1. Bodh Raj v.

State of Jammu and Kashmir

Case based on circumstantial evidence.
The court has held that for admission of a certain piece of evidence the circumstances
can be basis for the conviction of the accused, and proving that circumstances are in
consistent with the facts lies upon the prosecution and he has to prove that chain is
complete and has to show that there is no infirmity as stated in the case of Sharad
Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra.
2. Hudson v. Michigan
Booker T. Hudson was convicted of drug and firearm possession in state court after
police found cocaine and a gun in his home. The police had a search warrant, but
failed to follow the Fourth Amendment "knock and announce" rule which requires
police officers to wait 20-30 seconds after knocking and announcing their presence
before they enter the home. The trial judge ruled that the evidence found in the home
could therefore not be used, but the Michigan Court of Appeals reversed based on two
Michigan Supreme Court cases that created an exception to the suppression of
evidence when the evidence in question would have inevitably been found.
In a 5-4 decision, the Court ruled that evidence need not be excluded when police
violate the "knock-and-announce" rule. The majority held that the exclusionary rule
could not be invoked for evidence obtained after a knock-and-announce violation,
because the interests violated by the abrupt entry of the police "have nothing to do
with the seizure of the evidence."
3. Johnson v. United States
Based on a tip from a confidential informant that the smell of opium was emanating
from the defendant’s hotel room, a Seattle narcotics detective and a group of federal
agents entered without a warrant and proceeded to search the room.
Held that a person only has the privilege from producing the evidence and not from its
production. Thus, the evidence obtained must be admitted.
4. Kadir v. The Queen
Today, the High Court unanimously allowed, in part, two appeals from the Court of
Criminal Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The appeals concerned
the admissibility of improperly or illegally obtained evidence.
5. Kuruma v. The Queen
In Kuruma v The Queen [1955] AC 197 the Privy Council laid down that if the
evidence is admissible, the court is not concerned how it was obtained. The privy
 council observed : "...the test to be applied in considering whether evidence is
admissible is whether it is relevant to the matters in issue.
6. Murray v. Mabrouk
The application under CPR 39.3 arose from the murder of WPC Yvonne Fletcher
outside the Libyan Embassy on 17 April 1984. The respondent was a colleague of
WPC Fletcher and witnessed her death, which had a profound impact on his mental
health. It was argued that questioning and search of Libyan diplomats were done in
furtherance of their fundamental right to self-defence under international and
domestic law, even though it constituted a violation of the rule of personal
inviolability.
7. Pooran Mal v. Director of Inspection of Income Tax
The petitioner Pooran Mal is a partner in a number of firms- some of them doing
business in Bombay and some in Delhi. His permanent residence is 12A Kamla
Nagar, Delhi. His business premises in Delhi are A.14/16 Jamuna Bhavan, Asaf Ali
Road, New Delhi. It would appear that on an authorisation issued by the Director of
Inspection, his residence and business premises in Delhi were searched on 15th and
16th October, 1971. On the 15th his premises in Bombay were also searched and at
that time it appears. the petitioner was present in Bombay. When his residence was
searched on 15th and 16th, there were in his house the petitioners wife, two or three
adult sons and his father who is said to have been ailing. It was alleged on behalf of
the petitioner that the search in the residential premises was malafide, oppressive,
excessive, indiscriminate and vexatious.
In these proceedings-two of them Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution
and two others which are appeal from orders passed by the Delhi High Court under
Article 226relief is claimed in respect of action taken under section 132 of the
Income-tax, Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act) by way of search and seizure of
certain premises on the ground that the authorisation for the search as also the search
and seizure were illegal. The non-constitutional grounds of challenge are based up on
allegations to the effect that the search and seizure were not in accordance
with section 132 read with Rule 112. This challenge will have to be considered in the
background of the facts of the individual cases. Supreme Court declined to issue a
writ of prohibition in restraint of the use of evidence, holding relevancy to be the only
test of admissibility of evidence.
8. Prem Thakur v. State of Punjab
 The charge against the appellant is that he committed the murder of five co-labourers
on the night between the 8th and 9th November, 1980 in the village of Rolu Majra.
It was held that the High Court could not but be aware of the principle that in a case
which depends wholly upon circumstantial evidence, the circumstances must be of
such a nature as to be capable of supporting the exclusive hypothesis that the accused
is guilty of the crime of which he is charged.
