Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (2.23 seconds)
Documents citing Kamalakar Nandram Bhavsar And Ors. vs State Of Maharashtra on 21 November, 2003

Dayanand S/O Shivdas Rajmane And Anr vs The State Of Maharashtra on 3 August, 2018

15. Learned counsel for the appellants accused has assailed the aforesaid evidence mainly on the ground that P.W.4 Dr. Ashok Dake has admitted in his cross-examination that deceased Poonam was being given oxygen support since her arrival in the hospital till P.W.4 Dr. Ashok Dake left the hospital at about 5.00 p.m. and in such circumstances it is difficult to believe that deceased Poonam could have made dying declarations when she was not even capable by ::: Uploaded on - 03/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/08/2018 01:43:09 ::: crapl724.15 -17- breathing by herself. Learned counsel, in order to substantiate his contentions, placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme court in the case of Kamalakar Nandram Bhavsar and others vs. State of Maharashtra (supra). The Supreme Court, in para 7 of the above cited case, has made the following observations:-
Bombay High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - V K Jadhav - Full Document

Kamlesh Devi And Ors. vs State Of J And K on 11 July, 2007

v. Laxman Kumar reported as , Munnu Raja and Anr. v. The State of M.P. reported as , Kamalakar Nandram Bhavsar and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra reported as AIR 2004 SC 503, Paparambaka Rosamma and Ors. v. State of A.P. reported as , Laxman v. State of Maharashtra reported as , the conviction of the appellants cannot be sustained on the basis of the Dying declaration of Kanta Devi.
Jammu & Kashmir High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - J P Singh - Full Document

Kanti Lal vs State Of Rajasthan on 17 April, 2009

26] In Kamalakar Nandram Bhavsar Vs. State of Maharashtra [[2004] 10 SCC 192], this Court on scrutiny of the evidence on record found that the victim of dowry death/bride burning had suffered burn injuries to the extent of 94-95 % could not have made dying declaration as stated by the doctor during the cross-examination that a dying declaration was made by the victim when she was in hospital. The alleged dying declaration was admitted in evidence on behest of defence by trial court supportive to the defence of the accused. On the facts of the case, this Court observed that source of production of dying declaration was neither mentioned in the trial court's judgment nor was there any evidence to prove the said document. In these circumstances, this Court held that the High Court had rightly rejected the said dying declaration. 27] In the present case, as noticed in the earlier part of the judgment A-1 and A-3 have not proved on record the source of production of the dying declaration by DW-2 who after recording the statement of the deceased was duty bound to 26 hand over the alleged dying declaration under a sealed cover to the prosecuting agency. In this case, the origin and source of the alleged dying declaration produced by DW-2 at the time of his examination as a defence witness is highly doubtful and such document cannot be accepted as genuine and truthful document in support of the defence of A-1 and A-3.
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 25 - L S Panta - Full Document

Kamlesh Devi And Ors vs State Of T.N on 11 July, 2007

V. Laxman Kumar reported as AIR 1986 SC, 250, Munnu Raja & anr. V. The State of M.P. reported as AIR 1976 SC, 2199, Kamalakar Nandram Bhavsar & Ors. V. State of Maharashtra reported as AIR 2004 SC, 503, Paparambaka Rosamma & Ors. V. State of A.P. reported as AIR 1999 SC, 3455, Laxman V. State of Maharashtra reported as (2002) 6 SCC, 710, the conviction of the appellants cannot be sustained on the basis of the Dying declaration of Kanta Devi.
Jammu & Kashmir High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Puja Kumari vs The State Of Bihar on 29 May, 2017

32. Learned counsel for the informant has relied on judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Praveen Pradhan Vs. State of Uttranchal and Anr. reported in (2012)9 SCC 734, Kamalakar Nandram Bhavsar and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2004)10 SCC 192, Didigam Bikshapathi and Anr. Vs. State of A.P. reported in (2008)2 SCC 403, Virendra Kumar Vs. State of U.P. reported in (2007)9 SCC 211, Moti Lal Vs. State of M.P. (Now Chhattisgarh) reported in (2004)2 SCC 469 and Sahebrao and Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2006)9 SCC 794 for his submission that the referred cases would reveal that in similar situated facts and circumstances, the Court held that instigation to commit suicide was there.
Patna High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - B Kumar - Full Document

Virendra Sah vs The State Of Bihar on 29 May, 2017

32. Learned counsel for the informant has relied on judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Praveen Pradhan Vs. State of Uttranchal and Anr. reported in (2012)9 SCC 734, Kamalakar Nandram Bhavsar and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2004)10 SCC 192, Didigam Bikshapathi and Anr. Vs. State of A.P. reported in (2008)2 SCC 403, Virendra Kumar Vs. State of U.P. reported in (2007)9 SCC 211, Moti Lal Vs. State of M.P. (Now Chhattisgarh) reported in (2004)2 SCC 469 and Sahebrao and Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2006)9 SCC 794 for his submission that the referred cases would reveal that in similar situated facts and circumstances, the Court held that instigation to commit suicide was there.
Patna High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - B Kumar - Full Document

Dilawar Singh vs State Of U.P. on 9 August, 2024

In Kamalakar Nandram Bhavsar v. State of Maharashtra [(2004) 10 SCC 192 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 495] this Court on scrutiny of the evidence on record found that the victim of dowry death/bride burning had suffered burn injuries to the extent of 94-95% could not have made dying declaration as stated by the doctor during the cross-examination that a dying declaration was made by the victim when she was in hospital. The alleged dying declaration was admitted in evidence at the behest of the defence by the trial court supportive to the defence of the accused. On the facts of the case, this Court observed that the source of production of dying declaration was neither mentioned in the trial court's judgment nor was there any evidence to prove the said document. In these circumstances, this Court held that the High Court had rightly rejected the said dying declaration.
Allahabad High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next