Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 27 (0.34 seconds)Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Purshottam Chopra vs State(Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) on 7 January, 2020
38. Thus, in view of the discussion above and in terms
of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in case of
Purushottam Chopra Vs. State (Government of N.C.T.)
Raghunath Laxman Wani And Ors vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 6 August, 1971
In paragraph no.18.2 the Supreme court has
referred the principles summed up by the constitution
bench in the Laxman's case as regards the acceptability
of the dying declaration. Paragraph nos.18, 18.1, 18.2
and 18.3 reads thus :-
Laxman vs State Of Maharashtra on 27 August, 2002
18. The principles relating to admission and acceptability of the
statement made by a victim representing the cause of death,
usually referred to as a dying declaration, are well settled and a
few doubts as regards pre-requisites for acceptability of a
dying declaration were also put at rest by the Constitution
Bench of this Court in the case of Laxman v. State of
Maharashtra: (2002) 6 SCC 710.
Paparambaka Rosamma & Ors vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 13 September, 1999
"5.......It is indeed a hyper technical view that the certification
of the doctor was to the effect that the patient is conscious and
there was no certification that the patient was in a fit state of
mind especially when the Magistrate categorically stated in his
evidence indicating the questions he had put to the patient and
from the answers elicited was satisfied that the patient was in a
fit state of mind whereafter he recorded the dying declaration.
Therefore, the judgment of this Court in Paparambaka
Rosamma vs. State of A.P. must be held to be not correctly
decided and we affirm the law laid down by this Court in Koli
Chunilal Savji v. State of Gujarat (1999) 9 SCC 562."
Koli Chunilal Savji & Anr vs State Of Gujarat on 29 September, 1999
"5.......It is indeed a hyper technical view that the certification
of the doctor was to the effect that the patient is conscious and
there was no certification that the patient was in a fit state of
mind especially when the Magistrate categorically stated in his
evidence indicating the questions he had put to the patient and
from the answers elicited was satisfied that the patient was in a
fit state of mind whereafter he recorded the dying declaration.
Therefore, the judgment of this Court in Paparambaka
Rosamma vs. State of A.P. must be held to be not correctly
decided and we affirm the law laid down by this Court in Koli
Chunilal Savji v. State of Gujarat (1999) 9 SCC 562."
K Ramachandra Reddy & Anr vs The Public Prosecutor on 5 May, 1976
In a case of K. Ramchandra Reddy and another
Vs. Public Prosecutor reported in 1976 Supreme Court
Cases (Cri) 473 (supra), relied upon by the learned
counsel for the appellant, the Supreme Court in
paragraph no.6 of the judgment has made following
observations :-
Bhagirath Bhaurao Kanade vs The State Of Maharashtra on 22 July, 1996
In a case of Bhagirath Bhaurao Kanade Vs. State
of Maharashtra reported in 1997 BomCR (Cri) 168.
(supra), relied upon by the learned counsel for the
appellant, in paragraph no.20 of the judgment, the
Division Bench of this court has observed that "in such
a situation, the position is that there is a confict between
the dying declaration recorded by the Magistrate and the
dying declaration which is in the medical case papers,
regarding the manner in which Govinda sustained
injuries; whereas in the dying declaration recorded by the
Magistrate Prabhakar Takle, Govinda stated that the
appellant poured petrol on him and thereafter lighted a
match stick on his body and in the dying declaration
contained in the medical case papers, Govinda has
::: Uploaded on - 23/11/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2021 03:35:19 :::
31 criappeal 498.2014.odt
mentioned that he was accidently burnt". Thus, the facts
of this case are altogether different and cannot be made
applicable to the facts of the present case.