s state of mind must always be proven by circumstantial evidence.
For circumstantial evidence to be as persuasive as possible, the judges must not only accept it as true, they must also recognize and accept as valid an inferential connection between the evidence and what one contends it proves.
Circumstantial evidence consists of facts pointing in a particular direction-- facts that are in harmony with one side or another, the hypothesis being analyzed, but standing alone this related evidence is not sufficient to draw any definite conclusions. The inference provoked from circumstantial evidence must flow logically, reasonably, and naturally from the facts presented.
Circumstantial evidence should be both exclusive and conclusive i.e. it must exclude the hypothesis of innocence of the accused and must conclusively establish guilt..
Circumstantial evidence is communication of facts, creating a network from which there is no escape for the accused because the fact taken as a whole do not admit any inference except that the guilt of the accused.
Forensic evidence is developed by the examination of physical items to provide inferences of other facts and to recreate events. In traffic accident cases tire skid marks may be examined to determine a car’s direction and speed prior to a crash.
Fingerprints at a scene indicate that a particular person was present. Forensic evidence, presented by expert investigators, is circumstantial evidence since it is presented to establish events that were not observed by the witness.
Remember , proof by circumstantial evidence requires consideration of the evidence as a whole and not in part…
A judge does not need to give special instructions for circumstantial evidence.
Motive is a form of ulterior intent that permits the inferential proof of other essential elements of the offence. Evidence of a motive to commit the offence is circumstantial evidence supporting a conviction.
Conversely, evidence of a lack of motive is circumstantial evidence supporting an acquittal. Evidence of a lack of motive is not the same as lack of evidence of a motive.
Evidence of the accused previously threatening the victim is admissible to establish an animus and motive to harm the victim, an intent to kill, as well as narrative. It is not bad character evidence.
In a murder case, evidence of a prior abuse that establishes an animus or motive to kill is admissible against the accused.
Evidence is any physical item or information observed or gathered by crime scene investigators that may prove to be relevant to an investigation
The major role evidence plays in criminal investigations is to associate a suspect with a victim or with the scene of a crime. In criminal cases, the critical facts that require proof are whether a crime actually occurred and if the accused was responsible for having committed that crime.
Evidence also plays a crucial role in the elimination of suspects and in the exoneration of the wrongfully convicted. Physical evidence (also referred to as real or direct evidence) is that which is tangible and can be observed with any of the five senses. Examples of physical evidence are blood, hair, fiber, fingerprints, shoe/tire track impressions, etc.
Witnesses normally cannot give their opinion as evidence unless a witness is an expert in the field in which she or he is being questioned. To 'qualify' an expert witness you must first lead evidence that the person has relevant qualifications, has made a detailed study in the area of expertise, and probably also has published in that area.
An ordinary person can give expert evidence on everyday matters for which they have an 'expert' opinion – for example, the weather in the particular area in which the person lives.
The Supreme Court has observed “ A witness is not treated with respect in the Court... He waits for the whole day and then finds the matter adjourned... And when he does appear, he is subjected to unchecked examination and cross-examination and finds himself in a hapless situation”
Hostile witness and inordinate delay in trial came in the way of law. The court cannot create its own evidence. Basic principles cannot change and courts have to decide only on the basis of available evidence.
In court , make your objection when the question is asked, and before the witness gives an answer.
Just stand up and say 'I OBJECT MeLORD '.
WE WANT THE JUDGES TO KNOW THAT THERE IS SOMETHING CALLED CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. THESE JUDGES MUST LEARN HOW TO GLEAN IT..
OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE BY WAY OF FALSE AND BRIBES WITNESSES IS HOLDING THE SWAY -- IN AS MUCH AS THE JUDGE WANTED WITNESSES TO IDENTIFY THE GIRLS WITH SALMAN KHAN IN COURT AFTER 20 YEARS . .
CRIMINALS MOCK OUR SYSTEM SAYING COCKILY INTO TV CAMERAS -- WE TRUST THE INDIAN JUDICIARY . . THEY USE FOREIGN FUNDS TO PRODUCE FALSE WITNESSES OUT OF THIN AIR. . .
MOST OF OUR COLLEGIUM JUDGES ARE PEA BRAINED . . THEY WERE FOOT SLOGGING UNSUCCESSFUL LAWYERS . .
WHEN DID YOU LAST SEE THE BENAMI MEDIA/ COLLEGIUM JUDICIARY/ NHRC/ NCM/ NEW WORLD ORDER CONTROLLED RAJYA SABHA SUPPORTING THE WATAN ? . .
OUR COLLEGIUM JUDICIARY BURNT MIDNIGHT OIL TO OPEN CHAMIYA BARS ( WH0RE HOUSES IN MUMBAI ).
BREAD WINNERS OF ENTIRE FAMILIES HAVE BEEN ROTTING IN JAIL WITHOUT A TRIAL FOR THREE DECADES ..
MOST OF THESE LOSER LAWYERS BECAME JUDGES TO C0CK A SNOOK AT THEIR SUCCESSFUL COLLEAGUES WHO DROVE MERCEDES CARS WHILE THEY FOOT SLOGGED WITH HAWAI CHAPPALS ….
OUR FAILED LAWYERS TURNED COLLEGIUM JUDGES DO NOT HAVE THE CEREBRAL WHEREWITHAL TO UNDERSTAND THAT SANE/ FAIR JUDGMENTS MUST BE WITHIN THE PERIMETER OF CONTEXT --AND NATURAL JUSTICE MUST BE INHERENT....
THE MELORDS CANT EVEN UNDERSTAND THE MEANING OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE ...
THIS IS WHY NAXALS LOOK INTO THE CAMERA AND SAY--WE TRUST OUR SUPREME COURT... -- FOR FAKE WITNESSES CAN BE PRODUCED OUT OF THIN AIR BY FOREIGN MONEY ( LIKE TEESTA SETALVAD )….
WE DONT WANT COLLEGIUM JUDICIAL SYSTEM IN INDIA ...... IT IS NOT ALLOWED AS PER THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION....
INDIA IS THE ONLY NATION ON THIS PLANET WHERE JUDGES ELECT JUDGES..... WE DONT WANT "LAWYERS TO BECOME JUDGES ".....
WE WANT JUDGES OF HONOUR AND INTEGRITY , CHOSEN BY A IIT / IAS TYPE EXAM SO THAT THEY HAVE THE INTELLIGENCE TO GLEAN CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE...
TODAY ALMOST ALL DIRECT WITNESS ARE FAKE , PRODUCED BY BRIBES OUT OF THIN AIR......
WE ALL KNOW WHAT LAWYERS ARE WORTH...... THE WHOLE WORLD KNOWS THE "MORAL FIBRE " OF A LAWYER, WHO LATER BECOMES A JUDGE …..SO THE LEOPARD WILL CHANGE HIS SPOTS IN A JIFFY , RIGHT ?......
WE DONT WANT JUDGES TO PLAY GOD...
JUDGES CANNOT CREATE RULES BY WAY OF PIL WITH ULTERIOR MOTIVE..... JUDGES MUST ONLY INTERPRET RULES....
WE WANT JURY SYSTEM BACK IN INDIA... WE WANT "NATURAL JUSTICE" AND "PERIMETER OF CONTEXT", WHICH EGO LADEN JUDGES TOO MUCH ENTANGLED IN PROCEDURES AND PROPRIETY CANNOT GIVE .....
KARNAN SAID THAT SOME JUDGES ARE CORRUPT…..
INSTEAD OF TREATING HIM AS A WHISTLE BLOWER AND THANKING HIM -- THE HIGHER JUDGES CLOSED RANKS AND TARGETED THE WHISTLE BLOWER…..
WHITHER TRUTH ?.......
THE CJI SENTENCED KARNAN TO SIX MONTHS JAIL FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT……
SORRY-- IF YOU KNOW THE INDIAN LAW OR EVEN WORLD LAW --"CONTEMPT OF COURT DOES NOT APPLY HERE "……
YOU CAN ABUSE THE ELECTED PM --BUT CANT POINT A TRUTHFUL FINGER AT A "LAWYER TURNED JUDGE "?.......
