Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 19 (0.22 seconds)
Sri Biswajit Paul Alias Bishu vs The State Of Tripura on 11 October, 2017 cites

Shahid Khan vs State Of Rajasthan on 2 March, 2016

4. For convicting the appellant, the learned Additional Sessions Judge basically relied on the dying declarations (DDs) of the deceased made to the IO of the case (PW-15) on 11-8-2010 and the one made before the Executive Magistrate (PW-13) on 12-8-2010 i.e. Exbt.10, Exbt. 10/1, Exbt.11 and Exbt. 11/1 respectively and the statement of Ms. Suchitra Paul (PW-3), who is the niece of the informant and was about 8 years old at the time of taking her evidence. Assailing the impugned judgment, Mr. R. Dutta, the learned counsel for the appellant, has pointed out a number of defects in the DDs, which raised serious doubts on the genuineness thereof. He also submits that PW-3 is evidently a tutored witness and her presence at the PO at the time of incident is highly doubtful. For all these reasons, contends the learned counsel, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained in law and is liable to be set aside. Strong reliance is placed by him on the following decisions to fortify his various submissions: Shahid Khan v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2016 SC 1178; Bhagwan Singh and others v. State of MP, AIR 2003 SC 1088; K. Venkateshwarlu v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2012 Cri LJ 4388; Patiram v. State of Maharashtra, 2003 Cri LJ 4718; Babul Ghosh v. State of Tripura, (2015) 1 TLR 212 and Sujit Biswas v. State of Assam, 2013 Cril LJ 3140.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 72 - C Nagappan - Full Document

Bhagwan Singh & Ors vs State Of M.P on 23 January, 2003

4. For convicting the appellant, the learned Additional Sessions Judge basically relied on the dying declarations (DDs) of the deceased made to the IO of the case (PW-15) on 11-8-2010 and the one made before the Executive Magistrate (PW-13) on 12-8-2010 i.e. Exbt.10, Exbt. 10/1, Exbt.11 and Exbt. 11/1 respectively and the statement of Ms. Suchitra Paul (PW-3), who is the niece of the informant and was about 8 years old at the time of taking her evidence. Assailing the impugned judgment, Mr. R. Dutta, the learned counsel for the appellant, has pointed out a number of defects in the DDs, which raised serious doubts on the genuineness thereof. He also submits that PW-3 is evidently a tutored witness and her presence at the PO at the time of incident is highly doubtful. For all these reasons, contends the learned counsel, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained in law and is liable to be set aside. Strong reliance is placed by him on the following decisions to fortify his various submissions: Shahid Khan v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2016 SC 1178; Bhagwan Singh and others v. State of MP, AIR 2003 SC 1088; K. Venkateshwarlu v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2012 Cri LJ 4388; Patiram v. State of Maharashtra, 2003 Cri LJ 4718; Babul Ghosh v. State of Tripura, (2015) 1 TLR 212 and Sujit Biswas v. State of Assam, 2013 Cril LJ 3140.
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 706 - Full Document

K. Venkateshwarlu vs State Of A.P on 17 August, 2012

4. For convicting the appellant, the learned Additional Sessions Judge basically relied on the dying declarations (DDs) of the deceased made to the IO of the case (PW-15) on 11-8-2010 and the one made before the Executive Magistrate (PW-13) on 12-8-2010 i.e. Exbt.10, Exbt. 10/1, Exbt.11 and Exbt. 11/1 respectively and the statement of Ms. Suchitra Paul (PW-3), who is the niece of the informant and was about 8 years old at the time of taking her evidence. Assailing the impugned judgment, Mr. R. Dutta, the learned counsel for the appellant, has pointed out a number of defects in the DDs, which raised serious doubts on the genuineness thereof. He also submits that PW-3 is evidently a tutored witness and her presence at the PO at the time of incident is highly doubtful. For all these reasons, contends the learned counsel, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained in law and is liable to be set aside. Strong reliance is placed by him on the following decisions to fortify his various submissions: Shahid Khan v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2016 SC 1178; Bhagwan Singh and others v. State of MP, AIR 2003 SC 1088; K. Venkateshwarlu v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2012 Cri LJ 4388; Patiram v. State of Maharashtra, 2003 Cri LJ 4718; Babul Ghosh v. State of Tripura, (2015) 1 TLR 212 and Sujit Biswas v. State of Assam, 2013 Cril LJ 3140.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 72 - Full Document

