Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.37 seconds)The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 32 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Emperor vs Akbarali Karimbhai on 28 July, 1933
But in our opinion, there is no absolute
rule of law, or even a rule of prudence which has ripened
into a rule of law, that a dying declaration unless corrobo-
rated by other independent evidence, is Dot fit to be acted
upon, and made the basis of a conviction. No decision of
this Court, apart from the decision already noticed, has
been pointed out to us as an authority for the proposition
that a dying declaration, in order to be acted upon by a
court, must be corroborated by independent evidence. On the
other hand, the different High Courts in India (including
Burma) have taken conflicting views as to the value of a
dying declaration in part or in its entirety, without any
independent corroboration. For example, a Division Bench of
the Bombay High Court, presided over by Sir John Beaumont
C.J., has laid down in the case of Emperor v. Akbarali
Karimbhai (I), that a statement which is covered by s. 32(1)
of the Evidence Act is relevant evidence and has to be
judged on the same principles as other evidence, bearing in
mind that such a
Emperor vs Premananda Dutt on 12 February, 1925
declaration was not made on oath and was not subject to
cross-examination, and is, therefore, a weaker type ,of
evidence than that given by a witness on oath. Therefore,
if a part of a dying declaration is deliberately false, it
will not be safe to act upon the other part of the declara-
tion without very definite corroboration, That Bench also
ruled that it is not correct to postulate that because some
part of the dying declaration is false, the whole declara-
tion must necessarily be disregarded. The Bombay High
Court, thus, did not agree with the observations of the
Calcutta High Court in the case of Emperor v. Premananda
Dutt (1) to the effect that it is not permissible to accept
a dying declaration in part and to reject the other part and
that a dying declaration stood on a widely different footing
from the testimony of a witness given in court.
Article 136 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 133 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Baladin And Ors. vs State Of Uttar Pradesh on 18 October, 1955
To the same effect are the other deci-
sions of this Court, referred to in the reported decision
aforesaid, for example,
Narsingh v. The State of Uttar Pradesh (2)
Baladin v. The State of Uttar Pradesh(3)
sunder Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh(4)
It is, therefore, incumbent upon the High Courts to be
vigilant in cases coming up before them, by way of an appli-
cation for a certificate of fitness under Art. 134(1) (c) of
the Constitution.