Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.18 seconds)Section 161 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 32 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
State Of Orissa vs Chakradhar Behera And Ors. on 11 March, 1964
5. Further, it has been held by Apex Court in State of Orissa v. Chakradhar (supra) that:
Section 34 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 145 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 157 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Munnu Raja & Anr vs The Stae Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 November, 1975
Learned Additional Sessions Judge in paras 25 and 26 of the Impugned Judgment has held that the F. I. R. (Exhibit P-14) alleged to have been lodged by complainant Tukadya and his statement under Section 161 recorded on 3-5-1990 by Jagmohan Koshta (P. W. 12) have evidentiary value under Section 32(1) of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. He has placed reliance on the Judgment i.e. Munnu Raja and Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Hari Chunnilal v. State of Madhya Pradesh 1977 MPLJ 321. I would like to quote Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act, 1872:
Umrao Singh And Ors. vs State Of U.P. on 2 August, 2000
Moreover, if the person making the statement is dead, then he is not in a position to make any statement in Court and there would be no opportunity to test the consistency of the conduct evidenced by the complaint in relation to the one which could have been given in the witness box. In such circumstances there is nothing to confirm or corroborate the statement or the complaint and the statement cannot be proved. Section 8 would not render it admissible. This conclusion is reached not because of the non-applicability of Section 8 but because of the difficulty for testing the consistency when the maker of the statement is dead." It has been held in Umrao Singh and Ors. v. State of M.P. by this High Court as under:
1