Supreme Court: Disclosure by One Accused U/S 27 of Evidence Act Can extend to the discovery of identity and involvement of Co- accused and recovery from that co-accused,

Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act carves out a well-known exception to the general rule that confessions made to police are inadmissible. The Supreme Court in Mehboob Ali v. State of Rajasthan, 2015 SCC OnLine SC 1043, explained that when information supplied by an accused leads to the discovery of a new fact previously unknown to the police, that part of the statement becomes admissible in evidence. Significantly, the Court held that such discovery may also include the involvement and arrest of a co-accused.

Print Page

What are recent developments in DNA test from perspective of Criminal trial?

 Recent judicial developments show that courts now accept DNA evidence as highly probative, but they insist much more strongly on chain of custody, proper sampling, laboratory integrity, and corroboration before acting on it. From a judge’s point of view, the shift is from treating DNA as merely “scientific and powerful” to asking whether the collection, preservation, documentation, and interpretation are legally reliable and fair.

Main developments

Print Page

Supreme Court: Whether an appellate court can dismiss an appeal solely on the basis of an unrebutted affidavit of the respondent without considering the entire material on record, including the trial court record?

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having

perused the documentary material on record, we are of the view

that the writ petition did not warrant dismissal solely on the

ground that the original plaintiffs failed to file any rejoinder to the defendants’ affidavit in reply dated 12th April 2023. In our view, all relevant material that was brought on record by both the parties ought to have been examined while deciding the writ petition. The affidavit in reply dated 12th April 2023 could have been considered as additional material in opposing the claim for eviction on theground of bonafide need. Dismissal of the writ petition solely on the ground of non-traverse has, in our view, vitiated the impugned judgment. {Para 6}.

18. In the case of Gaya Prasad v. Pradeep Srivastava [(2001)

2 SCC 604], this Court held that the landlord should not be

penalised for the slowness of the legal system and the crucial

date for deciding the facts of the requirement of the landlord is

the date of his application for eviction. It is also observed that

the process of litigation cannot be made the basis for denying

the landlord relief unless the litigation at least reaches the final

stages. However, it is further added that subsequent events

may, in some situations, be considered to have overshadowed

the genuineness of the landlords’ needs but only if they are of

such nature and dimension as to completely eclipse such need

and make it lose the significance altogether.”

In the light of above discussion, the High Court failed to consider whether the subsequent event as urged by the defendants had material bearing on the right claimed by the plaintiffs. It has to be borne in mind that the Trial Court had passed a decree for eviction on the basis of the evidence on record which was reversed by the Appellate Court. It was, therefore, necessary for the High Court to have taken into consideration the entire material available on record including the affidavit dated 12th April 2023. Thus, by failing to do so, the High Court failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it while deciding the challenge to the reversal of the decree for eviction. We, therefore, find that the order passed by the High Court deserves interference.

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026

MARIA MARTINS  Vs NOEL ZUZARTE AND OTHERS 

Author: ATUL S. CHANDURKAR, J.

Citation: 2026 INSC 376

Print Page

Supreme Court: Ex Parte Suit Cannot Be Dismissed on Ground of No Title in Absence of Pleading Contesting Title

As laid down in Man Kaur (dead) by LRs v.

Hartar Singh Sangha (2010) 10 SCC 512, there must be a valid

contract; that defendant committed breach of

and readiness and willingness of the plaintiff to

perform his part of contract. {Para 30}

31. In present case, all the three essentials are

present. However, the suit was dismissed for

lack of title in favour of the Respondent. No

issues or points for determination were framed

for the same. Appellant at no point was given an

opportunity to lead evidence on the same. In the

absence of any issues, and especially in the

absence of any pleading contesting title of the

Respondent, the Appellant could not be

expected to prove such title in a suit for specific

performance of Agreement to sell. Therefore,

omission to frame issues has caused prejudice

to the Appellant.

32. Hence, the judgment and decree passed by the

trial court does not fulfil the requirements of a

judgment as provided for under the Code of Civil

Procedure, 1908. The judgments and decree of

both the courts below are, therefore, not in

accordance with law and thus, set-aside. 

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026

PRAMOD SHROFF  Vs MOHAN SINGH CHOPRA 

AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J.

Citation: 2026 INSC 378

Print Page