Marimuthu vs State Rep. By on 5 November, 2019
40. These principles were reiterated in RAJENDRAN &
ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF TAMILNADU [1997 - 2 - L.W. (Crl.)
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.54 seconds)Documents citing
Rajendran & Anr vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 13 April, 2004
Susanta Das vs State Of Orissa on 6 January, 2016
In
this context, the Division Bench chose to follow the decisions of
this Court reported in Rajendran and another Vs. State of T.N.
– (2004) 10 SCC 689 and Bishna (supra), wherein, the descrip-
tion contained in Section 149 I.P.C and in what cases, and against
whom, the said provision can be applied has been clearly set out.
Poovammal vs State Represented By on 8 February, 2012
40. These principles were reiterated in RAJENDRAN & ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF
TAMILNADU [1997 - 2 - L.W. (Crl.)
Shamsad Ali vs State Of U.P. on 29 September, 2016
Hon'ble the Apex Court further approved and relied upon Rajendran versus State of Tamil Nadu (2004) 10 SCC 689 and Bishna versus State of West Bengal (2005) 12 SCC 657.
Ram Kumar & Others vs State Of U.P. on 28 November, 2016
In this context, the Division Bench chose to follow the decisions of this Court in Rajendran v. State of T.N. (2004) 10 SCC 689 and Bishna (2005) 12 SCC 657, wherein the description contained in Section 149 IPC and in what cases, and against whom, the said provision can be applied has been clearly set out. (Emphasized supplied)."
Nagendran vs State Rep.By on 10 January, 2008
18. We have carefully considered the said submission. The Apex Court has not held that even if there is a possibility of tutoring, the dying declaration should be disbelieved. The Apex Court has only cautioned that in that circumstance, to believe the dying declaration, the Court must see the availability of corroborative materials. From the judgment, we could see that the Apex Court has in fact laid down the law that even when there is a possibility of tutoring the deceased, such dying declaration can be believed in the event there are sufficient corroborative materials. As we have elaborately narrated the sequence of events right from the time when the deceased was taken to the hospital and till the dying declaration, Ex.P-8 was recorded by P.W.9, we find enough corroborative materials to show that the dying declaration could be believed and it was not given at the instance of P.W.1 by way of tutoring. We are forced to arrive at the said conclusion for yet another reason namely, that there is absolutely no suggestion put forth either to the doctors who have prepared the accident registers namely, Exs.P-9 and P-11 or the statement, Ex.P-10 recorded by P.W.10 or the Judicial Magistrate, P.W.9 who recorded the dying declaration, Ex.P-8 during cross examination. In the absence of such stand taken by the appellant before the trial Court, it will not lie in the mouth of the appellant to canvass the said point for the first time before this Court and if this Court entertains such a plea, it would result in failure to give any opportunity to the witnesses to rebut such suggestions. Learned counsel for the appellant also relied upon yet another judgment of this Court in Rajendran and another v. State represented by Inspector of Police, Vrinchipuram Police Station, Vellore District (2003) M.L.J.(Crl.) 1037 as to the possibility of tutoring the deceased when her dying declaration was recorded in the presence of the relatives. That case also can be distinguished having regard to the facts of the present case. In that case, initially the deceased had stated to the doctor who saw the deceased for the first time that she sustained burn injuries accidentally while she was cooking food in the kitchen. Strangely, she changed her mind and gave a dying declaration before the Judicial Magistrate implicating A-1 and A-2, who happened to be her husband and mother-in-law respectively. In that context, this Court had come to the conclusion that the relatives were present in between the period along with the deceased and hence there was a possibility of tutoring the deceased. However, on the facts of this case, right from the first accident register, Ex.P-9 which was recorded at 5.00 p.m., on 30.12.99 till the dying declaration Ex.P-8 was recorded by P.W.9 between 7.12 p.m., and 7.45 p.m., on the same day, the deceased had been consistent in implicating the accused for the commission of the offence. Hence the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant are of no assistance to the facts of the present case.
1