Sri. Sujit Biswas vs State Of Assam on 28 May, 2013

4. For convicting the appellant, the learned Additional Sessions Judge basically relied on the dying declarations (DDs) of the deceased made to the IO of the case (PW-15) on 11-8-2010 and the one made before the Executive Magistrate (PW-13) on 12-8-2010 i.e. Exbt.10, Exbt. 10/1, Exbt.11 and Exbt. 11/1 respectively and the statement of Ms. Suchitra Paul (PW-3), who is the niece of the informant and was about 8 years old at the time of taking her evidence. Assailing the impugned judgment, Mr. R. Dutta, the learned counsel for the appellant, has pointed out a number of defects in the DDs, which raised serious doubts on the genuineness thereof. He also submits that PW-3 is evidently a tutored witness and her presence at the PO at the time of incident is highly doubtful. For all these reasons, contends the learned counsel, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained in law and is liable to be set aside. Strong reliance is placed by him on the following decisions to fortify his various submissions: Shahid Khan v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2016 SC 1178; Bhagwan Singh and others v. State of MP, AIR 2003 SC 1088; K. Venkateshwarlu v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2012 Cri LJ 4388; Patiram v. State of Maharashtra, 2003 Cri LJ 4718; Babul Ghosh v. State of Tripura, (2015) 1 TLR 212 and Sujit Biswas v. State of Assam, 2013 Cril LJ 3140.
Supreme Court of India Cites 27 - Cited by 555 - B S Chauhan - Full Document

Mukeshbhai Gopalbhai Barot vs State Of Gujarat on 4 August, 2010

5. Per contra, Mr. R.C. Debnath, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, supports the impugned judgment and submits that no interference is called for therein which is based on solid evidence. According to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the acceptability and admissibility of the two DDs has been clinchingly proved by the prosecution, and the trial court is well-justified in relying on such evidence to convict the appellant. It is also the contention of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the statement of PW-3, the sole eyewitness, has corroborated the two DDs in material particulars, and there is, as such, no reason to doubt the version of the prosecution that it was none but the appellant who set on fire the deceased for demand of dowry. He, therefore, strenuously submits that the appeal has no merit and is liable to be dismissed. He takes us to the following Crl. A(J) No.23/2013 Page 3 of 16 decisions to buttress his contentions: Mukeshbhai Gopalkhai Barot v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2010 SC 3692; State of HP v. Shree Kant Shekari, (2004) 8 SCC 153; Jakki alias Selvaraj and anr v. State, AIR 2007 SCW 1327; State of Rajasthan v. Kishore, AIR 1996 SC 3035; State of Punjab v. Hakam Singh, 2005 Cri LJ 4111 and Om Prakash v. State of Punjab, 1992 Cri LJ 3935.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 18 - Full Document

State Of Himachal Pradesh vs Shree Kant Shekari on 13 September, 2004

5. Per contra, Mr. R.C. Debnath, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, supports the impugned judgment and submits that no interference is called for therein which is based on solid evidence. According to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the acceptability and admissibility of the two DDs has been clinchingly proved by the prosecution, and the trial court is well-justified in relying on such evidence to convict the appellant. It is also the contention of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the statement of PW-3, the sole eyewitness, has corroborated the two DDs in material particulars, and there is, as such, no reason to doubt the version of the prosecution that it was none but the appellant who set on fire the deceased for demand of dowry. He, therefore, strenuously submits that the appeal has no merit and is liable to be dismissed. He takes us to the following Crl. A(J) No.23/2013 Page 3 of 16 decisions to buttress his contentions: Mukeshbhai Gopalkhai Barot v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2010 SC 3692; State of HP v. Shree Kant Shekari, (2004) 8 SCC 153; Jakki alias Selvaraj and anr v. State, AIR 2007 SCW 1327; State of Rajasthan v. Kishore, AIR 1996 SC 3035; State of Punjab v. Hakam Singh, 2005 Cri LJ 4111 and Om Prakash v. State of Punjab, 1992 Cri LJ 3935.
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 126 - A Pasayat - Full Document

Jakki @ Selvaraj And Anr vs State Rep. By The Ip, Coimbatore on 14 February, 2007