IT IS A DISGRACE THAT THE LAW MINISTER , ELECTED PM AND THE PRESIDENT ARE INDIFFERENT , CALLOUS AND COWARDLY …….
THIS WILL BE THEIR UNDOING .. HISTORY WILL NOT BE KIND TO THEM….. THIS SHAMEFUL EPISODE WILL BE A LESSON IN JUDICIAL FORUMS FOR CENTURIES FROM TODAY……..
SUPREME COURT HAS NO LEGAL RIGHT TO IMPOSE A BAN ON PRESS ( KARNAN CASE) …..
THIS IS MORE DAMAGING TO INDIAs IMAGE THAN THE "EMERGENCY OF 1975 "……
WHY IS MEDIA QUIET ? …..COWARDS !!... …
DO THEY KNOW THAT THEY HAVE A DUTY TO PROTECT THE WATAN, THE CONSTITUTION , THE INDIAN DEMOCRACY AND A WHISTLE BLOWING HIGH COURT JUDGE
Direct evidence is something that a witness can testify that they have directly experience first-hand.
For Example: Puratchi Thirumati Banumati was outside yesterday and it was raining out. Bhanu muniyamma baby can testify that it was raining out yesterday. Her testimony is direct evidence of the fact that it was raining.
Circumstantial evidence is evidence that allows a fact to be inferred.
For example: Puratchi Thirumati Bhanumati went outside yesterday and it was wet outside all over as much as eye can see , and there were many puddles on the ground. While Bhanu muniyamma baby did not see the rain, this is circumstantial evidence that it did in fact rain yesterday.
Circumstantial evidence is evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact—like a fingerprint at the scene of a crime. By contrast, direct evidence supports the truth of an assertion directly—i.e., without need for any additional evidence or inference.
A witness ( could be FAKE ) saying that she saw a defendant stab a victim is providing direct evidence.
By contrast, a witness who says that she saw the defendant enter a house, that she heard screaming, and that she saw the defendant leave with a bloody knife gives circumstantial evidence.
It is the necessity for inference, and not the obviousness of a conclusion, that determines whether evidence is circumstantial.
In the movie MY COUSIN VINNY – a blind as a bat eye witness old lady was trying to send two young boys to the gallows for murder.
Circumstantial evidence is usually a theory, supported by a significant quantity of corroborating evidence.
The distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence is important because, with the obvious exceptions (the immature, incompetent, or ), nearly all criminals are careful to not generate direct evidence, and try to avoid demonstrating criminal intent
Direct evidence differs from circumstantial evidence because it expressly shows that something is a fact. Some examples of direct evidence are: testimony from a reliable witness, audio/ videotapes ( LAB TESTED ) of a single incident , and physical evidence of the crime.
With direct evidence, the jury does not have to infer whether the defendant is guilty or not and, in some criminal cases, the evidence is sufficient in proving guilt or innocence.
In the case of cricketer Sreeshant video tapes WITHOUT A TIMELINE was used to create CREATE FAKE DIRECT EVIDENCE— so that corrupt rich big fish owners ( involved in betting and rigging) can slither off
IT DID NOT WORK
Direct evidence provides proof about some fact in question without requiring jurors to make any assumptions or to draw inferences. It is evidence that clearly speaks for itself and directly leads to a definite conclusion or direction via deductive reasoning.
But FAKE witnesses and FAKE direct evidence has sent many innocent people to the gallows . In India foreign funds are involved in creating FAKE witnesses out of thin air.
In India DELIBERATELY the justice system delays court cases for two or three decades—in a CRIMINAL MANNER
During this deliberate delay HONEST eye witnesses are killed . Honest eyewitnesses are threatened that their school going children will be kidnapped and killed.
FALSE confessions are easy to manufacture
THERE MUST BE A DEADLINE .
Innocent undertrials are kept in prison for a long time till corrupt junior police officers gets medals / promotions and retires as a IG or DGP
Videotaped interviews are considered to be such corroboration--although these still leave open the possibility that the person has been induced to 'confess'.
Evidence of a confession may be excluded by the judge if it can be shown there has been an inducement for the person to 'confess' (such as bashings, threats of violence/ kidnapping of children , an offer of bail, or an offer to reduce the charges)
Again , direct evidence does not require any reasoning or inference to arrive at the conclusion to be drawn from the evidence. While circumstantial evidence, also called indirect evidence, requires that an inference be made between the evidence and the conclusion to be drawn from it.
Like I said before , an eyewitness to an event is direct evidence, but eyewitnesses are often unreliable for many reasons. More often than not direct evidence of eye witnesses are false.
Many people may lie, or, more often, they may not see things as clearly as they believe, especially if an event occurs quickly or at a time of high stress.
People tend to see things in a way that matches their expectations. Memory can change over time, and people tend to fill in gaps in their memory without realizing it. People are often susceptible to suggestion, whether by police or others.
Most of the time when a case comes up after 2 decades ( like Salman Khan’s black buck case ) witnesses genuinely forget if it was a tiger or a deer.
Hostility is one form of perjury. A hostile witness is one who's provided an eyewitness account of a criminal event or other information to help the prosecution build a case, but has later turned in court, giving a different version of events or contradictory information.
A witness is termed hostile, when he gives a certain statement on his knowledge about commission of a crime before the police but refutes it when called as witness before the court during trial.
No attempt is made by the brainless Judicial system to glean if the hostile witness was telling the lie before or after .
Hostile hai bhaiyya .
One of the main reasons for the large percentage of acquittals in criminal cases is of witnesses turning hostile and giving false testimony in criminal cases. But why do the witnesses turn hostile.
Generally the reason is the long time taken for a case to be judged—sometimes 30 years
During this long delay there is an unholy combination of money/ muscle power, intimidation to family and monetary inducement.
A lot of times the two opposition camp lawyers are in cahoots with the judge .
Don’t get surprised—this is the naked reality .
Such FIXER lawyers are very rich . The richest Supreme court lawyers of India are FIXERS.
SUCCESSFUL AND RICH CRIMINAL LAWYERS IN INDIA HAVE FIXED FALSE WITNESSES IN THEIR PAYROLL — WHOM THEY TUTOR TO GIVE FALSE EVIDENCE IN CASES, WITH THE FULL KNOWLEDGE OF THE CORRUPT JUDGE AND OPPOSITION LAWYER .
THESE FAKE WITNESSES STAY IN REMOTE SAFE HOUSES OWNED BY THE LAWYER .
THESE WITNESSES ARE LITERALLY UNDER HOUSE ARREST BUT THEY DO NOT MIND AS THEY ARE PAID A GOOD MONTHLY SALARY AND A BONUS FOR EVERY CASE .
THESE WITENSSES ARE VULNERABLE TO ATTACKS ON THEIR OWN WIVES AND SCHOOL GOING CHILDREN BY GOONS IN THE PAYROLL OF THE LAWYER…
These are the foreign payroll lawyers who file PILs ghadi ghadi.
Instances of witnesses turning hostile are so widespread in our system that in 2000 the Supreme Court observed, "It has become a way of life in the law courts".
It is indeed one of the most important factors responsible for so many acquittals in criminal cases.
History repeats itself first as tragedy and then as a total farce.
The witnesses changed their statements in the court due to lack of protection to them and their families --not because they lack moral fibre . They have children going to school. Threats are mad to throw acid on their faces.
In India, you need to prove a case to get justice and witnesses are often the basic foundation of proof, .In such cases, when witnesses turn hostile, there is little chance of getting a conviction.
The conviction rate in criminal cases are lower than 8 % due to perjury by witnesses who do so either of their own volition or under threats, allurements, or inducements from others.
THE GOVT MUST EITHER SET A DEADLINE FOR COURT CASES TO BE RULED OR HAVE A WITNESS PROTECTION PROGRAMME.
