Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.21 seconds)
Ravikumar Alias Kutti Ravi vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 22 February, 2006 cites

Uka Ram vs State Of Rajasthan on 10 April, 2001

Once the court is satisfied that the declaration was true and voluntary, it undoubtedly, can base its conviction on dying declaration without any further corroboration. It cannot be laid down as an absolute rule of law that the dying declaration cannot form the sole basis of conviction unless it is corroborated. The rule requiring corroboration is merely the rule of prudence. These well settled principles have been recognized and reiterated by this Court in the cases Smt. Paniben v. State of Gujarat (1992) 2 SCC 474; Uka Ram v. State of Rajasthan (2001) 5 SCC 254; Laxman v. State of Maharashtra (2002) 6 SCC 710; P.V. Radhakrishna v. State of Karnataka (2003) 6 SCC 443; State of Maharashtra v. Sanjay D. Rajhans AIR 2005 SC 97; and Muthu Kutty and Another v. State by Inspector of Police, Tamilnadu (2005) 9 SCC 113.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 94 - Full Document

Laxman vs State Of Maharashtra on 27 August, 2002

Once the court is satisfied that the declaration was true and voluntary, it undoubtedly, can base its conviction on dying declaration without any further corroboration. It cannot be laid down as an absolute rule of law that the dying declaration cannot form the sole basis of conviction unless it is corroborated. The rule requiring corroboration is merely the rule of prudence. These well settled principles have been recognized and reiterated by this Court in the cases Smt. Paniben v. State of Gujarat (1992) 2 SCC 474; Uka Ram v. State of Rajasthan (2001) 5 SCC 254; Laxman v. State of Maharashtra (2002) 6 SCC 710; P.V. Radhakrishna v. State of Karnataka (2003) 6 SCC 443; State of Maharashtra v. Sanjay D. Rajhans AIR 2005 SC 97; and Muthu Kutty and Another v. State by Inspector of Police, Tamilnadu (2005) 9 SCC 113.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 214 - Full Document

P.V. Radhakrishna vs State Of Karnataka on 25 July, 2003

Once the court is satisfied that the declaration was true and voluntary, it undoubtedly, can base its conviction on dying declaration without any further corroboration. It cannot be laid down as an absolute rule of law that the dying declaration cannot form the sole basis of conviction unless it is corroborated. The rule requiring corroboration is merely the rule of prudence. These well settled principles have been recognized and reiterated by this Court in the cases Smt. Paniben v. State of Gujarat (1992) 2 SCC 474; Uka Ram v. State of Rajasthan (2001) 5 SCC 254; Laxman v. State of Maharashtra (2002) 6 SCC 710; P.V. Radhakrishna v. State of Karnataka (2003) 6 SCC 443; State of Maharashtra v. Sanjay D. Rajhans AIR 2005 SC 97; and Muthu Kutty and Another v. State by Inspector of Police, Tamilnadu (2005) 9 SCC 113.
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 93 - A Pasayat - Full Document

Muthu Kutty And Anr vs State By Inspector Of Police, Tamil Nadu on 19 November, 2004

Once the court is satisfied that the declaration was true and voluntary, it undoubtedly, can base its conviction on dying declaration without any further corroboration. It cannot be laid down as an absolute rule of law that the dying declaration cannot form the sole basis of conviction unless it is corroborated. The rule requiring corroboration is merely the rule of prudence. These well settled principles have been recognized and reiterated by this Court in the cases Smt. Paniben v. State of Gujarat (1992) 2 SCC 474; Uka Ram v. State of Rajasthan (2001) 5 SCC 254; Laxman v. State of Maharashtra (2002) 6 SCC 710; P.V. Radhakrishna v. State of Karnataka (2003) 6 SCC 443; State of Maharashtra v. Sanjay D. Rajhans AIR 2005 SC 97; and Muthu Kutty and Another v. State by Inspector of Police, Tamilnadu (2005) 9 SCC 113.
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 149 - A Pasayat - Full Document

Koli Chunilal Savji & Anr vs State Of Gujarat on 29 September, 1999

In Laxman v. State of Maharshtra (supra), a Constitution Bench of this Court while affirming an earlier ruling of a 3-Judge Bench of this Court in Koli Chunilal Savji and Anr. v. State of Gujarat (1999) 9 SCC 562 held that if the person recording the dying declaration is satisfied that the declarant was in fit mental condition to make the dying declaration then such dying declaration would not be invalid solely on the ground that the doctor has not certified as to the condition of the declarant to make the dying declaration.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 195 - M Srinivasan - Full Document

Smt. Paniben vs State Of Gujarat on 13 March, 1992

Once the court is satisfied that the declaration was true and voluntary, it undoubtedly, can base its conviction on dying declaration without any further corroboration. It cannot be laid down as an absolute rule of law that the dying declaration cannot form the sole basis of conviction unless it is corroborated. The rule requiring corroboration is merely the rule of prudence. These well settled principles have been recognized and reiterated by this Court in the cases Smt. Paniben v. State of Gujarat (1992) 2 SCC 474; Uka Ram v. State of Rajasthan (2001) 5 SCC 254; Laxman v. State of Maharashtra (2002) 6 SCC 710; P.V. Radhakrishna v. State of Karnataka (2003) 6 SCC 443; State of Maharashtra v. Sanjay D. Rajhans AIR 2005 SC 97; and Muthu Kutty and Another v. State by Inspector of Police, Tamilnadu (2005) 9 SCC 113.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 373 - S Mohan - Full Document
1   2 Next