Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.39 seconds)The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Vadivelu Thevar vs The State Of Madras(With Connected ... on 12 April, 1957
A similar contention has been repelled by this Court in a very illustrating judgment in Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras, AIR 1957 SC 614 and it will be useful to take note of para 11 of the report, which reads as under :
Ramratan And Others vs The State Of Rajasthan on 13 September, 1961
The above quoted principle was laid reiterated in Ramratan and others v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1962 SC 424.
Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Pakala Narayana Swami vs Emperor on 19 January, 1939
In the Privy Council decision in the case of Pakala Narayana Swami Vs. Emperor, AIR 1939 Privy Council 47, where the dead body of the deceased man was found in a steel trunk in a third class compartment on 23.3.1937. In that case three days earlier on 20.3.1937 the deceased had received a letter, the contents of which was not actually proved, but which showed that he was invited to visit Berhampur. The deceased had told his wife that as the appellant's wife had written to him and told him to go and meet the appellant to receive his dues. The statement of the widow that on 20.2.1937 the deceased had made the disclosure to her that he was going to Berhampur as the accused's wife had written to him was objected to by the defence as being inadmissible. The Privy Council examined the decisions of the Indian Courts, some of which had suggested that the statement should be made after the transaction had taken place or when the person making it was near his death and that the circumstances could only include the acts done when and where the death was caused. The Privy Council repelled those contentions and stated that the natural meaning of words in section 32(1) of the Evidence Act admitted to no such limitation. It was observed thus in paragraph 8 by the Privy Council: