Lex Summarium

Sections Involved Section 10 IEA: Things said or done by conspirator in reference to common design. –– Where there is reasonable ground to believe that two or more persons have conspired together to commit an offence or an actionable wrong, anything said, done or written by any one of such persons in reference to their common intention, after the time when such intention was first entertained by any one of them, is a relevant fact as against each of the persons believed to be so conspiring, as well for the purpose of proving the existence of the conspiracy as for the purpose of showing that any such person was a party to it. Section 17 IEA:  Admission defined.––An admission is a statement, 1 [oral or documentary or contained in electronic form], which suggests any inference as to any fact in issue or relevant fact, and which is made by any of the persons, and under the circumstances, hereinafter mentioned.  Section 18 IEA:  Admission––by party to proceeding or his agent....

Rationale:  This case clarifies the legal position about the telephonic conversation illegally collected or obtained where Supreme Court clarified that contemporaneous tape record of relevant conversation of relevant fact is admissible as res gestae under Section 7 IEA, even if Section 25 of Indian Telegraph Act is contravened Facts of the case   1. Appellant in this case was the coroner of Bombay (coroner is the term used for official who holds inquests into violent, sudden and suspicious deaths) whereas complainants were Doctor Motwani (under whose treatment patient was after operation) and Dr. Adatia (who performed the operation).   2. Dr. Aditia was a gynaecologist who performed an operation on the patient who later died. Appellant allowed the disposal of the body without ordering post mortem. However, the request for inquest was raised by police station on ground of death after operation.   3. Appellant coroner asked Dr. Motwani to ask Dr. Adatia to pay a sum of...

Judges : S.N. Variava . J   Case Code (2003) 4 SCC 601 Facts of the case: 1. Complainant's wife was suffering from terminal cancer and it was suggested by Dr. Greenberg of USA that she was in operable and should only be treated with medication. 2. Complainant and his wife consulted the respondent who was also a practicing surgeon in India who said that it was operatable. Also, complainant and his wife made respondent aware of the opinion of Dr. Greenburg and agreed for operation on the condition that respondent would do the operation. 3. However, Dr. AK Mukherjee did the operation for removal of uterus. When he opened her stomach, fluid oozed out of the abdomen. Dr. Mukherjee contacted respondent on whose advice he closed the stomach which resulted in intestinalis fistula. She remained ill for 3(1/2) months during which she has to suffer terrible physical torture as well as mental agony and finally shed died. 4. The Respondent later claimed that the complainant’s wife was not his p...