JUDGES AND LAWYERS BENEFIT IN UTERIOR WAYS BY THIS TAREEQ PEH TAREEEQ PEH TAREEEQ .
THERE IS A METHOD TO THIS MADNESS
MOST OF THE LAYWERS MAKE A LIVING BY TAREEQ MONEY -
THEY DONT EVEN GO TO COURT, THEY GET THE NEXT DATE ON THEIR MOBILE PHONE FROM A COURT CLERK FOR BAKSHEESH MONEY.
THE JUDGE IS IN CAHOOTS. ASK ANY RETIRED LAWYER , JUDGE OR EVEN A COURT CLERK .
The absence of a witness protection programme in India makes it possible for the accused in a case to threaten or intimidate witnesses—during the three decades in between.
The judges and law minister know this damn well.
Criminal trials should not be reduced to be the mock trials or shadow boxing of fixed trials.
Judicial Criminal Administration System must be kept clean and beyond the reach of whimsical political wills or agendas and properly insulated from discriminatory standards or yardsticks of the type prohibited by the mandate of the Constitution.
Those who are responsible for protecting life and properties and ensuring that investigation is fair and proper seem to have shown no real anxiety or will.
EVERY PRIME MINISTER/ PRESIDENT SINCE THE PAST 40 YEARS HAD TURNED A NELSONs EYE .
THE LEGACY OF THESE USELESS PRIME MINISTERS AND PRESIDENTS LIES WITH THIS BLOGSITE
In India people dread to be witnesses . They run even from an accident scene. This is because of the law minister’s and CJI apathy.
Most law ministers dont even know their jobs . They just suck up to the PM for personal fayada.
It has been observed that while offenders have a range of rights, (both Constitutional and legal), the victims and more particularly, witnesses, have a limited range of rights, (expressed and implied) certain privileges and protection accorded to them through the judicial discretions of the judges.
INDIAN JUDICIARY IS ONE OF THE MOST CORRUPT AND INEFFICIENT SYSTEM ON THIS PLANET
Read all 7 parts of the post below--
This TAREEQ PEH TAREEEQ PEH TAREEQ system has been devised with an ulterior motive.
Imagine a person from Kerala is witness to a crime ( say rape by a minister’s son ) in Delhi— do you really expect this witness to be in Delhi for the TAREEQ PEH TAREEQ PEH TAREEQ nonsense for the next 30 years – FOUR TIMES A YEAR ? .
NOBODY FOOTS HIS TRAVEL AND HOTEL BILLS .
WHEN CRYING BOLLYWOOD SUPERSTAR AAMIR KHAN PUT A DEFAMATION CASE ON CAPT AJIT VADAKAYIL ( SATYAMEVA JAYATE TV SERIAL GOT SUNK--LOW TRP ) -- .....THE SYSTEM FORCES ME TO TRAVEL ALL THE WAY TO MUMBAI OR PAY UP TAREEQ PEH TAREEQ PEH TAREEQ FEES TO THE LAWYER .......
JUDGES WHO WERE LOSER LAWYERS BEFORE- ALLOW CURRENT LOSER LAWYERS TO MAKE MONEY BY TAREEQ PAH TAREEQ PAH TAREEEQ....
EVERY 3 MONTHS THESE LAWYERS CHARGE FULL DAY APPEARANCE MONEY OF AVERAGE 10,000 RUPEES JUST TO GET THE NEXT TAREEQ.
THIS CONTINUES FOR 40 YEARS .. ..
TO GET THE NEXT TAREEQ THE LAWYER BRIBES A COURT CLERK AND HE GETS THE NEXT TAREEQ BY SMS....
SAB MIL BHAANTKE KHAATE HAIN .
JUDGES DIE, LAWYERS DIE, THE GRANDSON IS LEFT HOLDING THE BABY...
WHY CANT WE HAVE A TRANSPARENT WEBSITE?...
PEOPLE WHO SUE ( EGO BASED ) FOR 100 CRORES FOR DEFAMATION -- MUST FIRST DEPOSIT 10% ( 10 CRORES ) OF THE MONEY ..... .
IF THE EGO MANIAC LOSES THIS 10% MUST GO TO THE POOR HARASSED MAN WHO WAS SUED....
90% OF THE MONEY MUST GO TO GOVT COFFERS......
THE UPPITY EGO MASSAGE SEEKER FELLOW WHO LOST THE CASE MUST BE ARRESTED IN COURT AND TAKEN TO JAIL WITHOUT BAIL--TILL HE PAYS UP 90 CRORES ( 90% ) TO THE GOVT COFFERS
Why have the judges not been sacked for dereliction of duty ?
Why has a deadline never been established ?
Why have the retirement benefits of LAZY judges not been withdrawn ?
IF CAPT AJIT VADAKAYIL DOES NOT ASK THESE QUESTIONS -- WHO WILL ASK ?
In the Jessica Lal case there were dozens of high profile witnesses
The 1999 Jessica Lal killing was supposed to be an open-and-shut case, a murder in full view of guests at a crowded, high-profile party.
But, in the ensuing trial, Manu Sharma, the man identified as the murderer, the son of a senior Congress politician, was acquitted with several witnesses going back on what they had initially told investigators.
The course the case took was a reminder that justice could be subverted by the rich and the powerful, no matter what the evidence.
It took intense public pressure, and a sustained campaign by rights activists, before the verdict was overturned by the Delhi High Court and Sharma sentenced to life imprisonment.
But if the interests of justice were to be truly served, it was necessary for the court to proceed against those who had perjured themselves.
Otherwise, witnesses would have continued to think nothing of going back on their own statements, contradicting themselves, and derailing the trial. Bollywood actor Shayan Munshi and ballistic expert P.S. Manocha, now charged with perjury, were important witnesses in the case who backtracked from their statements to the police during the trial.
Kartikeya Sharma is the brother of Manu Sharma and son of Venod Sharma.
He is the managing director of ITV Media ( runs NewsX TV ) network, an umbrella company that runs several television, print and online media in India.
He is also the owner of the Pro Wrestling League.
Venod Sharma , father of Manu Sharma was a Rajya Sabha MP (1992-1998) and as a MLA (2005-2014) from Ambala, Haryana.
The conviction rate in India for murder is 29 %, and 18 % for rape. These figures are shockingly low. Witnesses, who often have little to gain or lose personally from the outcome of a case, see themselves as being penalised for their willingness to speak the truth.
Even when they have a personal stake, witnesses often succumb to bribery or intimidation ( for an extended period of time ) turn hostile.
Perjury and the intimidation of witnesses will remain a problem as long as the courts don’t treat these crimes with the urgency and seriousness they deserve.
Cosmetic changes just won't do much to deliver justice. The system requires a comprehensive revamp. For a situation like the Jessica Lal case, where witnesses refused to support the prosecution's case, the committee has suggested the following measures : -
1. Holding in-camera proceedings,
2. Taking measures to keep identity of witnesses secret,
3. Ensuring anonymity, and
4. Making arrangements to ensure their protection.
5. Witnesses in court should be treated like guests of honour;
6. They should be adequately compensated for spending money on travel and accommodation;
7. Comfort, convenience and dignity of witnesses while deposing in the court of law should be ensured; and
8. A law for protection of witnesses should be enacted as there is no such law in India.
9. Constitution of a National Security Commission at national level and a State security commissions at state level.
In a direct evidence case, if the evidence is accepted beyond reasonable doubt, it is capable of proving the guilt of the accused.
Direct evidence can be of very dubious quality. For example, direct evidence from a witness identifying an accused person as being the offender can be very unreliable because identification evidence can be honest but mistaken.
There is a general rule against hearsay evidence. That is, evidence is generally inadmissible if someone is saying what they heard someone else say. Witnesses can generally only tell of what they directly saw or heard or otherwise witnessed of an offence.
