Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.35 seconds)Harbans Singh And Another vs State Of Punjab on 16 October, 1961
19. The legal position that emerges from these decisions is that in order to pass the test of reliability, a dying declaration has to be subjected to a very close scrutiny bearing in mind the fact that the statement in question has been made in the absence of the accused who had no opportunity to test the veracity of the statement by cross-examination. The law also permits placing dying declarations recorded by a competent magistrate in the form of questions and answers at a higher pedestal than one that is not recorded by the magistrate or is in the form of a narrative. The law does not require any corroboration for the dying declaration once the court comes to the conclusion that declaration is a truthful version of the deceased about the circumstancs of his/her death and the assailants responsible for the same. See State of Uttar Pradesh v. Mohammed Sayeed and Harbans Singh and Anr. v. The State of Punjab (supra).
Kushal Rao vs The State Of Bombay on 25 September, 1957
22. The third circumstance which also needs to be kept in mind is that the dying declaration was not recorded by the Magistrate nor is the same recorded in question-answer form. The decision of the Supreme Court in Khushal Rao v. State of Bombay 1958 SC 22 (supra) places a dying declaration recorded by a Magistrate in a question-answer form at a higher pedestal than that made to any other person or recorded in any other fashion. The deceased had received extensive burn injuries and so/was understandaby in a critical condition. Making a statement in a narrative form before a police officer, giving details was, therefore, in itself a difficult task for her, no matter the doctor had certified her to be fit to make such a statement. The possibility of introducing embellishments and padding of the version given by the deceased could not, therefore, be ruled out. It is also surprising to note that although the deceased was removed from the jhuggi and given some kind of medical aid on the spot by Dr. Kasyap, the prosecution did not produce any evidence in regard to her first version about the genesis of incident. It is but natural that immediately after the deceased was rescued from the jhuggi, the neighbours including her husband who reached the spot, would have enquired from her about the cause of her sustaining burns. No evidence whatsoever is available in that regard. The prosecution obviously expects the court to believe that no dying declaration was made by the deceased immediately after she was taken out of the jhuggi although it is natural that those who had gathered around her and who were known to her would have enquired from her the cause of her condition. It is only when the deceased reaches the hospital and is admitted for treatment that she, for the first time, named the appellants as the culprits for pouring kerosene and setting her afire.
Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 161 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
The State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Mohammed Sayeed on 26 March, 1957
19. The legal position that emerges from these decisions is that in order to pass the test of reliability, a dying declaration has to be subjected to a very close scrutiny bearing in mind the fact that the statement in question has been made in the absence of the accused who had no opportunity to test the veracity of the statement by cross-examination. The law also permits placing dying declarations recorded by a competent magistrate in the form of questions and answers at a higher pedestal than one that is not recorded by the magistrate or is in the form of a narrative. The law does not require any corroboration for the dying declaration once the court comes to the conclusion that declaration is a truthful version of the deceased about the circumstancs of his/her death and the assailants responsible for the same. See State of Uttar Pradesh v. Mohammed Sayeed and Harbans Singh and Anr. v. The State of Punjab (supra).
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
1