Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 25 (0.30 seconds)The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
K. Venkateshwarlu vs State Of A.P on 17 August, 2012
4. For convicting the appellant, the learned Additional Sessions Judge
basically relied on the dying declarations (DDs) of the deceased made to the IO
of the case (PW-15) on 11-8-2010 and the one made before the Executive
Magistrate (PW-13) on 12-8-2010 i.e. Exbt.10, Exbt. 10/1, Exbt.11 and Exbt.
11/1 respectively and the statement of Ms. Suchitra Paul (PW-3), who is the
niece of the informant and was about 8 years old at the time of taking her
evidence. Assailing the impugned judgment, Mr. R. Dutta, the learned counsel
for the appellant, has pointed out a number of defects in the DDs, which
raised serious doubts on the genuineness thereof. He also submits that PW-3
is evidently a tutored witness and her presence at the PO at the time of
incident is highly doubtful. For all these reasons, contends the learned
counsel, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained in law and is liable to be
set aside. Strong reliance is placed by him on the following decisions to fortify
his various submissions: Shahid Khan v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2016 SC
1178; Bhagwan Singh and others v. State of MP, AIR 2003 SC 1088; K.
Venkateshwarlu v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2012 Cri LJ 4388; Patiram
v. State of Maharashtra, 2003 Cri LJ 4718; Babul Ghosh v. State of
Tripura, (2015) 1 TLR 212 and Sujit Biswas v. State of Assam, 2013 Cril
LJ 3140.
Sri. Sujit Biswas vs State Of Assam on 28 May, 2013
4. For convicting the appellant, the learned Additional Sessions Judge
basically relied on the dying declarations (DDs) of the deceased made to the IO
of the case (PW-15) on 11-8-2010 and the one made before the Executive
Magistrate (PW-13) on 12-8-2010 i.e. Exbt.10, Exbt. 10/1, Exbt.11 and Exbt.
11/1 respectively and the statement of Ms. Suchitra Paul (PW-3), who is the
niece of the informant and was about 8 years old at the time of taking her
evidence. Assailing the impugned judgment, Mr. R. Dutta, the learned counsel
for the appellant, has pointed out a number of defects in the DDs, which
raised serious doubts on the genuineness thereof. He also submits that PW-3
is evidently a tutored witness and her presence at the PO at the time of
incident is highly doubtful. For all these reasons, contends the learned
counsel, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained in law and is liable to be
set aside. Strong reliance is placed by him on the following decisions to fortify
his various submissions: Shahid Khan v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2016 SC
1178; Bhagwan Singh and others v. State of MP, AIR 2003 SC 1088; K.
Venkateshwarlu v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2012 Cri LJ 4388; Patiram
v. State of Maharashtra, 2003 Cri LJ 4718; Babul Ghosh v. State of
Tripura, (2015) 1 TLR 212 and Sujit Biswas v. State of Assam, 2013 Cril
LJ 3140.
Mukeshbhai Gopalbhai Barot vs State Of Gujarat on 4 August, 2010
5. Per contra, Mr. R.C. Debnath, the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor, supports the impugned judgment and submits that no
interference is called for therein which is based on solid evidence. According to
the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the acceptability and admissibility of
the two DDs has been clinchingly proved by the prosecution, and the trial
court is well-justified in relying on such evidence to convict the appellant. It is
also the contention of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the
statement of PW-3, the sole eyewitness, has corroborated the two DDs in
material particulars, and there is, as such, no reason to doubt the version of
the prosecution that it was none but the appellant who set on fire the
deceased for demand of dowry. He, therefore, strenuously submits that the
appeal has no merit and is liable to be dismissed. He takes us to the following
Crl. A(J) No.23/2013 Page 3 of 16
decisions to buttress his contentions: Mukeshbhai Gopalkhai Barot v. State
of Gujarat, AIR 2010 SC 3692; State of HP v. Shree Kant Shekari, (2004)
8 SCC 153; Jakki alias Selvaraj and anr v. State, AIR 2007 SCW 1327;
State of Rajasthan v. Kishore, AIR 1996 SC 3035; State of Punjab v.
Hakam Singh, 2005 Cri LJ 4111 and Om Prakash v. State of Punjab,
1992 Cri LJ 3935.
State Of Himachal Pradesh vs Shree Kant Shekari on 13 September, 2004
5. Per contra, Mr. R.C. Debnath, the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor, supports the impugned judgment and submits that no
interference is called for therein which is based on solid evidence. According to
the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the acceptability and admissibility of
the two DDs has been clinchingly proved by the prosecution, and the trial
court is well-justified in relying on such evidence to convict the appellant. It is
also the contention of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the
statement of PW-3, the sole eyewitness, has corroborated the two DDs in
material particulars, and there is, as such, no reason to doubt the version of
the prosecution that it was none but the appellant who set on fire the
deceased for demand of dowry. He, therefore, strenuously submits that the
appeal has no merit and is liable to be dismissed. He takes us to the following
Crl. A(J) No.23/2013 Page 3 of 16
decisions to buttress his contentions: Mukeshbhai Gopalkhai Barot v. State
of Gujarat, AIR 2010 SC 3692; State of HP v. Shree Kant Shekari, (2004)
8 SCC 153; Jakki alias Selvaraj and anr v. State, AIR 2007 SCW 1327;
State of Rajasthan v. Kishore, AIR 1996 SC 3035; State of Punjab v.