So, for example, a witness can say that she or he: saw a robbery taking place, heard sounds of the scuffle of a robbery, or saw some people running from the scene of a robbery. However the witness cannot say what he or she heard other witnesses say about the robbery.
A person can say that she or he heard someone admit to a crime. Although this is hearsay, it is considered admissible evidence.
THIS WAS MISUSED IN THE COMMANDER NANAVATI CASE .
RK KARANJIA PUBLISHED ALL FAKE NEWS TO HELP FELLOW PARSI COMMANDER NANAVATI, WHO MURDERED HIS WHITE WIFEs LOVER
The jury was bribed into believing that Commander Nanavati asked Ahuja if he would marry his wife ( with whom he was having sex ) before he shot him in cold blood.
See TATTU Parsi men are such chivalrous Lochinvars !
Direct Evidence is real, tangible, or clear evidence of a fact, happening, or thing that requires no thinking or consideration to prove its existence, as compared to circumstantial evidence.
Evidence comes in many forms, such as eyewitnesses, participants, prior statements by the defendant, documents, physical evidence, and scientific evidence, like fingerprints or DNA.
Witnesses are treated like SHIT in India . A witness is not treated with respect in the Court. He is pushed out from the crowded courtroom by the peon. He waits for the whole day and then finds the matter adjourned.
He has no place to sit and no place even to have a glass of water. The toilet of the courtroom can be smelt of reeking and eye watering ammonia one mile away.
And when he does appear in the Court, he is subjected to prolonged and unchecked examination and cross-examination and finds himself in a hapless situation. For all these reasons and others a person abhors becoming a witness.
Psychological studies carried on witnesses seem to suggest that grueling cross-examination, frequent adjournments; courtroom-intimidations are some of the major reasons that force a witness to turn hostile.
The successful working of the criminal justice system depends critically on the willingness of individuals to furnish information and tender evidence without being intimidated or bought.
A witness turning hostile seriously compromises the prosecution's case, already under a heavy burden to prove the guilt, "beyond reasonable doubt".
Circumstantial evidence is especially important in civil and criminal cases where direct evidence is lacking , witnesses turn hostile , or it is very apparent that the witness is unreliable, fake and bribed. .
THERE IS NO NEED TO SCUTTLE A CASE WHEN A THE WITNESS TURNS HOSTILE IF THE JUDGE CAN GLEAN CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE WITHOUT BEING SPOON FED BY A LAWYER
Perjury today has also become a way of life in the Courts. In some cases the judge knows that whatever the witness is saying is not true and is going back on his previous statement.
The Judge here ignores this fact and does not even file a complaint against him. The amount of pending cases of the judges makes them indifferent towards the problem. At times they feel that if one or two witnesses turn hostile then it would simply ease their burden, as they have large number of cases to try.
Electronic evidence has entered the courtroom as critical forensic evidence. Audio and video evidence must be authenticated by both parties ( and an approved lab ) in any litigation by a forensic expert who is also an expert witness who assists the court in understanding details about that electronic evidence.
The burden of proof is usually on the person who brings a claim in a dispute. It is often associated with the Latin maxim semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit, a translation of which in this context is: "the necessity of proof always lies with the person who lays charges."
Evidence is the currency by which one fulfills the burden of proof.
Evidence means and includes-
(1) All the statements which the court permits or requires to be made before it by witnesses, in relation to matters of fact under enquiry; such statements are called Oral evidence;
(2) All the documents including electronic records produced for the inspection of the court; such documents are called documentary evidence;
The definition of Evidence given in this Act is very narrow because in this evidence comes before the court by two means only-
(1) The statement of witnesses.
(2) Documents including electronic records.
WHY WAS DNA EVIDENCE IGNORED IN ASARAM BAPU RAPE CASE ?
DNA evidence technically doesn't pinpoint a single suspect, but rather narrows it down to just a few possibilities
WE ASK FOR AN OVERHAUL OF THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT PASSED BY JW ROTHSCHILD IN 1872 TO PROTECT HIS OWN INTERESTS AS A SLAVE MASTER
Over a period of more than 125 years since its enactment, the Indian Evidence Act has basically retained its original form except certain minor amendments from time to time.
WE ARE IN THE COMPUTER AGE—WHERE EVEN A BEGGAR HAS A MOBILE PHONE TO TAKE A VIDEO
The Evidence Act was amended in 2000 in the “era of personal computers,” and now should be changed to be in tune with the times of “mobile phones and cloud computing.”
This Act is divided into three parts and there are 11 chapters in total under this Act.
Part 1 deals with relevancy of the facts. There are two chapters under this part: the first chapter is a preliminary chapter which introduces to the Evidence Act and the second chapter specifically deals with the relevancy of the facts.
Part 2 consists of chapters from 3 to 6. Chapter 3 deals with facts which need not be proved, chapter 4 deals with oral evidence, chapter 5 deals with documentary evidence and chapter 6 deals with circumstances when documentary evidence has been given preference over the oral evidence.
The last part, that is part 3, consists of chapter 7 to chapter 11. Chapter 7 talks about the burden of proof. Chapter 8 talks about estoppel, chapter 9 talks about witnesses, chapter 10 talks about examination of witnesses, and last chapter which is chapter 11 talks about improper admission and rejection of evidence.
In the Evidence Act All the Provisions can be divided into two Categories (1) Taking the Evidence (By Court) (2) Evaluation
In Taking the Evidence Court take the Evidence for the Facts (Either "Issue of Facts" or "Relevant Facts"); The Facts means the things which is said before the court in connection with the matter, The main thing, which is Crime in Criminal and Right etc. in Civil matters are main Issues, So main Issues are known as "Issue of Facts", and the other facts which are Relevant to it are "Relevant Facts".
For those Facts Evidence is Given to the Court by two ways, One is Orally and Second is Documentary (includes Electronic Documents), Oral Evidence mostly suggest the Verbal deposition before the Court (and not other wise), and Which includes oral statement regarding materials too, Documentary Evidence suggest the Documents. So The Evidence Regarding Matter which have number of Facts, for which Evidence by way of oral or Documentary produced before the court for its Evaluation for either one fact or facts. Court by going through those Documentary Evidence and Oral Evidence decide that particular fact and all facts are proved or not, or whether the fact or facts can be presumed to be proved?
In Evaluation as above said by looking into the Oral and Documentary Evidence Court decide whether particular fact is proved or not, or facts are proved or not, In Evaluation there are two concepts to prove facts; One is Prove (Prove, Disprove or Not prove) and Other is Presumption (that fact is proved) (may Presume, Shall presume and Conclusive proof) After going to Oral and Documentary Evidence Court see that whether any fact or facts are proved by looking to such evidence or not? If at all no evidence is given or enough evidence is given for the fact its said fact is 'Not proved'; The second Concept for evaluation is "Presumption" In Evidence many Section suggest these presumptions, Where there is said Facts 'may presume', Court is extremely free to believe it or not and may ask to prove the fact, In 'shall presume' there is more weight given to believe facts but in that too court may ask to give more evidence to prove the facts, Where in any provision it is said that particular fact, or particular fact in particular circumstances must be concluded as "conclusive proof' Court has no liberty then to believe it to be proved.
Evidence Act may be divided in four questions. Question 1 What is the Evidence given of? Answer 1 of Facts ("Issue of Facts" or "Relevant Facts") Question 2 How the Evidence of such Facts are Given Answer 2 The Evidence of Such Facts is Given Either by way of "Oral Evidence" or "Documentary Evidence' Question 3 On whom does the Burden of proof lie? Answer 3 "Burden of Proof"(of particular fact) or "Onus of proof" (to prove whole case) lies on the Prosecution incharge Question 4 What are the Evaluation of the Facts. Answer 4 The Evaluation is "Prove" or "Presumption"(of prove); The fact is either 'proved','disproved', or 'Not proved'; or there may be presumption that proof of facts "may presume', 'shall presume', or 'conclusive proof'.
The Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) is an Indian bar association, comprising the practising lawyers of the Supreme Court of India.
