Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 83 (0.69 seconds)
Documents citing Jagbir Singh vs State (Nct Of Delhi) on 4 September, 2019

Pappi Alias Mashkoor And Another vs State Of U.P. on 17 December, 2019

However, there may be cases where there are more than one dying declaration. If there are more than one dying declaration, the dying declarations may entirely agree with one another. There may be dying declarations where inconsistencies between the declarations emerge. The extent of the Jagbir Singh vs State (Nct Of Delhi) on 4 September, 2019 . The inconsistencies may turn out to be reconciliable. In such cases, where the inconsistencies go to some matter of detail or description but is incriminatory in nature as far as the accused is concerned, the court would look to the material on record to conclude as to which dying declaration is to be relied on unless it be shown that they are unreliable;
Allahabad High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dudekula Somaiah vs State Of on 23 April, 2026

28. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jagbir Singh Vs. State mentioned above held that "in the case of third category of cases is that where there are more than one dying declaration and inconsistencies between the declarations are absolute and the dying declarations are irreconcilable being repugnant to one another. The duty of the Court is to examine the rest of the materials in the form of evidence placed before the court and still conclude that the incriminatory dying declaration is capable of being relied upon".
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Veerpal And Another vs State Of U.P. on 30 May, 2020

In a recent judgement in Jagbir Singh Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2019)8 SCC 779, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that when there are multiple dying declarations, and in the earlier dying declaration, accused is not sought to be roped in, but in the later dying declaration, a somersault is made by the deceased, the case must be decided on the facts of each case and the Court will not be relieved of its duty to carefully examine the entirety of materials as also the circumstances surrounding the making of different dying declarations.
Allahabad High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

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

In so far as the multiple dying declarations are concerned, I find that the Law has been summarized by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Jagbir Singh Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) [(2019)8 SCC 779]. It has been held that when there are multiple dying declarations and if the accused has not been held responsible for the assault on the person of the deceased and if in a subsequent dying declaration, the deceased has taken a different stand resulting in contradictions, the Court would be obliged to carefully examine the entirety of materials as also the surrounding circumstances. It would be the duty of the Court to assess as to whether the incriminatory dying declaration brings out the truthful position in conjunction with the capacity of the deceased to make such declaration. The view of the Court must be based on an unshakable conclusion that rules out the element of tutoring the person who is rendering the dying declaration. It has also been held ::: Uploaded on - 21/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/10/2020 02:35:28 ::: 58 CrApeal.563.2015 that when there are multiple dying declarations, the Court should not prefer the statement which is incriminatory and reject the other merely because it does not implicate the accused. If 2 dying declarations relevant to the case are found to be completely incompatible with the remaining evidence, such dying declarations need to be rejected.
Bombay High Court Cites 48 - Cited by 0 - B U Debadwar - Full Document

Kuldeep Chaudhary @ Kuldeep Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 26 February, 2021

(emphasis supplied) [28] As per the ratio decidendi of these judgments, we have no hesitation to hold that Court below has rightly disbelieved the 19 Cr.A. No.585/2014 statement of Dr. Rajput (PW.29) regarding reason of death. [29] Oral dying declarations given by brother of deceased Gauri Shankar (PW.4), wife of deceased Geeta Devi (PW.5) and son Rajan Kumar Jaiswal (PW.6) were assailed by contending (i) the statement of Dr. Varsha Dhakad (DW.1) and Dr. Rajput (PW.29) shows that right from the date of admission in MY hospital till his death on 31/10/2010, Omprakash was unconscious and hence there was no question of giving oral dying declaration to family members. Since dying declarations are suspicious, in view of judgment of Supreme Court in Jagbir Singh (supra), it requires corroboration. [30] Dr. Varsha Dhakad (DW.1) deposed about health and condition of Omprakash at the time of hospitalization. Neither her statement nor statement of Dr. Rajput (P.W.29) contains any statement that during entire period of hospitalization, Omprakash continuously remained unconscious. Dr. Rajput (PW.29) on the basis of certain medical documents opined that there exists findings about each day's hospitalization at MY hospital that deceased was unconscious. The Court below opined that the medical documents on the strength which said statement was made by Dr. Rajput (PW.29) were not exhibited and proved by prosecution. Hence, his statement is not worthy of credence. We do not find any perversity or illegality in this finding. The finding of Court below that doctors do not remain with the patient in the hospital during the entire period of hospitalization and family members remain with the patient full time is a plausible view which does not require any interference. In that event, the statement of Gauri Shankar (PW.4) that during hospitalization Omprakash gained consciousness and informed him, his wife and son about 20 Cr.A. No.585/2014 assault by appellants cannot be doubted.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 10 - S Paul - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next