Hakam Singh, 2005 Cri LJ 4111 and Om Prakash v. State of Punjab,
1992 Cri LJ 3935.
Jakki @ Selvaraj And Anr vs State Rep. By The Ip, Coimbatore on 14 February, 2007
5. Per contra, Mr. R.C. Debnath, the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor, supports the impugned judgment and submits that no
interference is called for therein which is based on solid evidence. According to
the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the acceptability and admissibility of
the two DDs has been clinchingly proved by the prosecution, and the trial
court is well-justified in relying on such evidence to convict the appellant. It is
also the contention of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the
statement of PW-3, the sole eyewitness, has corroborated the two DDs in
material particulars, and there is, as such, no reason to doubt the version of
the prosecution that it was none but the appellant who set on fire the
deceased for demand of dowry. He, therefore, strenuously submits that the
appeal has no merit and is liable to be dismissed. He takes us to the following
Crl. A(J) No.23/2013 Page 3 of 16
decisions to buttress his contentions: Mukeshbhai Gopalkhai Barot v. State
of Gujarat, AIR 2010 SC 3692; State of HP v. Shree Kant Shekari, (2004)
8 SCC 153; Jakki alias Selvaraj and anr v. State, AIR 2007 SCW 1327;
State of Rajasthan v. Kishore, AIR 1996 SC 3035; State of Punjab v.
Hakam Singh, 2005 Cri LJ 4111 and Om Prakash v. State of Punjab,
1992 Cri LJ 3935.
State Of Rajasthan vs Kishore on 27 February, 1996
5. Per contra, Mr. R.C. Debnath, the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor, supports the impugned judgment and submits that no
interference is called for therein which is based on solid evidence. According to
the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the acceptability and admissibility of
the two DDs has been clinchingly proved by the prosecution, and the trial
court is well-justified in relying on such evidence to convict the appellant. It is
also the contention of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the
statement of PW-3, the sole eyewitness, has corroborated the two DDs in
material particulars, and there is, as such, no reason to doubt the version of
the prosecution that it was none but the appellant who set on fire the
deceased for demand of dowry. He, therefore, strenuously submits that the
appeal has no merit and is liable to be dismissed. He takes us to the following
Crl. A(J) No.23/2013 Page 3 of 16
decisions to buttress his contentions: Mukeshbhai Gopalkhai Barot v. State
of Gujarat, AIR 2010 SC 3692; State of HP v. Shree Kant Shekari, (2004)
8 SCC 153; Jakki alias Selvaraj and anr v. State, AIR 2007 SCW 1327;
State of Rajasthan v. Kishore, AIR 1996 SC 3035; State of Punjab v.
Hakam Singh, 2005 Cri LJ 4111 and Om Prakash v. State of Punjab,
1992 Cri LJ 3935.
State Of Punjab vs Hakam Singh on 31 August, 2005
5. Per contra, Mr. R.C. Debnath, the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor, supports the impugned judgment and submits that no
interference is called for therein which is based on solid evidence. According to
the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the acceptability and admissibility of
the two DDs has been clinchingly proved by the prosecution, and the trial
court is well-justified in relying on such evidence to convict the appellant. It is
also the contention of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the
statement of PW-3, the sole eyewitness, has corroborated the two DDs in
material particulars, and there is, as such, no reason to doubt the version of
the prosecution that it was none but the appellant who set on fire the
deceased for demand of dowry. He, therefore, strenuously submits that the
appeal has no merit and is liable to be dismissed. He takes us to the following
Crl. A(J) No.23/2013 Page 3 of 16
decisions to buttress his contentions: Mukeshbhai Gopalkhai Barot v. State
of Gujarat, AIR 2010 SC 3692; State of HP v. Shree Kant Shekari, (2004)
8 SCC 153; Jakki alias Selvaraj and anr v. State, AIR 2007 SCW 1327;
State of Rajasthan v. Kishore, AIR 1996 SC 3035; State of Punjab v.
Hakam Singh, 2005 Cri LJ 4111 and Om Prakash v. State of Punjab,
1992 Cri LJ 3935.
Mukesh & Anr vs State For Nct Of Delhi & Ors on 5 May, 2017
6. On perusing the impugned judgment and the evidence on record and
after giving our thoughtful consideration to the submissions of the learned
counsel for the rival parties, the first point for consideration is the
admissibility and acceptability of the two DDs, particularly, the DD made by
the deceased before the Executive Magistrate for proving the case of the
prosecution. The legal position regarding the admissibility of a DD is now well
settled by the Apex Court in a long line of decisions. If any authority is
required, we may refer to the recent decision of the Apex Court in Mukesh v.
State of Delhi, (2017) 6 SCC 1 wherein the legal position has been
reiterated: