Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.31 seconds)
Sunita Suresh Gaikwad vs The State Of Maharashtra on 10 December, 2018 cites

Tapinder Singh vs State Of Punjab on 7 May, 1970

201.APEAL.261.99.doc respectively. In the result the dying declarations Exh.26 and Exkh.35 are inconsistent on material aspect. So far as the history recorded by the Medical Officers in casualty ward and also in the burn ward are concerned, as a result of the interference, deceased Noorjahan had given the history that Saifan Nadaf and the Appellant-Accused caused the burns on her person by pouring kerosene on her person and further exonerated Saifan Nadaf and made allegations against the present Appellant-Accused only. 14 In the instant case the prosecution has not followed the best evidence rule. The prosecution has not examined Saifan Nadaf if he was not arraigned as an accused and further the elder mother Mahaboobbi to whom deceased Noorjahan narrated the incident at the first instance. 15 In the case of Tapinder Singh vs. State of Punjab 1, the Supreme Court held that -
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 118 - I D Dua - Full Document

Amol Singh vs State Of M.P on 15 May, 2008

16 It is well settled that Court has to examine dying declaration scrupulously with a microscopic eye to find out whether the dying declaration is voluntary, truthful, made in a conscious state of mind and without being influenced by the relatives present or by the investigating agency who may interested in the success of the investigation or which may be negligent while recording the dying declaration. If the truthfulness of the dying declaration cannot be doubted, it being a substantive evidence, the same alone can form a basis of conviction of the accused and the same does not require any corroboration whatsoever. Though dying declaration is entitled to a great weight, it is to be noted that accused get no opportunity to cross-examine. This is the reason that the dying declaration should be of such a nature as to inspire full confidence of the Court in its correctness. The Court has to be on guard that the statement of the deceased was not as a result of either tutoring or prompting or product of imagination. 17 So far as the multiple dying declarations are concerned, in case of Amol Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh2, relied upon by the learned Counsel for the Appellant, the Supreme Court in para 13 of the judgment 2 (2008) 5 SCC 468
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 106 - A Pasayat - Full Document

Kundula Bala Subrahmanyam And Anr vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 26 March, 1993

"13. Law relating to appreciation of evidence in the form of more than one dying declaration is well settled. Accordingly, it is not the plurality of the dying declarations but the reliability thereof that adds weight to the prosecution case. If a dying declaration is found to be voluntary, reliable and made in fit mental condition, it can be relied upon without any corroboration. The statement should be consistent throughout. If the deceased had several opportunities of making such dying declarations, that is to say, if there are more than one dying declaration they should be consistent. (See: Kundula Bala Subrahmanyam v. State of A.P. [ (1993) 2 SCC 684]. However, if some inconsistencies are noticed between one dying declaration and the other, the court has to examine the nature of the inconsistencies, namely, whether they are material or not. While scrutinizing the contents of various dying declarations, in such a situation, the court has to examine the same in the light of the various surrounding facts and circumstances."
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 157 - N P Singh - Full Document

Thurukanni Pompiah And Anr. vs State Of Mysore on 25 September, 1964

"10. While appreciating the credibility of the evidence produced before the Court, the Court must view the evidence as a whole and come to a conclusion as to its genuineness and truthfulness. The mere fact that two different versions are given but one name is common in both of them cannot be a ground for convicting the named person. The court must be satisfied that the dying declaration is truthful. If there are two dying declarations giving two different versions, a serious doubt is created about the truthfulness of the dying declarations. It may be that if there was any other reliable evidence on record, this Court could have considered such corroborative evidence to test the truthfulness of the dying declarations. The two dying declarations, however, in the instant case stand by themselves and there is no other reliable evidence on record by reference to which their truthfulness can be tested. It is well settled that one piece of unreliable evidence cannot be used to corroborate another piece of unreliable evidence. The High Court while considering the evidence on record has rightly applied the principles laid down by this Court in Thurukanni Pompiah and another Vs. State of Mysore, AIR 1965 SC 939, and Khusal Rao Vs. State of Bombay, 1958 SCR 552."
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 63 - R S Bachawat - Full Document
1