MOTIVE, GUILT, CULPABLE HOMICIDE WHEN PROVED BY CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
Now a days we hear lots about circumstantial evidence in television debate especially in #SushantSinghCase. How prosecution can prove case on basis of Circumstantial Evidence. So let us first see what is legal provisions: Since we are learning about evidence let us understand provisions of Evidence Act, 1872 Section 32 – Cases in which statement of relevant fact by person who is dead or cannot be found, etc., is relevant Statements, written or verbal, of relevant facts made by a person who is dead, or who cannot be found, or who has become incapable of giving evidence, or whose attendance cannot be procured, without an amount of delay or expense which under the circumstances of the case appears to the Court unreasonable, are themselves relevant facts in the following cases:– (1) when it relates to cause of death.-When the statement is made by a person as to the cause of his death, or as to any of the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in his death, in cases in which the cause of that person’s death comes into question. Such statements are relevant whether the person who made them was or was not, at the time when they were made, under expectation of death, and whatever may be the nature of the proceeding in which the cause of his death comes into question. (2) or is made in course of business.-When the statement was made by such person in the ordinary course of business, and in particular when it consists of any entry or memorandum made by him in books kept in the ordinary course of business, or in the discharge of professional duly; or of an acknowledgment written or signed by him of the receipt of money, goods, securities or property of any kind; or of a document used in commerce written or signed by him; or of the date of a letter or other document usually dated, written or signed by him. (3) or against interest of maker.-When the statement is against the pecuniary or proprietary interest of the person making it or when, if true, it would expose him or would have exposed him to a criminal prosecution or to a suit for damages. (4) or gives opinion as to public right or custom, or matters of general interests.-When the statement gives the opinion of any such person, as to the existence of any public right or custom or matter of public or general interest, of the existence of which, if it existed he would have been likely to be aware, and when such statement was made before any controversy as to such right, custom or matter had arisen. (5) or relates to existence of relationship.-When the statement relates to the existence of any relationship [by blood, marriage or adoption] between persons as to whose relationship [by blood, marriage or adoption] the person making the statement had special means of knowledge, and when the statement was made before the question in dispute was raised. (6) or is made in will or deed relating to family affairs.-When the statement relates to the existence of any relationship [by […]
Read moreThe Future of International Courts and Tribunals in The Hague :
International courts are formed by treaties between nations or under the authority of an international organization such as the United Nations and include ad hoc tribunals and permanent institutions but exclude any courts arising purely under national authority. What is International Court of Justice (ICJ ) ? The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations (UN). It was established in June 1945 by the Charter of the United Nations and it commenced its functions April 1946. For India this year is very important as it was preparing to Draft its Constitution and formed Constituent Assembly in December,1946. The seat of the Court is at the Peace Palace in The Hague (Netherlands). Out of the six principal organs of the United Nations, it is the only one not located in New York (United States of America). Early examples of international courts include the Nuremberg and Tokyo tribunals established in the aftermath of World War II. Two such courts are presently located at The Hague in the Netherlands are “the International Court of Justice (ICJ)” , and “the International Criminal Court (ICC)”. Further international courts exist elsewhere, usually with their jurisdiction restricted to a particular country or issue, such as the one dealing with the genocide in Rwanda. In addition to international tribunals created to address crimes committed during genocides and civil war, ad hoc courts combining international and domestic strategies have also been established on a situational basis. Examples of these “hybrid tribunals” are found in Sierra Leone, Lebanon, East Timor, and Cambodia. Role of ICJ: The Court’s role is to settle legal disputes submitted to it by States and to give advisory opinions on legal questions referred to it by authorized United Nations organs and specialized agencies