Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 24 (0.22 seconds)Section 25 in The Arms Act, 1959 [Entire Act]
Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Ram Lakhan Singh And Ors vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh on 6 May, 1977
In Criminal Appeal no. 2297 of 2009 Lakhan Vs State of M.P. decided on 9.8.2010, the Apex Court in para-9 has held,
The law is that if the court is satisfied that the dying declaration is true and made voluntarily by the deceased, conviction can be based solely on it, without any further corroboration. It is neither a rule of law nor of prudence that a dying declaration cannot be relied upon without corroboration. When a dying declaration is suspicious, it should not be relied upon without having corroborative evidence. The court has to scrutinize the dying declaration carefully and must ensure that the declaration is not the result of tutoring, prompting or imagination. The deceased must be in a fit state of mind to make the declaration and must identify the assailants. Merely because a dying declaration does not contain the details of the occurrence, it cannot be rejected and in case there is merely a brief statement, it is more reliable for the reason that the shortness of the statement is itself a guarantee of its veracity.
Ravi Chander And Ors. vs State Of Punjab on 5 December, 1996
"11. A dying declaration recorded by a competent Magistrate would stand on a much higher footing than the declaration recorded by officer of lower rank, for the reason that the competent Magistrate has no axe to grind against the person named in the dying declaration of the victim, however, circumstances showing anything to the contrary should not be there in the facts of the case. [ vide Ravi Chander & Ors. v. State of Punjab, (1998) 9 SCC 303; Harjit Kaur v. State of Punjab (1999) 6 SCC 545; Koli Chunilal Savji & Anr. v. State of Gujarat, (1999) 9 SCC 562; and Vikas & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra, (2008) 2 SCC 516.]"
Harjit Kaur vs State Of Punjab on 22 July, 1999
"11. A dying declaration recorded by a competent Magistrate would stand on a much higher footing than the declaration recorded by officer of lower rank, for the reason that the competent Magistrate has no axe to grind against the person named in the dying declaration of the victim, however, circumstances showing anything to the contrary should not be there in the facts of the case. [ vide Ravi Chander & Ors. v. State of Punjab, (1998) 9 SCC 303; Harjit Kaur v. State of Punjab (1999) 6 SCC 545; Koli Chunilal Savji & Anr. v. State of Gujarat, (1999) 9 SCC 562; and Vikas & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra, (2008) 2 SCC 516.]"
Koli Chunilal Savji & Anr vs State Of Gujarat on 29 September, 1999
"11. A dying declaration recorded by a competent Magistrate would stand on a much higher footing than the declaration recorded by officer of lower rank, for the reason that the competent Magistrate has no axe to grind against the person named in the dying declaration of the victim, however, circumstances showing anything to the contrary should not be there in the facts of the case. [ vide Ravi Chander & Ors. v. State of Punjab, (1998) 9 SCC 303; Harjit Kaur v. State of Punjab (1999) 6 SCC 545; Koli Chunilal Savji & Anr. v. State of Gujarat, (1999) 9 SCC 562; and Vikas & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra, (2008) 2 SCC 516.]"
Vikas & Ors vs State Of Maharashtra on 21 January, 2008
"11. A dying declaration recorded by a competent Magistrate would stand on a much higher footing than the declaration recorded by officer of lower rank, for the reason that the competent Magistrate has no axe to grind against the person named in the dying declaration of the victim, however, circumstances showing anything to the contrary should not be there in the facts of the case. [ vide Ravi Chander & Ors. v. State of Punjab, (1998) 9 SCC 303; Harjit Kaur v. State of Punjab (1999) 6 SCC 545; Koli Chunilal Savji & Anr. v. State of Gujarat, (1999) 9 SCC 562; and Vikas & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra, (2008) 2 SCC 516.]"
Chilamakur Nagireddy And Ors. vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 22 July, 1977
Similarly on account distinguishable facts the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Chilamakur Nagireddy Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 1977 (14) ACC 281 has no application. In this case the Hon'ble Court found that the doctor did not say that injury caused by accused no. 6 on the person of the deceased by itself was fatal or sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause his death. In the facts of this case several injuries were allegedly caused to the deceased by several accused persons. Although the doctor stated that the deceased would have died of shock due to fracture of temporal skull bone, injury to descending aorta, injury to live and large intestines ascending colon and haemorrhage but later stated that extenral injury no. 1 and injury no. 2 corresponding to internal injuries no. 1 and 3 are fatal each by itself. On this evidence the Apex Court differentiated the case of accused who was attributed with injury no.6 and consequently he was found guilty for the offence u/s 326 IPC while maintained the conviction of accused no. 1 and 9 u/s 302 IPC. Here we have single accused and sole fire-arm injury sustained by the deceased which has caused his death in about 1½ hours of the incident. Not only this, there is evidence that a fortnight ago the accused extended threat to the deceased when he was resisted by the later from extorting money from small shop-keepers of the village fair and a day before the incident Rakesh s/o Ram Sarup r/o Village Kathahar came along with the accused and pointed towards the house of Pradhan and his brother. It was a broad-day light incident. The deceased did not provoke the accused in any manner before the incident. PW-1 has stated in cross-examination that his brother was sitting on the seat of the bus. Before firing shot the accused catching the collar of the deceased made him to stand and then from close range fired shot. All this happened in such a quick succession that there was no opportunity to stop or resist him. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the accused had the requisite intention of causing bodily injury to the deceased which was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause his death. The act of the accused is covered under third clause of Section 300 IPC, so he has been rightly found guilty for the offence punishable u/s 302 IPC and so the argument of learned counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted.