Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.57 seconds)Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Ramawati Devi vs State Of Bihar on 5 January, 1983
(ii) If the Court is satisfied that the dying
declaration is true and voluntary it can base
conviction on it, without corroboration. (State
of U.P. v. Ram Sagar Yadav, Ramawati Devi v.
State of Bihar).
K Ramachandra Reddy & Anr vs The Public Prosecutor on 5 May, 1976
(iii) This Court has to scrutinise the dying
declaration carefully and must ensure that the
declaration is not the result of tutoring,
prompting or imagination. The deceased had
opportunity to observe and identify the
assailants and was in a fit state to make the
declaration. (R. Ramachandra Reddy v. Public
Prosecutor).
Rasheed Beg And Ors. vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 November, 1973
(iv) Where dying declaration is suspicious it
should not be acted upon without corroborative
evidence. (Rasheed Beg v. State of M.P.)
Kake Singh Alias Surendra Singh vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 April, 1981
(v) Where the deceased was unconscious
and could never make any dying declaration
the evidence with regard to it is to be rejected.
(Kake Singh v. State of M.P.)
Ram Manorath vs State Of U.P on 10 March, 1981
(vi) A dying declaration which suffers from
infirmity cannot form the basis of conviction.
(Ram Manorath v. State of U.P.)
State Of Maharashtra vs Krishnamurti Laxmipati Naidu on 12 November, 1980
(vii) Merely because a dying declaration does
not contain the details as to the occurrence, it
is not to be rejected. (State of Maharashtra v.
Krishnamurti Laxmipati Naidu)
Sri Ram Builders vs State Of M.P. & Ors on 25 April, 2014
(ix) Normally the court in order to satisfy
whether deceased was in a fit mental condition
to make the dying declaration look up to the
medical opinion. But where the eye witness has
said that the deceased was in a fit and
conscious state to make this dying declaration,
the medical opinion cannot prevail. (Nanahau
Ram v. State of M.P.)