Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 34 (0.34 seconds)Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Jayamma vs State Of Karnataka on 31 March, 2011
20. Next we come to the dying declarations, which are principally
relied upon by the prosecution to indict the accused. Before we advert to the
actual admissibility and credibility of the dying declarations, it will be
apposite to consider the case law on the evidentiary value of a dying
declaration and the sentence of conviction solely based thereupon. For this,
we may usefully refer to and rely upon the contents of paragraph Nos. 14 to
17 in the case of Jayamma Vs. State of Karnataka (supra) cited by Dr.
Chaudhry which has referred to a few decisions of the Supreme Court which
according to us are closer to the facts of the present case. Paragraph Nos. 14
to 17 of the said judgment read thus:-
K Ramachandra Reddy & Anr vs The Public Prosecutor on 5 May, 1976
(iii) The 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 an opportunity to
observe and identify the assailants and was in a fit state to make the
declaration. (See K. Ramachandra Reddy v. Public Prosecutor [(1976)
3 SCC 618]);
Bhajju @ Karan Singh vs State Of M.P on 15 March, 2012
14.9. He has therefore referred to and relied upon the decision of the
Supreme Court in the case of Bhajju Vs. State of MP8 to argue that the
admissibility of a dying declaration is founded on the principle of necessity
and court as a rule of prudence must look for corroboration and should a
dying declaration suffer from any infirmity the same cannot form the basis of
conviction. He has to be judged and appreciated in light of the surrounding
circumstances and its weight determined by reference to the principle
governing the weighing of evidence. He submitted that in the present case
the two written dying declarations and the oral dying declaration suffer from
material infirmities and without corroboration no conviction can be based on
such a oral dying declaration.
Kuriachan Chacko & Ors vs State Of Kerala on 10 July, 2008
In Chacko v. State of Kerala13, this Court declined to accept the
prosecution case based on the dying declaration where the deceased was
about 70 years old and had suffered 80 per cent burns. It was held that it
62 of 77
::: Uploaded on - 06/05/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 07/05/2022 06:57:59 :::
conf 4-19.doc
would be difficult to accept that the injured could make a detailed dying
declaration after a lapse of about 8 to 9 hours of the burning, giving minute
details as to the motive and the manner in which he had suffered the
injuries. That was of course a case where there was no certification by the
doctor regarding the mental and physical condition of the deceased to make
dying declaration. Nevertheless, this Court opined that the manner in
which the incident was recorded in the dying declaration created grave
doubts to the genuineness of the document. The Court went on to opine
that even though the doctor therein had recorded "patient conscious,
talking" in the wound certificate, that fact by itself would not further the
case of the prosecution as to the condition of the patient making the dying
declaration, nor would the oral evidence of the doctor or the investigating
officer, made before the court for the first time, in any manner improve the
prosecution case.
Sham Shankar Kankaria vs State Of Maharashtra on 1 September, 2006
In Sham Shankar Kankaria v. State of Maharashtra 14, it was
restated that the dying declaration is only a piece of untested evidence and
must like any other evidence satisfy the Court that what is stated therein is
the unalloyed truth and that it is absolutely safe to act upon it. Further,
relying upon the decision in Paniben v. State of Gujarat 15 wherein this Court
summed up several previous judgments governing dying declaration, the
Court in Sham Shankar Kankaria14 (Supra) reiterated: (Sham Shankar
Kankaria, SCC pp. 172-73, para 11)
"11. .... (i) There is neither rule of law nor of prudence that
dying declaration cannot be acted upon without corroboration.
Smt. Paniben vs State Of Gujarat on 13 March, 1992
In Sham Shankar Kankaria v. State of Maharashtra 14, it was
restated that the dying declaration is only a piece of untested evidence and
must like any other evidence satisfy the Court that what is stated therein is
the unalloyed truth and that it is absolutely safe to act upon it. Further,
relying upon the decision in Paniben v. State of Gujarat 15 wherein this Court
summed up several previous judgments governing dying declaration, the
Court in Sham Shankar Kankaria14 (Supra) reiterated: (Sham Shankar
Kankaria, SCC pp. 172-73, para 11)
"11. .... (i) There is neither rule of law nor of prudence that
dying declaration cannot be acted upon without corroboration.
Munnu Raja & Anr vs The Stae Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 November, 1975
(See
Munnu Raja v. State of M.P.[(1976) 3 SCC 104]);
State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Ram Sagar Yadav And Ors. on 22 January, 1985
(See State of U.P. v. Ram Sagar Yadav [(1985) 1 SCC 552 and
Ramawati Devi v. State of Bihar [(1983)1 SCC 211]);