Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.26 seconds)
Mahadeva S/O Mara A vs The State Of Karnataka on 13 February, 2026 cites

Mukesh & Anr vs State For Nct Of Delhi & Ors on 5 May, 2017

39. It is also important to note that the Court has to take note of if any dying declaration is made successively. In the 34 case on hand, on the next day also, Tahsildar P.W.10 recorded the statement of the victim in the presence of the doctor P.W.11 and evidence of both is very clear with regard to recording of the dying declaration and nothing is elicited from the mouth of these two witnesses to disbelieve the recording of the dying declaration. It has to be noted that P.W.15, who is the videographer, videographed the dying declaration of the victim and the same is valid. Even if it is not videographed also, the Court can look into the same. The Apex Court in the case of MUKESH v. STATE FOR NCT OF DELHI AND OTHERS reported in AIR 2017 SC 2161 (Three Judge Bench) held that where there are multiple dying declarations, duty of the Court is that each dying declaration should be considered independently on its own merits. One cannot be rejected because of contents of other in cases where there is more than one dying declarations. It is the duty of the Court to consider each one of them in its correct perspective and satisfy itself that which one of them reflects the true state of affairs. But in the case on hand, both are consistent and even Tahsildar recorded the dying declaration in his own handwriting and no doubt, 35 certain answers are elicited regarding keeping the other pages blank and the same cannot take away the case of the prosecution with regard to the dying declaration.
Supreme Court of India Cites 282 - Cited by 419 - Full Document

Gulab Singh L.N.K. No. 52343 vs State Of U.P. Through Principal ... on 12 April, 2019

Though P.W.1 and P.W.2 turned hostile, the Court has to take note of statement of the victim. Now the question before this Court is whether 161 statement of the victim can be treated as dying declaration. The victim made the statement before the Investigating Officer 33 P.W.12. The judgment of the Allahabad High Court in the case of GULAB SINGH v. STATE OF UP reported in 2003 (47) ACC 161 is clear that statements of victim under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. was found worthy to be relied on as dying declaration.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Doryodhan And Anr. vs State Of Maharashtra on 14 August, 2002

The Apex Court also with regard to the statement made before the police and recorded by the police, taken note of in the judgment of DORYODHAN v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA reported in 2003 (1) JIC 184, wherein it is stated that dying declaration recorded by police in presence of other prosecution witnesses is valid. Such dying declaration is reliable and cannot be doubted on the ground that statement not produced to police, but produced before the Court directly for the first time. But it is very clear that dying declaration recorded by police in the presence of other prosecution witnesses is valid. In the case on hand, the same was recorded in the presence of doctor, who certifies the capability to make such statement in respect of both dying declarations.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1