Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.71 seconds)Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Krishan Lal Gera vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 4 July, 2011
14.7 In
a recent decision of the Apex Court in the 10
case of Krishan
vs. State of Haryana reported in (2013) 3 SCC 280, the
Apex Court has held that
it is not an absolute principle of law that a dying declaration
cannot form the sole basis of conviction of an accused. Where the
dying declaration is true and correct, the attendant circumstances
show it to be reliable and it has been recorded in accordance with
law, the deceased made the dying declaration of her own accord and
upon due certification by the doctor with regard to the state of
mind and body, then it may not be necessary for the court to look
for corroboration. In such cases, the dying declaration alone can
form the basis for the conviction of the accused. But where the
dying declaration itself is attended by suspicious
circumstances, has not been recorded in accordance with law and
settled procedures and practices, then, it may be necessary for the
court to look for corroboration of the same.
Shudhakar vs State Of M.P on 24 July, 2012
14.6 In
the case of Shudhakar vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in
(2012) 7 SCC 569, the Apex Court has held that a dying
declaration is the last statement made by a person at a stage
when he is in serious apprehension of his death and expects no
chances of his survival. At such time, it is expected that a person
will speak the truth and only the truth and that normally in such
situations, courts attach intrinsic value of truthfulness to such
statement. It is also held that once such statement has been made
voluntarily, it is reliable and is not an attempt by deceased to
cover up truth or falsely implicate a person, then courts can safely
rely on such dying declaration and it can form the basis of
conviction, more so where version given by other prosecution
evidence, there is no reason for courts to doubt truthfulness of
such dying declaration.
Section 428 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Surinder Kumar vs State Of Haryana on 21 October, 2011
14.2 In
the case of Surinder Kumar (supra), the Apex Court has held in para
17 as under:
Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs State Of Maharashtra on 17 July, 1984
Similarly in the case of
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda (supra), the Apex Court has observed that
where two possibilities are available, the benefits which go to the
accused will undoubtedly be entitled to the accused.
Gopal vs The Administrative Officer, Madhya ... on 19 August, 1985
In
the case of Gopal (supra), the Apex Court in para 13 has
observed as under:
Kamalavva & Anr vs State Of Karnataka on 29 July, 2009
14.4 On
the other hand, the Apex Court in the case of Kamalavva and another
vs. State of Karnataka reported in (2009) 13 SCC 614 has held as
under: