Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 18 (0.71 seconds)
Manisha D/O Sampati Muley vs The State Of Maharashtra on 29 November, 2022 cites

Shakuntalabai Wd/O Khairuprasad Joshi vs * The State Of Maharashtra on 6 January, 2011

What is relevant to note is that there is no correction made herein to suit convenience of prosecution. Pertinently, Medical Officer was present through out recording of statement and he had ascertained condition of deceased during entire period. In such facts, no doubt could be created by defence in correct recording of statement of deceased. Hence, accused cannot derive any benefit from judgment in case of Shakuntalabai wd/o. Khairuprasad Joshi & Anr. Vs. The State of Maharashtra (cited supra), as in that case dying declaration was discarded for want of certification by doctor or at least his signature on statement.
Bombay High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 5 - A P Bhangale - Full Document

Jasdeep Singh Alias Jassu vs State Of Punjab on 8 September, 2016

31. Learned counsel for accused No. 3 submitted that even if evidence led by the prosecution is accepted as it is, there is nothing to indicate that there was meeting of mind between accused No. 3 and co-accused and that no inference can be drawn of common intention of this accused in killing the deceased. He placed reliance on the case of Jasdeep Singh Alias Jassu Vs. State of ::: Uploaded on - 29/11/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/11/2022 21:58:28 ::: ( 31 ) Punjab (cited supra) in order to contend that in absence of any such evidence conviction of the accused No. 3 is not sustainable. By referring to the spot panchnama showing seizure of Can it is submitted that the Can seized from the spot was not a peculiar Can ordinarily used for storing kerosene. It is submitted that there is no evidence to indicate that accused No. 3 had knowledge about kerosene being brought to the spot by accused No. 1 and accused No. 2 being there with match stick. In absence of this evidence according to him merely because accused No. 3 had called deceased out of house no inference can be drawn about she sharing common intention with the co-accused to set deceased ablaze. The said submission is countered by learned APP by pointing out that there is overtact on the part of this accused in calling deceased out of the house and thereby she facilitated the commission of act of setting her on ablaze by the co- accused. This according to him is more than sufficient evidence to show common intention shared by all the accused for committing crime in question.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Ramdhan Fulsing Chavan And Another vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 22 January, 2021

22. Learned counsel appearing for the accused made reference to the judgment of this Court in case of Subhash s/o. Ratan Chavan & Anr. Vs. The State of Maharashtra (cited supra) to submit that considering discrepancies in two statements of deceased (Exhibit 30 and 40) with regard to previous incident, they are not reliable and cannot become basis of conviction. It is pertinent to note that in said case in two different statements deceased has attributed the act of pouring ::: Uploaded on - 29/11/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/11/2022 21:58:28 ::: ( 23 ) kerosene and setting ablaze to two different accused and since it was found to be a major inconsistency in multiple dying declarations those dying declarations were not relied upon. The law on the point of multiple dying declarations states that there has to be material discrepancies and inconsistencies in those dying declarations in order to make them unreliable and not any discrepancy. It need not be emphasized that there cannot be identical/stereotype statements made by any person at two different time. The criteria which is required for the purpose of ascertaining the validity and reliability of the statement is as to whether there is consistency in respect of the material aspect of the incident in those statements. In the present we find no material inconsistency in the statement made by the deceased with regard to the incident in which she was set on fire.
Bombay High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 3 - S D Kulkarni - Full Document
1   2 Next