5. Per contra, Mr. R.C. Debnath, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, supports the impugned judgment and submits that no interference is called for therein which is based on solid evidence. According to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the acceptability and admissibility of the two DDs has been clinchingly proved by the prosecution, and the trial court is well-justified in relying on such evidence to convict the appellant. It is also the contention of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the statement of PW-3, the sole eyewitness, has corroborated the two DDs in material particulars, and there is, as such, no reason to doubt the version of the prosecution that it was none but the appellant who set on fire the deceased for demand of dowry. He, therefore, strenuously submits that the appeal has no merit and is liable to be dismissed. He takes us to the following Crl. A(J) No.23/2013 Page 3 of 16 decisions to buttress his contentions: Mukeshbhai Gopalkhai Barot v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2010 SC 3692; State of HP v. Shree Kant Shekari, (2004) 8 SCC 153; Jakki alias Selvaraj and anr v. State, AIR 2007 SCW 1327; State of Rajasthan v. Kishore, AIR 1996 SC 3035; State of Punjab v. Hakam Singh, 2005 Cri LJ 4111 and Om Prakash v. State of Punjab, 1992 Cri LJ 3935.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 29 - A Pasayat - Full Document

State Of Rajasthan vs Kishore on 27 February, 1996

5. Per contra, Mr. R.C. Debnath, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, supports the impugned judgment and submits that no interference is called for therein which is based on solid evidence. According to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the acceptability and admissibility of the two DDs has been clinchingly proved by the prosecution, and the trial court is well-justified in relying on such evidence to convict the appellant. It is also the contention of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the statement of PW-3, the sole eyewitness, has corroborated the two DDs in material particulars, and there is, as such, no reason to doubt the version of the prosecution that it was none but the appellant who set on fire the deceased for demand of dowry. He, therefore, strenuously submits that the appeal has no merit and is liable to be dismissed. He takes us to the following Crl. A(J) No.23/2013 Page 3 of 16 decisions to buttress his contentions: Mukeshbhai Gopalkhai Barot v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2010 SC 3692; State of HP v. Shree Kant Shekari, (2004) 8 SCC 153; Jakki alias Selvaraj and anr v. State, AIR 2007 SCW 1327; State of Rajasthan v. Kishore, AIR 1996 SC 3035; State of Punjab v. Hakam Singh, 2005 Cri LJ 4111 and Om Prakash v. State of Punjab, 1992 Cri LJ 3935.
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 151 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document

State Of Punjab vs Hakam Singh on 31 August, 2005

5. Per contra, Mr. R.C. Debnath, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, supports the impugned judgment and submits that no interference is called for therein which is based on solid evidence. According to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the acceptability and admissibility of the two DDs has been clinchingly proved by the prosecution, and the trial court is well-justified in relying on such evidence to convict the appellant. It is also the contention of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the statement of PW-3, the sole eyewitness, has corroborated the two DDs in material particulars, and there is, as such, no reason to doubt the version of the prosecution that it was none but the appellant who set on fire the deceased for demand of dowry. He, therefore, strenuously submits that the appeal has no merit and is liable to be dismissed. He takes us to the following Crl. A(J) No.23/2013 Page 3 of 16 decisions to buttress his contentions: Mukeshbhai Gopalkhai Barot v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2010 SC 3692; State of HP v. Shree Kant Shekari, (2004) 8 SCC 153; Jakki alias Selvaraj and anr v. State, AIR 2007 SCW 1327; State of Rajasthan v. Kishore, AIR 1996 SC 3035; State of Punjab v. Hakam Singh, 2005 Cri LJ 4111 and Om Prakash v. State of Punjab, 1992 Cri LJ 3935.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 46 - A K Mathur - Full Document

Mukesh & Anr vs State For Nct Of Delhi & Ors on 5 May, 2017

6. On perusing the impugned judgment and the evidence on record and after giving our thoughtful consideration to the submissions of the learned counsel for the rival parties, the first point for consideration is the admissibility and acceptability of the two DDs, particularly, the DD made by the deceased before the Executive Magistrate for proving the case of the prosecution. The legal position regarding the admissibility of a DD is now well settled by the Apex Court in a long line of decisions. If any authority is required, we may refer to the recent decision of the Apex Court in Mukesh v. State of Delhi, (2017) 6 SCC 1 wherein the legal position has been reiterated:
Supreme Court of India Cites 282 - Cited by 419 - Full Document
1   2 Next