Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.22 seconds)Section 161 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
State Of U.P. vs Madan Mohan And Ors. on 20 April, 1989
In State of U.P Vs. Madan Mohan (1989) 3 SCC 396 it was
held that where the prosecution version differs from the version as given
in the dying declaration, the said declaration cannot be acted upon.
Mohanlal Gangaram Gehani vs State Of Maharastra on 17 February, 1982
In Mohanlal Gangaram Gehani Vs. State of Maharashtra
(1982) 1 SCC 200, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that where there are
more than one statement in the nature of dying declaration, one first in
point of time must be preferred.
Sheikh Meheboob @ Hetak & Ors vs State Of Maharashtra on 10 March, 2005
In AIR 2005 SC 1805 , Sheikh Mahboob @ Hetak and Ors
Vs State of Maharashtra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held : " So much
FIR No. 269/10, PS. Kalyan Puri Page 36 of 45 St. Vs. Sonu Singh etc.
for the gaping holes in the prosecution story based on eye witness
account. Doubt arising from the eye witness account left too many
question marks and too many unexplained circumstances, which contra
indicated their acceptance without corroboration".
Rasheed Beg And Ors. vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 November, 1973
It was held in
Rasheed Beg Vs. State of M.P (1974) 4 SCC 264 where a dying
declaration is suspicious it should not be acted upon.