WHY DO THEY NEED FOREIGN FUNDING ?
WHO THE FUCK HAS ALLOWED THIS?
WE WANT THE CJI WHO ALLOWED THIS TO BE STRIPPED OF HIS PERKS AND PENSION
http://www.huffingtonpost.in/2015/06/09/supreme-court-bar-association-among-4-470-ngos-whose-licenses-we/nciples are ethically indisputable.
FOR SAYING THAT JUDGES ARE CORRUPT WE HAD THE SERVING CJI SLAPPING CONTEMPT ON EX-CJI KATJU
ABOLISH CONTEMPT OF COURT SYSTEM …. OTHER DEVELOPED NATIONS DON’T HAVE IT ANYMORE……TRUTH CAN BE BRANDED AS VILIFICATION OR DEFAMATION .
INDIA IS A DEMOCRACY.. CITIZENS HAVE RIGHT OF FREE SPEECH AGAINST JUDICIARY .... DOES OF OUR CONSTITUTION SAY OTHERWISE ? ....
BY THE TIME A LAWYER BECOMES A JUDGE HE IS CORRUPT, AND HE IS READY TO SELL HIS OWN MOTHER IN THE WH0REHOUSE PROVIDED THE PRICE IS RIGHT . . .
COURT CLERKS KNOW THE MORAL FIBRE OF THE JUDGES AS THEY WERE LAWYERS BEFORE WHO GAVE THEM A CUT ....
THERE IS A NEXUS BETWEEN LAWYERS AND JUDGES. . . TODAY OUR COLLEGIUM JUDICIARY IS PACKED WITH ANTI-HINDU AND ANTI-WATAN JUDGES. . .
WE WANT THE LAW MINISTER RAVI SHANKAR PRASAD TO KNOW HIS OWN POWERS -- RIGHT NOW HE IS JUST FLOWING WITH THE TIDE , AS HE DOES NOT HAVE THE GUTS .
LIKE I SAID, THE RICHEST LAWYERS IN SUPREME COURT ARE THE ONES WHO HAVE A “SETTING “ OR NEXUS WITH THE COLLEGIUM JUDGE AND THE OPPOSITE CAMP LAWYER…
SAB MIL BHAANTKE KHAATE HEIN….
THESE RICH LAWYERS CANT ARGUE FOR NUTS -- IF SO HOW DO THEY WIN THEIR CASES ?... WE MUST DISMANTLE THE COLLEGIUM JUDICIARY AND REBUILD IT… .
In USA the attorney General interprets the laws that govern executive departments, and examines alleged violations of federal laws….
In India our attorney general does NOT know his powers.
He was there as witness when the Supreme court slapped CONTEMPT OF COURT on ex-CJI Katju for a blog he wrote . …
SORRY-- CONTEMPT OF COURT CANNOT BE APPLIED TO THINGS WHICH HAPPENED OUTSIDE THE COURT ….
IF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGE IS SO AGGRIEVED BY THE BLOG AND CONSIDERS IT A " LYING PERSONAL ATTACK" HE HAS TO USE THE LAW -- WHICH APPLIES . …DEFINITELY NOT "CONTEMPT OF COURT "-- 100%.....
CONTEMPT OF COURT APPLIES WHEN THE COURT IS IN SESSION AND SOMEONE IN THE COURT RELATED TO THE CASE UNDERMINES THE JUDGE'S AUTHORITY REPEATEDLY . …
CONTEMPT OF COURT CANNOT BE APPLIED ALONG THE LENGTH AND BREATH OF INDIA ( ON LAND/ UNDER GROUND/ IN SPACE ) , AS IT IS MEANT WITHIN THE CONFINES OF A WEE BRICK AND CEMENT BUILDING COURT ROOM --------
ONE STUP1D JUDGE HAD SLAPPED BOTH "SEDITION" AND "CONTEMPT OF COURT " ON ARUN JAITLEY FOR SAYING CONSTITUTION DOES NOT SUPPORT "COLLEGIUM SYSTEM" BUT ONLY NJAC ….
THIS JUDGE WILL NEVER BE PROMOTED AGAIN . …
IF OUR SYSTEM WORKS RIGHT, THIS JUDGE WILL BE SACKED AND FINED --AS ARUN JAITLEY IS A CABINET MINISTER ….
IF KATJU HAS WRITTEN SOMETHING IN HIS BLOG ABOUT MALFUNCTIONING JUDICIARY, WE THE PEOPLE OF INDIA APPRECIATE IT.....
IF IT IS A FOUL PERSONAL ATTACK ON A JUDGE VIA A BLOG, IT DOES NOT AMOUNT TO CONTEMPT OF COURT... ....
LET THE JUDGE WHO WAS PERSONALLY ATTACKED ALLOW THE LAW TO TAKE COURSE ( TELLING TRUTH IS NOT DEFAMATION ) -- BUT DEFINITELY NOT VIA CONTEMPT CLAUSE..........
WE INDIANS ARE NOT FOOLS
ABOUT ELECTED EXECUTIVE FLOUTING ORDERS OF THE JUDICIARY ( AS WRITTEN IN LINK ABOVE ) —THEY HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO DO IT AS THESE ELECTED LAWMAKERS ARE ACCOUNTABLE TO THE PEOPLE.
WE HAD SUPREME COURT ORDERING THE ELECTED EXECUTIVE TO INTERLINK ALL INDIAN RIVERS WITH A DEADLINE AND KILL BHARATMATA.
THIS IS THE MOST STUPID JUDICIAL ORDER EVER MADE ON THIS PLANET.
JUSTICE GOGOIs WAS ONE OF THE FAB FOUR JUDGES WHO REVOLTED AGAINST THE CJI DEEPAK MISHRA.. WE THE PEOPLE DON’T WANT IS FELLOW AS OUR CJI—HE IS DUE FOR PROMOTION.. HIS FATHER WAS A CONGRESS CM.
ABOLISH THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT.... LOSER LAWYERS TURNED JUDGES DEMAND EGO MASSAGE HOUR AFTER HOUR ...
YOU SEE, WE CAN ABUSE THE HIGHEST CHAIR OF ELECTED PM MODI, CALL HIM PSYCHOPATH OR MERCHANT OF DEATH ... BUT YOU CANT TELL THE TRUTH ABOUT A LOSER LAWYER TURNED CORRUPT COLLEGIUM JUDGE ......
YOURS AND MINE SHIT SMELL , BUT A INDIAN JUDGEs SHIT DOES NOT SMELL ....
CANT A CHILD OF BHARATMATA TELL THE TRUTH TO SAVE THE WATAN FROM MAFIA COLLEGIUM JUDICIARY?.....
BEFORE 1947 ALMOST ALL INDIAN JUDGES WERE IN THE PAYROLL OF JEW ROTHSCHILD .....
WHEN I WROTE THIS ALL RIDICULED.... TODAY ALL KNOW HOW ROTHSCHILD PAYROLL JUDGES ARE DEFYING US PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMPs LEGITIMATE ORDERS ..... ....
WE DONT WANT COLLEGIUM JUDGES TO MAKE LAWS USING PIL FILED BY FOREIGN FUNDED DESH DROHI NGOs ...
JUSTICE MUST NOT BE BLIND IN INDIA.. NATURAL JUSTICE MUST PREVAIL.... CONTEXT MUST RULE....
BURN ALL MINDLESS PAST JUDGEMENTS BY COLLEGIUM JUDGES...
WE THE PEOPLE ARE ABOVE THE CONSTITUTION......
WE ARE ALLOWED FREE SPEECH AS LONG AS WE SPEAK THE TRUTH.....
CONTEMPT OF COURT CAN BE APPLIED ONLY WITH RESPECT TO –..
1) WHAT HAPPENS WITHIN A BRICK AND CEMENT COURT ROOM..
