Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.45 seconds)

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

8. Mr. Patel, the learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Shakuntalabai Khairuprasad Joshi Vs. State of Maharashtra1 . He placed reliance on paragraph 9 of the said decision wherein it has stated that "it is necessary for the recording officer to ascertain fitness of the state of mind of the patient / victim to make a dying declaration. The patient must be in a position to understand and answer the questions put to him / her. The preliminary questions put up by the recording officer and answers given by the patient assumes importance for to rely upon the same in order to record conviction. In other words, sufficient evidence is necessary to make the dying declaration worthy of reliance."
Bombay High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 5 - A P Bhangale - Full Document

Kalu Ram vs State Of Rajasthan on 28 July, 1999

1. cri apeal 167-11 (j).doc she died 17 days after the incident. If the appellant had ever intended Meena to die, he would not have immediately rushed her to the hospital in an effort to save her. In view of the evidence on record, we are inclined to think that the appellant did not intend to cause her death but unfortunately the situation slipped out of his control and it went to a fatal extent. It is obvious that the appellant realized his folly and was full of remorse, therefore, he immediately rushed his wife to the hospital in order to save her. In this view of the matter, the case would fall under Section 304-II of IPC. We stand fortified in taking this view in view of the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Kalu Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan 2 . In the said case also, similar facts arose and the Supreme Court held that the case would not be covered by Section 302 of IPC but it would be covered by Section 304-II of IPC.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 83 - Full Document
1