Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.30 seconds)Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Darshana Devi vs State Of Punjab on 11 October, 1995
13. As far as oral dying declaration is concerned, in the light of the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH
MAMTANI
Signing time: 25-07-2025
19:15:31
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:32051
7 CRA-961-1997
judgment of Darshana Devi Vs. State of Punjab , 1995 Supp (4) SCC 126
Supreme Court has held that though oral dying declaration can form the basis
of conviction in a given case, but such a dying declaration has to be trust
worthy and free from every blemish and inspire confidence. In the present
case there is variation in the prosecution story, as discussed above and PW.3
(Usma Bai), PW.6 (Roop Singh) & PW.7 (Rama) have given different
versions which all have been contradicted by PW.5 (Bhagirath) and
supported by PW.12 (doctor who conducted postmortem). Therefore, when
PW.5 stated that Ramesh was unconscious and PW.12 (Dr.Gopal Pandey)
stated that his condition was not such that he could have been in a position to
speak anything, oral dying declaration cannot be made the basis for
conviction of the appellants.
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs State Of Maharashtra on 17 July, 1984
In view of this evidence, the law laid down by the Supreme
Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra , (1984) 4 SCC
116, is that in a case of circumstantial evidence the case must be proved and
may not be proved. There should be a clear motive. All the circumstances
should be so collated to prove the guilt of the appellant and nobody else. In
paragraph 153 it has been laid down as under:-
Raj Kumar @ Suman vs State (Nct Of Delhi) on 11 May, 2023
20. Even otherwise, we find that while examination of accused under
section 313 Cr.P.C. no specific material was brought to the notice of accused
that blood stains were found in article recovered at their instance. This view
is supported by judgment of Rajkumar alias Suman Vs. State (NCT of
Delhi), (2023) 17 SCC 95 in paragraphs 25, 26, 27 & 31 it has been
observed by Supreme Court as under:-
Gambhir Singh (Dead) Thrpough Lrs vs State Of U.P.. on 27 August, 2014
16. Same is the ratio of law laid by Supreme Court in the case of
Gambhir Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh , 2025 SCC Online 365 wherein it
is held that circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn
should be fully established. "It may be noted here that this Court indicated
that the circumstances concerned "must or should" and not "may be"
Raja Naykar, vs State Of Chattisgarh, on 9 January, 2023
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:32051
11 CRA-961-1997
P/13 is also not of much significance. Though it is mentioned that there were
blood stains on the said axe, as is mentioned in FSL report (Exhibit-P/24),
but merely presence of blood stains on an axe recovered from open place
will be of no consequence in view of law laid down in Raja Naykar Vs.
State of Chhattisgarh, (2024) 3 SCC 481
1