Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 32 (2.91 seconds)Section 34 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 149 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 386 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
P.V. Radhakrishna vs State Of Karnataka on 25 July, 2003
Despite
the absence of these two important facts, upon considering the evidence as a whole and
placing reliance upon the case of P.V. Radhakrishnan vs. State of Karnataka, AIR 2003
SC 2859 and Laxman vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2002 SC 2973, the dying declaration
of the wife showing homicidal death came to be accepted.
Dr. Subash Chand Son Of Sumer Prasad vs State Of U.P. Through Special ... on 8 September, 2005
40. Before we revert to the facts of this case, we may refer to the judgment in the
case of Subash Sony vs. State of Madhya Pradesh , reported in 2009 vol. 6 SCC 647,
which has laid down the requirements for acceptance of a dying declaration thus:
Sunder Singh And Others vs The State Of Punjab on 19 January, 1962
In Sunder Singh case (supra), four persons were tried for offence under
Section 302/34, IPC. The Sessions Judge gave the benefit of doubt to Rachpal
Singh and acquitted him, but convicted the other three of the offences charged.
No appeal was preferred against the acquittal of Rachpal Singh. But the three
convicted persons appealed to the High Court. The High Court held that Rachpal
Singh was present at the scene of occurrence and all the four accused had the
common intention alleged by the prosecution. The appellants in that case
contended before the Supreme Court that the High Court had no jurisdiction or
authority to embark upon an enquiry into the propriety or validity of the
acquittal of Rachpal Singh and that its finding that Rachpal Singh had taken part
in the offence as alleged by the prosecution had introduced serious infirmity in
the judgment of the High Court. It was pointed out that when the High Court
considered the criticism against the prosecution evidence based on the
assumption that the said evidence was found to be unreliable in so far as
Rachpal Singh is concerned, it was not appreciating that evidence with a view to
reverse the order of acquittal passed in favour of Rachpal Singh; it was
appreciating evidence only with a view to decide whether the said evidence
should be believed against the appellants before it and observed thus-