Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 30 (0.36 seconds)Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 32 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Kundula Bala Subrahmanyam And Anr vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 26 March, 1993
“13. Law relating to appreciation of
evidence in the form of more than one
dying declaration is well settled.
Accordingly, it is not the plurality of
the dying declarations but the reliability
thereof that adds weight to the
prosecution case. If a dying declaration
is found to be voluntary, reliable and
made in fit mental condition, it can be
relied upon without any corroboration. The
statement should be consistent throughout.
If the deceased had several opportunities
of making such dying declarations, that is
to say, if there are more than one dying
declaration they should be consistent.
(See Kundula Bala Subrahmanyam v. State
of A.P. [(1993) 2 SCC 684 : 1993 SCC (Cri)
655] ) However, if some inconsistencies
are noticed between one dying declaration
and the other, the court has to examine
the nature of the inconsistencies, namely,
whether they are material or not. While
scrutinising the contents of various dying
7 (2008) 5 SCC 468
30
declarations, in such a situation, the
court has to examine the same in the light
of the various surrounding facts and
circumstances.”
(Emphasis supplied)
Lella Srinivasa Rao vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 26 February, 2004
This
Court took the view that the judgment of this Court
in Lella Srinivasa Rao v. State of A.P.6 (supra), was
distinguishable noticing that in the said case there
was no other evidence, and this Court in Sayarabano v.
State of Maharashtra 2007 (12) SCC 562 also finally
held as follows:
Sayarabano @ Sultanabegum vs State Of Maharashtra on 8 February, 2007
This
Court took the view that the judgment of this Court
in Lella Srinivasa Rao v. State of A.P.6 (supra), was
distinguishable noticing that in the said case there
was no other evidence, and this Court in Sayarabano v.
State of Maharashtra 2007 (12) SCC 562 also finally
held as follows:
Rasheed Beg And Ors. vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 November, 1973
(iv) Where dying declaration is
suspicious it should not be acted upon
without corroborative evidence. (Rasheed
Beg v. State of M.P. [(1974) 4 SCC 264 :
Kake Singh Alias Surendra Singh vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 April, 1981
(v) Where the deceased was unconscious
and could never make any dying declaration
the evidence with regard to it is to be
rejected. (Kake Singh v. State of
M.P. [1981 Supp SCC 25 : 1981 SCC (Cri)
645 : AIR 1982 SC 1021]
Ram Manorath vs State Of U.P on 10 March, 1981
(vi) A dying declaration which suffers
from infirmity cannot form the basis of
conviction. (Ram Manorath v. State of
U.P. [(1981) 2 SCC 654 : 1981 SCC (Cri)
581])
State Of Maharashtra vs Krishnamurti Laxmipati Naidu on 12 November, 1980
(vii) Merely because a dying
declaration does not contain the details
23
as to the occurrence, it is not to be
rejected. (State of
Maharashtra v. Krishnamurti Laxmipati
Naidu [1980 Supp SCC 455 : 1981 SCC (Cri)
364 : AIR 1981 SC 617])