Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.16 seconds)
State Of Punjab vs Parveen Kumar on 18 November, 2004 cites

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

While appreciating the credibility of the evidence produced before the Court, the Court must view 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 declaration. 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