2) WHAT HAPPENS WITH RESPECT TO THE CASE BEING ARGUED…
3) TO PREVENT A BREAKDOWN OF THE SYSTEM--WHERE SOMEONE DEFIES THE JUDGE --WITHIN THE PERIMETER OF THE SPECIFIC CASE BEING ARGUED..
"CONTEMPT OF COURT " CANNOT BE APPLIED TO KARNAN WHO DECLARED THAT SOME JUDGES ARE CORRUPT…
CONTEMPT OF COURT CANNOT BE APPLIED UNDERWATER, UNDER THE GROUND , IN SPACE , ANYWHERE ON LAND-- NO JUDGE IS GOD .
OUR CONSTITUTION IS VERY VERY CLEAR ON THIS..
ALMOST ALL WESTERN NATIONS HAVE ABOLISHED "CONTEMPT OF COURT " EVEN INSIDE THE COURTROOM --WITHIN THE PERIMETER OF THE SPECIFIC CASE BEING ARGUED …
THE CONSTITUTION GIVES EVERY CITIZEN THE RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH AS LONG AS HE DOES NOT FILIBUSTER OR DISRUPT COURT PROCEEDINGS OR STAMP ON THE AUTHORITY OF THE JUDGE …
IN USA JURY DECIDES THE CASE-- NOT THE JUDGE . JURY IS MADE OF ORDINARY CITIZENS WHO KNOW SH1T ABOUT LAW OR THE CONSTITUTION….
THE JURY USES CONSCIENCE AND DELIVERS NATURAL JUSTICE…
JURY IS NOT TIED DOWN BY PROCEDURES … JURY KNOWS THE CONTEXT OF THE CASE… IN INDIA WE MUST GO BACK TO THE JURY SYSTEM..
ON TV WE HEARD IDI0TS ( PAST SUPREME COURT JUDGES AND LAWYERS ) SAYING THAT THEY CANT COMMENT AS THE CASE IF "SUBJUDICE "….
SORRY-- SUBJUDICE APPLIES ONLY FOR THE JURY SYSTEM….
IN INDIA OUR JURY SYSTEM WAS ABOLISHED AS PARSIS PULLED STRINGS AND GOT A JURY WHO WOULD SAVE A MURDERER PARSI-- COMMANDER NANAVATI WHO SHOT HIS WHITE WIFEs SINDHI LOVER….
On 30 January, the Supreme Court sent M.V. Jayarajan, a politician from the Communist Party of India (Marxist), to jail for four weeks for calling judges shumban ( DENSE HEADED OR SLOW ON UPTAKE ) in a speech critical of judicial activism in the Kerala high court….
The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, very clearly states that fair criticism of any case which has been heard and decided is not contempt…
SORRY --JUDGES ARE NOT GOD…
JUDGES WERE LAWYERS BEFORE … EVERYBODY WHO IS NOT A HALF WIT ON THIS PLANET KNOWS WHO LAWYERS ARE -AND THEIR MORAL FIBRE…
SORRY -- MATTERS CANNOT CONTINUE LIKE THIS ANYMORE….. WE HAVE A RIGHT TO OPINION -- THIS IS WHAT A HEALTHY DEMOCRACY IS ALL ABOUT…
NO JUDGE CAN TAKE AWAY YOUR FREEDOM OF SPEECH -- WHERE YOU TELL THE TRUTH…
KARNAN SAID --SOME JUDGES ARE CORRUPT . SO WHAT IS WRONG --LET HIM PROVE IT …
THIS WILL BE PART OF JUDICIAL STUDIES FOR CENTURIES IN INDIA AND THE WORLD…..
SORRY -- TELLING TRUTH CANT BE DEFAMATION …
Like many other laws, we’ve inherited the offence of ‘scandalising the court’ from the British. Initially, it was reasoned that judges were appointees of the king ( READ AS JEW ROTHSCHILD ) and to abuse the judge was to abuse the king himself…
Except, the last time the UK convicted a person for scandalising the honour of the judiciary, was 1931—i.e., 84 years ago
WE THE PEOPLE , HAVE A LIST OF COLLEGIUM JUDGES WHO HAVE INTERFERED WITH BHARATMATAs SECURITY AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN ....
THESE COLLEGIUM JUDGES ALWAYS TOOK THE SIDE OF THE POISONOUS FOREIGN BLACK MAMBA WHO TRIED TO KILL BHARATMATA --NEVER THE SIDE OF DESH BHAKT JAWANS WHO FIGHT THEM TO PROTECT BHARATMATA…...
WE ASK THE MODI GOVT TO DISMISS THESE SERVING JUDGES AND STOP THE RETIREMENT BENEFITS OF THE ONES WHO HAVE RETIRED--NAME AND SHAME THEM.....
WHY IS NHRC AND NCM ALWAYS ON THE SIDE OF DESH DROHIS AND NAXALS ?
KASHMIRI PANDITS WERE IGNORED BY NHRC AND COLLEGIUM MELORDS..... WHY ?
SHALL WE TAKE IN SOME NIGERIAN MUSLIM DRUG RUNNERS TOO AS REFUGEES ALONG WITH ISLAMIC ROHINGYAS ?...........
CONSTITUTION HAS NOT GIVEN THE POWERS OF SCHOOL HEADMASTER TO THE JUDICIARY TO RAP THE KNUCKLES OF ALL AND SUNDRY….
CANCEL THE EXTENSIVE BRITISH COLONIAL STYLE VACATIONS OF THESE MELORDS .....THERE ARE TOO MANY CASES PENDING...
THE TIME HAS COME FOR "WE THE PEOPLE" TO DECLARE --WHATEVER LAWS HAVE BEEN CREATED BY JUDGES ARE ALL NULL AND VOID -- WE KNOW THESE " JUDGE CREATED LAWS "….
THE DAY WILL COME WHEN THE SYSTEM WILL BREAK DOWN -- THE JUDGES WILL BE JAILED--THEY WILL LOSE THEIR PENSIONS….
THIS WILL HAPPEN WHEN UPSET POLICE TELLS THE JUDGE " MAKE YOUR OWN ARREST… WE ARE DONE WITH JUDGES PLAYING GOD !"….
PM MODI-- WE ELECTED YOU FOR 5 YEARS -- YOU HAVE ALLOWED COLLEGIUM JUDGES TO SH1T ON BHARATMATAs FACE -- WE THE PEOPLE ARE SHOCKED AND DISMAYED…
WE DONT WANT LAWYER TURNED JUDGES TO INTERFERE WITH BHARATMATAs SECURITY-- …
KASHMIRI TEENAGED KASHMIRI PANDIT SCHOOL GIRLS ARE STILL LIVING IN TENTS...
JUDGES HAVE DESTROYED THIS WATAN DUE TO ENDLESS HAIRSPLITTING , MAKING DECISIONS OUT OF CONTEXT--WITHOUT DHARMA OR NATURAL JUSTICE…ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!..
WE KNOW WHY COLLEGIUM JUDGES GIVE PREFERENCE TO PILs FROM DESH DROHI TROJAN HORSE NGOs… ..
POOR PEOPLE DO NOT HAVE THE WHEREWITHAL TO PROVIDE BAIL MONEY OR PERSONAL SURETY . . .WITH ANOTHER MAN COMING AND SHOWING ALL THOSE DOCUMENTS WHICH ARE REQUIRED FOR THE GUARANTEE . ...
WHY IS THE INDIAN GOVT INSISTING ON BAIL MONEY FROM VERY POOR PEOPLE ?
BHARATMATA IS RACING TO BE THIS PLANETS NO 1 SUPERPOWER IN 15 YEARS --BEFORE THAT THE NEW WORLD ORDER WANTS INDIA TO IMPLODE. ..
