Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.46 seconds)Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Shankarlal Gyarasilal Dixit vs State Of Maharashtra on 17 December, 1980
In Shankarlal Gyarasilal Dixit Vs. State of
Maharashtra 1981 SCC (Cri) 315 the Apex Court observed
as under:
P.V. Radhakrishna vs State Of Karnataka on 25 July, 2003
16. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand,
referred to the observations in P.V. Radhakrishnan Vs. State
of Karnataka AIR 2003 SC 2859 to contend that the
admission of a dying declaration is based on the principle in
the legal maxim "nemo moriturus proesumitur mentiri", i.e.
A man will not meet his maker with a lie in his mouth".
Thus, even though the accused is deprived of an
opportunity to cross-examine the deponent, a dying
declaration can be the sole basis of a conviction though the
court has to be on guard that the declaration was true and
voluntary. The absence of a certification as to the state of
mind of the declarant was held not to be vital when the
police officials recorded the statement of a deceased in the
presence of a doctor. Similarly the percentage of burns
suffered by the deceased were not alone the determinative
factor for the state of mind.
State Of Karnataka vs Shariff on 27 January, 2003
Learned counsel referred to
the judgment in State of Karnataka Vs. Shariff AIR 2003 SC
1074 to contend that the statement recorded by police
personnel cannot be discarded on that ground alone and it
was observed that there was no law that required that the
dying declaration must necessarily be made to a
Magistrate.
Smt. Kamla vs State Of Punjab on 18 November, 1992
In Smt. Kamla Vs.
State of Punjab AIR 1993 SC 374 it was observed that if
there are more than one dying declarations with
inconsistencies noticed between them, the court has to
examine the nature of the inconsistencies, namely whether
they are material or not. An important aspect is that while
a dying declaration can form the basis of conviction, due
care has to be taken keeping in mind that the accused gets
no opportunity of cross-examining the deponent.
Section 161 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
State Of Gujarat vs Khumansingh Karsan Singh And Others on 10 March, 1992
In State
of Gujarat Vs. Khumansingh Karsan Singh & Ors. AIR 1994
SC 1641 conviction was held not sustainable on the basis of
inconsistent dying declaration where there was possibility
of tutoring and false involvement.
Dandu Lakshmi Reddy vs State Of A.P on 17 August, 1999
12. A conviction based on the appreciation of two dying
declarations with material contradictions was held not
sustainable by the Supreme Court in Dandu Lakshmi Reddy
Vs. State of A.P. (1999) 7 SCC 69. In one dying declaration
it had been stated that the deceased was set on fire by her
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
CRL. A. No.156 of 1997 Page 8 of 14
husband and mother-in-law when she was lighting a stove
for preparing coffee while in the other dying declaration the
deceased stated that when she was sweeping, her husband
and mother-in-law poured kerosene oil on her, lit the
matchstick and set her on fire.
1