as per provisions of its law. Composition of ICJ: The Court is composed of 15 judges, who are elected for terms of office of nine years by the United Nations General Assembly and the Security Council. It is assisted by a Registry, its administrative organ. Its official languages are English and French. List of international courts Name Scope Years active Subject matter African Court of Justice Africa 2009–present Interpretation of AU treaties African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights Africa 2006–present Human rights Appellate Body of the World Trade Organization Global 1995–present Trade disputes within the WTO Benelux Court of Justice Benelux 1975–present Trade disputes within Benelux Caribbean Court of Justice Caribbean 2005–present General disputes COMESA Court of Justice Africa 1998–present Trade disputes within COMESA Common Court of Justice and Arbitration of the OHADA Africa 1998–present Interpretation of OHADA treaties and uniform laws Court of Justice of the Andean Community South America 1983–present Trade disputes within CAN Court of the Eurasian Economic Union Former USSR 2015–present Economic disputes and interpretation of treaties within the EAEU East African Courts of Justice Africa 2001–present Interpretation of EAC treaties Eastern Carrabian Supreme Court Caribbean 1967–present General disputes Economic Court of the Commonwealth of Independent States Former USSR 1994–present Economic disputes and interpretation of treaties within the CIS ECOWAS Community Court of Justice Africa 1996–present Interpretation of ECOWAS treaties European […]
Read moreDispute between Australia – New Zealand and Japan over Sothern Bluefin Tuna Case Study
Cause of Action: Australia approached the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (‘the Tribunal’) ( ITLOS) to prescribe the provisional measures specified in Australia’s dispute with Japan over Southern Bluefin Tuna (‘SBT’),pending the constitution of an Arbitral Tribunal under Annex VII of UNCLOS (‘the Arbitral Tribunal’). The dispute relates to Japan’s failure to conserve, and to cooperate in the conservation of, the SBT stock, as manifested, inter alia, by its unilateral experimental fishing for SBT in 1998 and 1999. It also included the interpretation and application of certain provisions of UNCLOS. The Arbitral Tribunal were asked to take into account, for the said reasons, the provisions of the 1993 Convention for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna (‘the 1993 Convention’) and the parties’ practice in relation to that Convention, as well as their obligations under general international law, in particular the precautionary principle. Reasons: Japan’s unilateral experimental fishing for SBT and its lack of cooperation in the conservation and management of SBT which will have the potential to cause serious prejudice to the rights of Australia; Natural environmental changes could combine at any time with the vulnerable state of the resource to cause a further and potentially highly damaging decline to the stock; The reason for requesting provisional measures is that Japan’s current and proposed unilateral actions in relation to SBT, taken in the context of a stock at historically low levels, increase the threat to that stock and undermine the disciplines of the accepted scheme for SBT management; If not addressed by way of provisional measures, the unilateral actions of Japan have the potential to cause serious prejudice to the rights of Australia; This prejudice could not be the subject of adequate remedy in any subsequent decision of the Annex VII Arbitral Tribunal; Pending the constitution of this Arbitral Tribunal under Annex VII of UNCLOS, Australia and New Zealand, on July 30, 1999, each filed a request for the prescription of provisional measures with the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (“ITLOS”). Background to the Current Proceedings Southern Bluefin Tuna (Thunnus maccoyi, hereafter sometimes designated “ SBT “) is a migratory species of pelagic fish that is included in the list of highly migratory species set out in Annex I of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. SBT range widely through the oceans of the Southern Hemisphere, principally the high seas, but they also traverse the exclusive economic zones and territorial waters of some States, notably Australia, New Zealand and South Africa. They spawn in the waters south of Indonesia. The main market for the sale of SBT is in Japan, where the fish is prized as a delicacy for sashimi. Grounds argued and or pleaded: It is common ground between the Parties that commercial harvest of SBT began in the early 1950s and that, in 1961, the global catch peaked at 81,000 metric tons (“mt”). By the early 1980s, the SBT stock had been severely overfished; it was estimated that the parental stock had declined to 23-30% of its 1960 level. In 1982, Australia, New Zealand and Japan began informally […]
Read more