Capt. Ajit Vadakayil
January 19, 2017 at 11:23 AM
ONCE I WENT TO THE ESPLANADE COURT IN MUMBAI-
IT IS WALKING DISTANCE FROM VT TRAIN TERMINUS
THE TOILET WITHIN THE COURT CAMPUS ( NEXT TO PHOTOSTAT / TEA SHOP )COULD BE SMELT A MILE AWAY
WITHIN 10 METRES YOUR EYES WATER DUE TO STING OF URINE AMMONIA
I STILL WENT TO THE TOILET FOR A PEE - THERE WAS NO BULB
THE TOILET HAS NOT BEEN CLEANED FOR MORE THAN TWO YEARS
WHILE I WAS PEEING A POLICE INSPECTOR ( SENIOR ) CAME TO PEE ALONGSIDE ME-- HE KEPT DOING AAARGGGHH PPTTHHEEOOOYY..
WHEN I WAS SHIP CAPTAIN THE CREW KNEW THAT CAPTAIN VISITS CREW TOILETS EVERY WEEK -UN ANNOUNCED
IF THIS TOILET WAS INSIDE A CREW CABIN I USED THE MASTER KEY -UN ANNOUNCED -- NEVER WOKE UP A SLEEPING WATCHKEEPER ..
THIS IS PART OF THE LIVING LEGEND LORE OF CAPT VADAKAYIL AT SEA
TAREEQ PEH PAAREEQ PEH TAREEQ FEEDS USELESS LAWYERS FOR A LIFETIME. AT CURRENT RATES EVEN A SMALL DELEGATED SUB-JUNIOR LAWYERS CHARGES 5000 RUPEES.
WHAT IS THE ALTERNATIVE ?
FOR YOU TO GO CROSS COUNTRY STAY IN A HOTEL FOR 2 DAYS AND TAKE THE TAREEQ YOURSELF?
WHILE THE LAWYER WILL GET IT ON HIS MOBILE PHONE BY GIVING A BAKSHEESH TO THE COURT CLERK --WHO IS MORE CORRUPT THAN ALL.
WHEN I WENT TO THE ESPLANADE MUMBAI COURT-- THERE WAS A FRIENDLY DOG ( NO FLEAS ) INSIDE THE COURTROOM HAPPILY SITTING THERE WATCHING THE JUDGE
YOU CANT HEAR ANYTHING WHAT THE JUDGE SAYS ..MAYBE IT IS DELIBERATE.
THERE WAS PIGEON SHIT ALL OVER
I HAD TEA AT THE COURT CAMPUS --AND NEXT TWO DAYS I HAD LOOSE MOTION. THE STOMACH RUMBLE GURGLE STARTED WITHIN 5 MINUTES OF HAVING THE TEA ( TEA WAS TASTY )
THEY DONT PUT UP THE NEXT TAREEEQ DATE ON THE NOTICE BOARD-- FOR OBVIOUS REASONS.
TAREEQ DATE MUST BE PUT ON THE INTERNET/ MOBILE PHONE APP --WHERE YOU CAN USE A CODE NUMBER TO ACCESS ( HULLO LAW MINISTER --- DO YOUR FUCKIN' JOB --ENOUGH OF SUCKING UP TO MODI )
THE TAREEQ DATE MILKING CONTINUES FOR 20 TO 30 YEARS .
WHY DOES SUPREME COURT TAKE UP IPL CRICKET DATES EVEN ON SUNDAYS ?
WHY IS NORMAL PROCEDURE SKIPPED FOR IPL ?
I AM SURE THE COLLEGIUM JUDGES KNOWS ROTHSCHILDs INDIAN FRONTS IN BCCI AND IPL.
THE BEST PART IS ALL TRAITOR SIR PARSI JUDGE PICTURES ARE HUNG IN COURT ROOMS--HUGE ONES
AT A SMALL SHRINE MEANT FOR CONVICTS TO PRAY BEFORE BEING SENTENCED TO DEATH OR JAIL-- THE PRIDE OF PLACE IS GIVEN TO SHIRDI SAI BABA, A FELLOW WHO DIED 98 YEARS AGO -- A MARBLE STATUE. OTHER GODS IDOLS LIKE GANESHA, KRISHNA WERE DWARFED..
I COULD SEE A DEMENTED OLD PARSI LAWYER TAKING THE ROUNDS.. HE WORE GOOD QUALITY LAWYER ROBES -- HE HAD SEEN HALCYON DAYS
HE WAS IN A BAD STATE , ONE LEG ALREADY IN THE GRAVE , MORE THAN 85 YEARS OLD, WEARING WORN OUT HAWAAI CHAPPALS -
I GUESS HE WAS ON A REMINISCE TOUR -- HIS HEAD SHAKING TO AND FRO.--DROOLING FROM THE CORNER OF HIS MOUTH
I AM JUST SAYING 2%-- I CAN WRITE A WHOLE BOOK .
THE LAW MINISTER WILL READ THIS , SO WILL CJI AND PM
WHO CARES ?
NOTHING WILL IMPROVE.
capt ajit vadakayil
Books, movies, and television often perpetuate the belief that circumstantial evidence may not be used to convict a criminal of a crime. But this view is 100% nonsense, as today almost all DIRECT WITNESSES are fake—there is no will to punish false witnesses
In most cases today, circumstantial evidence is the only evidence linking an accused to a crime; direct evidence may simply not exist. As a result, the judge/ jury may have only circumstantial evidence to consider in determining whether to convict or acquit a person charged with a crime.
The U.S. Supreme Court has categorically ruled "circumstantial evidence is intrinsically no different from testimonial direct evidence"
AS LONG AS WE HAVE STUPID LAWYER TURNED JUDGES IN INDIA -- DIRECT EVIDENCE WILL RULE
We have seen how Teesta Setalvad created false witnesses out of thin air
Circumstantial evidence is employed in criminal trials. Many circumstances can create inferences about an accused's guilt in a criminal matter, including rest; the presence of a motive or opportunity to commit the crime; the accused's presence at the time and place of the crime; any denials, evasions, or contradictions on the part of the accused; and the general conduct of the accused.
The distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence has little practical effect in the presentation or admissibility of evidence in trials. Circumstantial evidence is used in criminal courts to decide the fate of accused by establishing guilt or innocence through reasoning. witnesses are the "eyes and ears of justice".
But testimony of witnesses is not always credible ( 90% of the time ) ; therefore, facts are provable not only by witnesses but also by circumstances.
Circumstantial evidence is used in criminal courts to establish guilt or innocence through reasoning. They play an important role in civil courts to establish or or deny liability.
Evidence" is the raw material which a judge or adjudicator uses to reach "findings of fact". The findings of fact that the evidence generates are - for all their flaws - "what happened" for all intents and purposes of the legal proceeding.
"Circumstantial evidence" however is not so much a type of evidence as it is a logical principle of deduction. Deduction is reasoning from general known principles to a specific proposition
Again, circumstantial evidence is unrelated facts that, when considered together, can be used to infer a conclusion about something unknown. Like how weak strands make a strong rope.
Today all over the planet successful criminal prosecutions rely largely on circumstantial evidence, and civil charges are frequently based on circumstantial or indirect evidence.
In practice, circumstantial evidence often has an advantage over direct evidence in that it is more difficult to suppress or fabricate
Circumstantial evidence is evidence which strongly suggests something, but does not exactly prove it. Circumstantial evidence simply helps people draw inferences about a fact, or the events that took place. Whether or not the judge or jury makes the intended inference has a major impact on the outcome of the case.
MOST INDIAN JUDGES DON’T HAVE THE FUCKIN’ BRAINS TO GLEAN CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
Facts that do not necessarily prove a defendant’s culpability, such as prior threats made to the victim.
Dick and Prick get into a heated argument, during which Dick declares in front of a room full of people, that he wanted to kill Prick. A week later, Prick is found murdered in his back yard. Dick’s declaration is not direct evidence that he committed the crime, but it gives police a suspect. Many times another person John will murder Prick just to screw Dick.
I once held a party at anchorage , with some nearby ship captains ( batchmates and seniors etc ) and a Mallu Loading Master named Capt John were invited.
John was from the ranks—seaman to Captain –up the hawse pipe, the hard way.
We had huge crabs and premium whisky.
