Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.85 seconds)Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Poonam Bai vs The State Of Chhattisgarh on 30 April, 2019
25. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of POONAM BAI
v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH2 has summarised the principles
relating to dying declaration especially when it is the sole basis for
conviction. Paragraph 10 of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced
as under:-
Section 32 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Ram Bihari Yadav vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 21 April, 1998
11. We are aware of the fact that the physical or
mental weakness consequent upon the approach of
death, a desire of self-vindication, or a disposition to
impute the responsibility for a wrong to another, as
well as the fact that the declarations are made in
the absence of the accused, and often in response
to leading questions and direct suggestions, and
with no opportunity for cross-examination: all these
considerations conspire to render such declarations a
dangerous kind of evidence. In order to ameliorate
such concerns, this Court has cautioned in umpteen
number of cases to have a cautious approach when
considering a conviction solely based on dying
declaration. Although there is no absolute rule of law
that the dying declaration cannot form the sole basis
for conviction unless it is corroborated, the courts must
be cautious and must rely on the same if it inspires
confidence in the mind of the Court [see: Ram Bihari
Yadav v. State of Bihar, (1998) 4 SCC 517 : 1998 SCC
(Cri) 1085 and Suresh Chandra Jana v. State of W.B.
14
(2017) 16 SCC 466 : (2018) 2 SCC (Cri) 187].
Atbir vs Govt. Of N.C.T Of Delhi on 9 August, 2010
12. Moreover, this Court has consistently laid down
that a dying declaration can form basis of conviction, if
in the opinion of the Court, it inspires confidence that
the deceased at the time of making such declaration,
was in a fit state of mind and there was no tutoring
or prompting. If the dying declaration creates any
suspicion in the mind of Court as to its correctness and
genuineness, it should not be acted upon without
corroborative evidence [see also: Atbir v. Govt. (NCT of
Delhi) , (2010) 9 SCC 1:(2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1110,
Paniben v. State of Gujarat (1992) 2 SCC 474 : 1992
SCC (Cri) 403 and Panneerselvam v. State of T.N.,
(2008) 17 SCC 190 : (2010) 4 SCC (Cri) 496]."
Madan @ Madhu Patekar vs The State Of Maharashtra on 6 February, 2018
27. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MADAN @
MADHU PATEKAR V. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA3 has
dealt with the issue of dying declaration and has held that it can be
the sole basis of conviction. Paragraphs 10, 11 and 12 of the
aforesaid judgment read as under:-
1