9. R. v. Exall
On a charge of burglary, possession by the prisoners of part of the stolen property
very soon after the burglary, with an account given of it not reasonable or credible, is
sufficient pnmd facie evidence, without express evidence to falsify it It is so, however,
only if upon all the circumstances in the case the account given is not reasonably
credible.
10. R.M. Malkani v. State of Maharashtra
The Court of Criminal Appeal held that the trial Judge had correctly admitted the
tape-recording of the incriminating conversation in evidence. It was said "that the
method of the informer and of the eavesdropper is commonly used in the detection of
crime. The only difference here was that a mechanical device was the eavesdropper".
The Courts often say that detection by deception is a form of police procedure to be
directed and used sparingly and with circumspection.
11. Reyes v. Al-Malki
A Philippine national, Reyes, was employed as a domestic servant between 19
January and 14 March 2011 by Mr. and Ms. Al-Malki for their London residence. Ms.
Reyes’s duties included cleaning, helping in the kitchen at mealtimes and looking
after the children. During this period, Mr. Al-Malki was a member of the diplomatic
staff of the embassy of Saudi Arabia in London. Ms. Reyes alleges that the Al-
Malkis maltreated her by requiring her to work excessive hours, failing to give her
proper accommodation, confiscating her passport and preventing her from leaving the
house or communicating with others; and that they paid her nothing until after her
employment terminated upon her escape on 14 March.
Article 31 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations contains an exception to
diplomatic immunity from civil jurisdiction where the proceedings relate to “any
professional or commercial activity exercised by the diplomatic agent in the receiving
state outside his official functions.” The Al-Malkis left the UK once Mr. Al-Malki’s
post ended, and so only his official acts would be entitled to residual immunity. Ms.
 Reyes’s employment and abuse was found to not be an exercise of an official
function, and so any diplomatic immunity expired at the end of his posting. Even
though her services helped Mr. Al-Malki, her work wasn’t done on behalf of Saudi
Arabia.
12. Singh v. Singh
This is an appeal by a petitioner wife from a decision of the learned county court
Judge at Birmingham dismissing her petition for agility. The grounds of her petition
were first that she did not consent to the marriage, but was induced to enter into it by
duress and coercion exercised upon her by her parents. Secondly, and in the
alternative, that she was at the time of the ceremony of Marriage, and has been ever
since, incapable of consummating the marriage with the respondent husband in that
she evinced an invincible repugnance to him. It was held that there is no absolute
prohibition on the use of illegal or covertly obtained evidence and that the courts must
allow such evidence to be presented, if it is particularly relevant.
13. Soering v United Kingdom
Soering v United Kingdom 161 Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) (1989) is a landmark judgment
of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) which established
that extradition of a German national to the United States to face charges of capital
murder and the potential exposure of said citizen to the death row
phenomenon violated Article 3 of the European Convention on Human
Rights (ECHR) guaranteeing the right against inhuman and degrading treatment. [1] In
addition to the precedent established by the judgment, the judgment specifically
resulted in the United States and the State of Virginia committing to not seeking the
death penalty against the German national involved in the case, and he was eventually
extradited to the United States.
 Impact- It enlarges the scope of a state's responsibility for breaches of the convention.
A signatory State must now consider consequences of returning an individual to a
third country where he might face treatment that breaches the convention. This is
notwithstanding that the ill-treatment may be beyond its control, or even that general
assurances have been provided that no ill-treatment will take place.
14. Swarna v. Al Awadi
The appeals court in the United States of America, while denying diplomatic
immunity to Al- Awadi, held that human trafficking is a commercial activity engaged
 in for personal profit, thereby falling outside the scope of a diplomat’s official
functions.
15. The Republic of Nicaragua v. The United States of America
The Republic of Nicaragua v. The United States of America (1986)[2] was a case where
the International Court of Justice (ICJ) held that the U.S. had violated international
law by supporting the Contras in their rebellion against the Sandinistas and by mining
Nicaragua's harbors. The case was decided in favor of Nicaragua and against the
United States with the awarding of reparations to Nicaragua.
he United States refused to participate in the proceedings, arguing that the ICJ lacked
jurisdiction to hear the case. The U.S. also blocked enforcement of the judgment by
the United Nations Security Council and thereby prevented Nicaragua from obtaining
any compensation.[4] Nicaragua, under the later, post-FSLN government of Violeta
Chamorro, withdrew the complaint from the court in September 1992 following a
repeal of the law which had required the country to seek compensation.