One GORA captain asked me “ Captain, can I use your John” . My wife was in the nedroom with other Captains wives and the toilet had to be accessed through the bed room
I replied “ Sure”
Capt John was TUNN and was partly asleep.
He suddenly jumps up and cries out with a distressed look “ FOR WHAT ?”
PLANTING CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
When one South African delegation visited India a criminal women of the group ran to a local police station with a used condom and claimed she was raped.
The condom had her pussy juice on the outside and the semen of the rapist ( sic ) on the inside
She had foraged the garbage bin , found a used condom and shoved it into her twat using her finger
Alas, the semen was not TAAAAJA – the hours since the rape did not match--there was dust on the outside .
Her twat did NOT have similar dust inside -nor did the dust of the garbage bin in the room of occurance match.
KACHRAWAAL WON A FACILE VICTORY IN DELHI IN THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY ELECTIONS....
THE MOMENT DELHI CHURCHES WERE ATTACKED BY HINDUS ( SIC )--I TOLD MY WIFE...... THESE ARE FALSE FLAG ATTACKS.... VERY SOON YOU WILL FIND USEFUL IDIOTS COMING ON BENAMI TV AND COMPLAINING BITTERLY....
SURE ENOUGH --MY WIFE CALLED ME TO WATCH-- WE HAD RETIRED CHRISTIAN COP JULIO RIBEIRO DOING EXACTLY THIS......
I TOLD MY WIFE -- BIG SHOTS OF THIS PLANET WILL NOW WARN INDIA....
AS IF ON CUE WE HAD THE US PRESIDENT WARNING INDIA...
THEN I TOLD MY WIFE... KACHRAWAAL WILL RUN OVER DELHI AND HE WILL BE THE NEW CM -WITH A HUGE MAJORITY....
HULLO CJI OF INDIA... YOU HAVE SHOWN YOUR SMARTNESS BY RAKING UP AS 25 YEAR OLD BABRI CASE.....
WE THE PEOPLE OF INDIA WANT YOU TO FIND OUT MORE ABOUT THE FALSE FLAG ATTACKS ON DELHI CHURCHES AND THE SLIMY HEGELIAN DIALECTIC THAT FOLLOWED......
WE WANT TO KNOW WHICH ARE THE FOREIGN FUNDED CHRISTIAN NGOs DOING FALSE FLAG ATTACKS ON CHURCHES IN INDIA.....
WE WANT JUDICIARY TO HAVE A SYSTEM AND DECLARE IT.....
YOU JUST CANT PICK OUT CASES FROM THE HAT -AFTER 25 YEARS --TO CONTROL INDIAN POLITICS.... JUDICIARY MUST KEEP CLEAR OF POLITICS
AT PRESENT THE COLLEGIUM MELORDS OF THE SUPREME COURT WORKS ONLY 193 DAYS IN A YEAR . BRITISH STYLE..
WHEN JUDGES WERE IN ROTHSCHILDs PAYROLL BEFORE 1947, SUMMER VACATION WAS TAKEN AS AN EXCUSE TO TAKE THESE JUDGES TO LONDON AND PARIS TO BE TUTORED BY JEW ROTHSCHILDs AGENTS ..
THE PM ON INDIA WORKS 365 DAYS A YEAR
HIGH COURTS WORK 210 DAYS A YEAR
THESE COLLEGIUM MELORDS GIVE PRIORITY TO WHORE HOUSES ( CHAMIYA BEER BARS ) AND IPL
YET UNDERTRIALS HAVE BEEN ROTTING IN JAIL FOR 2 OR 3 DECADES - MOST DID NOT HAVE MONEY TO PAY BAIL OR HIRE A LAWYER.
THE POLICE WHO ARRESTED THEM WITH FALSE CASES HAVE COME IGs AND DGPs AND RETIRED
WE DEMAND FINANCIAL COMPENSATION FOR EVERY UNDERTRIAL WRONGLY CONFINED .
I was a successful captain at sea, as I did NOT allow procedures to affect my judgment. I would tell my officers and crew in the first meeting itself, that I would NOT punish mistakes, if made in good faith. And this boosted performance and sense of belonging.
This is way different from what happens in judicial courts where the stupid judged revels in showing all and sundry that justice is blind. The duffer judge does NOT even know the meaning of CONTEXT.
All over the world cases in judicial courts are won on procedural matters . Truth and natural justice takes a backseat .
The slimy ( but smart ) and successful lawyers drag the judge by his nostrils down the hoary marshlands nay chakravyuh of procedures –all the time reminding the judge that “Justice is blind” .
When I was 12 years old, I was a volunteer at the school sports function for smaller grades . A strange incident happened which molded my character.
In the 50 metres sprint a ugly girl ran fast and finished the race by coming to me holding one end of the tape. The other end was held by a female teacher whom I respected -- she had taught me and always sponsored me .
This ugly girl completed the race when the rest of the also rans were at 40 metres –but she did NOT “breast the tape”. This 7 year old girl just stopped one foot off the tape by my side. If she has known the “procedures “ and the term of “justice is blind “ she would have touched the tape.
I found that this girl was NOT considered the winner and the medals went to the also rans. I went sort or berserk as a 12 year old boy and got the medal list overturned. All volunteer teachers were surprised at the way I behaved.
But then they knew me as a responsible student ( coming first in class ) and did NOT allow this incident to blow up.
On my ship I did NOT allow ACTIVITY TRAPS turbocharged by procedures. I did NOT allow my Chief Engineer ( like the CUNT judge ) to think that the purpose of the ship is to take the blessed engine from loadport to discharge port.
In India 45% of the lawyers are fake. But it is not only about people with false degrees, but also those with no degrees. These people work without a licence. They go to court and practice without any authority.
That is why wise businessmen prefer to settle their disputes outside the court. It has become a lobby and family business in India, refusing to be regulated by any norm. Most of the cases are lost on won on procedural points.......
A LOT OF FAKE LAWYERS MINT MONEY BY FAKE NOTARY ATTESTATIONS AND TAREEQ PEH TAREEQ PEH TAREEQ --SUB CONTRACT TO A SENIOR LAWYER .
THE FAKE LAWYER IS ALSO USED TO BRIBE COURT CLERKS.
I remember three decades ago, a pilot in Chennai was acting too funny. He wanted the ship’s trim to be reduced or he would NOT berth my tanker. When I said , the trim cant be reduced, he wanted cargo to be transferred and asked for the Trim and Stability book.
I just asked him “ Show me your piloting licence “.
He got deflated right there .
He asked me “ Captain, you have never asked me for my licence , the more that dozen times I berthed your ship in the past , and you also know that I am 6 years your senior on the training ship Dufferin”.
I just replied “ FOLLOW PROCEDURES ! “
He threatened to blackball me and my ship using his pull with the Harbour Master who is his “good friend”.
I replied “ Be my guest – your bum chum Harbour Master will be dealing with behemoth SCI and the Deputy Conservator after that - and he can retire early without pension ”
WE DO NOT WANT UNELECTED PEOPLE TO RUN THE WATAN……..
PM MODI-- WE ELECTED YOU FOR 5 YEARS -- YOU HAVE ALLOWED COLLEGIUM JUDGES TO SHIT ON BHARATMATAs FACE -- WE THE PEOPLE ARE SHOCKED AND DISMAYED…
WE DONT WANT LAWYER TURNED JUDGES TO INTERFERE WITH BHARATMATAs SECURITY-- … KASHMIRI TEENAGED KASHMIRI PANDIT SCHOOL GIRLS ARE STILL LIVING IN TENTS ?...
JUDGES HAVE DESTROYED THIS WATAN DUE TO ENDLESS HAIRSPLITTING , MAKING DECISIONS OUT OF CONTEXT--WITHOUT DHARMA OR NATURAL JUSTUCE…
ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!..
WHO IS THE FIRST ON THE PLANET TO ACCUSE FACEBOOK OF SPYING IN INDIA?
CAPT AJIT VADAKAYIL