Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.21 seconds)
State Of Maharashtra vs Nivrutti Bhalerao And Ors on 31 July, 2017 cites

Paparambaka Rosamma & Ors vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 13 September, 1999

11. However, it must be mentioned that, Constitutional Bench of Apex Court, in Laxman V.s State of Maharashtra reported in (AIR 2002 SC 2973), over ruled Paparambaka Vs. State (cited supra) and ruled that, the ultimate test is whether the dying declaration can be held to be a truthful one and voluntarily given. Before recording the declaration, the officer concerned must find that the declarant was in fit condition to make the statement in question. Therefore, the finding of the learned trial Court that in absence of proper certification by concerned medical officer on the dying declaration (Exh.19) it is invalid, is not the correct position of law. However, after going through the reasoning given by learned trial Court while rejecting the three dying declarations, it becomes clear that, apart from certification of Medical Officer Dr. Patel (P.W.7), the learned trial Court has also considered that this medical officer was not the person who was providing treatment to the deceased and who was not aware what was the line of treatment and what medicines were administered to this patient. This witness was ::: Uploaded on - 19/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 20/08/2017 00:14:18 ::: Criminal Appeal No.67/2001 10 not aware whether any sedative was given to the patient. Considering these all aspects, learned trial Court rightly held that, in absence of evidence of Dr. Janapurkar, who treated the deceased, only on the basis of testimony of Dr. Patel (P.W.7), conclusion cannot be drawn that the deceased was in fit statement of mind to give dying declaration. Trial Court also considered that, prosecution has suppressed the case papers of the hospital wherein history of the injury is noted and even note is recorded regarding examination of the patient at the time of recording dying declaration. Therefore, considering the possibility of giving sedative to the deceased at the time of her treatment, the trial Court rightly held that the evidence of Dr. Patel (P.W.7) falls short to establish that deceased was conscious or in condition to give statement.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 183 - S P Kurdukar - Full Document

Sohan Lal Bothra vs Ram Narain Arvind And Ors. on 10 March, 1997

12. Trial Court has also noted in para 32 of the judgment that the dying declaration was not recorded by Head Constable Pathan (P.W.1) in the very words of the deceased. After going through the dying declaration (Exh.19), it emerges that, it has been recorded almost in the form of First Information Report. Even though Pathan (P.W.1) claims that he recorded the statement of deceased on the basis of questions put up to the deceased, those questions are not mentioned in the dying ::: Uploaded on - 19/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 20/08/2017 00:14:18 ::: Criminal Appeal No.67/2001 11 declaration. Therefore, possibility cannot be ruled out that the dying declaration was obtained by putting certain leading questions to the deceased. Even the scribe of the dying declaration is not examined by prosecution and nothing is on record which shows that dying declaration was read over to the deceased and after informing its contents to be correct by deceased, her thumb impression was obtained over it. Thus, the finding of the trial Court is correct that it was the duty of the prosecution to specifically bring on record that deceased heard the statement recorded by Head Constable and she admitted it to be true and correct. Reference can be made of the case Mohan Lal Vs. Ram Narayan reported in (AIR 1993 SC 2457), wherein the prosecution had not examined the scribe of the dying declaration without assigning any reason. The accused consequently had not got opportunity to cross-examine the scribe. Considering these circumstances, it was held that the dying declaration was not reliable.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 0 - Cited by 4 - Full Document
1