A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 24 -- Murder – Extra-judicial confession – Evidential value -- Where a murder has been committed in secrecy, it is unlikely that the accused would become garrulous after the commission of the offence and confess to having committed the offence to another person -- It is settled law that an extra-judicial confession is a somewhat weak piece of evidence and is generally used as a corroborative link to lend credibility to the other evidence on record.

(Para 33)

B. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 9 -- Test Identification Parade/ TIP -- Identification of the accused for the first time in Court has little evidentiary value even though it is for the limited purpose for establishing motive.

(Para 37)

C. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 8 -- Motive -- In a case of circumstantial evidence motive for the commission of a crime assumes importance.

(Para 37)

D. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 45 -- Murder – Acquittal -- Fingerprints from the car had been taken but the report was not exhibited, which was the best evidence to establish that the accused and the deceased had been in the car where the deceased had been murdered – As per the case of the prosecution, the accused had first administered a stupefying substance to the complainant who felt intoxicated, however no attempt was made to take samples of the blood and urine of the complainant -- No stupefying substance was recovered at the instance of the accused pursuant to his arrest -- Chain of circumstantial evidence is certainly not complete so as to conclusively point towards the guilt of the accused – Appeal allowed, accused acquitted.

(Para 40-43)

E. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 27 -- Murder -- Circumstantial evidence -- Lie detector test – Evidential value -- A lie detector test can be administered only upon consent of an accused -- Mere refusal would not provide a missing link in the chain of circumstantial evidence -- Assuming the accused did submit himself to a lie detector test and stated something inculpating himself the said statement could not be categorized as material evidence against him -- Conducting of lie a detector test is merely an aid in investigation in case the accused discloses any such relevant information.

(Para 42)