Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.23 seconds)

Geeta And Another vs State on 13 August, 2009

27. We also note that PW 14 Dr. Neeraj Chaudhary in his cross- examination had categorically stated that the thumb impression of the CRL. A. 1374/2010 Page 16 of 20 patient Smt. Rashida is not available on the MLC (Ex. PW 14/A) because it was a case of 80% burn all over the body except the lower abdomen and lower back. An important aspect also is that this very witness stated that it is nowhere written in the MLC that any kind of smell was emanating from the body of the patient Smt. Rashida. It is also for this reason that the purported thumb impression appearing in Ex. PW 7/A cannot be considered as the thumb impression of the deceased Smt. Rashida. The law with regard to dying declarations is well settled as observed in the case of Geeta & Another Vs. State: 163 (2009) DLT 268 D.B. Paragraph 24 of the said decision reads as under:-
Delhi High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 6 - B D Ahmed - Full Document
1