Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (4.76 seconds)
Documents citing Sayarabano @ Sultanabegum vs State Of Maharashtra on 8 February, 2007

Rahul S/O Limbaji Thorat vs The State Of Maharashtra on 20 October, 2020

In Sayarabano @ Sultanabegum v. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 12 SCC 562 : (AIR 2007 SC (Supp) 398 : 2007 AIR SCW 1136), two Dying Declarations had been recorded. As per the first declaration, the deceased had met with an accident. She was hit by the kerosene lamp which fell on her body and caught fire. While recording the second declaration, the Judicial Magistrate asked her why she was changing her statement. The deceased replied that her Mother-in- Law had told her not to give any statement against the family members of her in-laws and that was the reason, why she had not involved any person in the earlier statement. But, in fact, it was her Mother-in-Law who threw the kerosene lamp on her and thus, she was burnt. She also stated that her Mother-in-Law was harassing her. In such a situation, this Court held that the second dying declaration was true and inspired confidence. III-treatment of the decreased was clearly established and completely proved on the basis of the evidence of other witnesses.
Bombay High Court Cites 48 - Cited by 0 - B U Debadwar - Full Document

Bontha Ramachandradu, Kurnool Dist. vs Inspector Of Police, Sirvel Circle, ... on 4 February, 2022

15) In Sayarabano Alias Sultanabegum v. State of Maharashtra3, the Court was dealing with the case where there was a quarrel between the accused and the deceased during 2 (2004) 9 SCC 713 3 (2007) 12 SCC 562 9 which the appellant poured kerosene from the lamp on the deceased, which resulted in the deceased catching fire and finally succumbing to death. In the first dying declaration, the deceased attributed the said act to an accident, but, however, before the Magistrate a different version is set up where-under it was mentioned that the accused threw the kerosene lamp on her. Apart from that, it was also mentioned that her husband used to beat her on instructions of his mother. When asked by the Magistrate as to why she was changing the statement, the deceased is said to have informed that she was told not to give any statement against the family members. A week thereafter, the deceased died. The Court held that in a given set of circumstances, the same can be relied upon and distinguished Leela Srinivasa Rao [cited above], more so, in the evidence of PW2 and PW3.
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 36 - Cited by 1 - C P Kumar - Full Document

Sirumalla Bhumesh vs State Of A.P. on 6 August, 2007

In a recent decision in Sayarabano alias Sultanabegum v. State of Maharashtra 2007 (2) Supreme 49 : 2007 Cri LJ 1458, where there were two dying declarations recorded by a Magistrate, where, in the first dying declaration, the deceased has not attributed overt-acts to the accused-mother-in-law and when a subsequent dying declaration was recorded by the Magistrate, the deceased attributed overt-acts to the accused-mother-in-law, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that conviction can be based on such a subsequent dying declaration, in spite of the fact that in the earlier dying declaration no overt-acts were attributed to the accused-mother-in-law. The reason given was, at the time of recording of the first declaration, the accused-mother-in-law and her people were present and the deceased, at the time of recording the second dying declaration, has stated that, earlier, at the instance of the accused-mother-in-law, she gave the dying declaration not implicating her (mother-in-law) and the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that by the time of recording of second dying declaration, as parents of the deceased and her other people came, the deceased must have picked-up courage and gave the true facts about the cause of her death.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 12 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Lakhan vs State Of M.P on 9 August, 2010

In Sayarabano@Sultanabegum v. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 12 SCC 562, two Dying Declarations had been recorded. As per the first declaration, the deceased had met with an accident. She was hit by the kerosene lamp which fell on her body and caught fire. While recording the second declaration, the Judicial Magistrate asked her why she was changing her statement. The deceased replied that her Mother-in-Law had told her not to give any statement against the family members of her in-laws and that was the reason, why she had not involved any person in the earlier statement. But, in fact, it was her Mother-in-Law who threw the kerosene lamp on her and thus, she was burnt. She also stated that her Mother-in-Law was harassing her. In such a situation, 1 this Court held that the second dying declaration was true and inspired confidence. Ill treatment of the decreased was clearly established and completely proved on the basis of the evidence of other witnesses.
Supreme Court of India Cites 30 - Cited by 55 - B S Chauhan - Full Document
1   2 Next