Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.28 seconds)Abdul Riyaz Abdul Bashir vs State Of Maharashtra on 6 March, 2012
According to them, the requirement
of reading over the declaration and explaining the contents of it to
the declarant and the declarant admitting the same to be true, is
mandatory and the view taken by the two Division Benches of this
Court in the cases of Shivaji s/o Tukaram Patdukhe v. State of
Maharashtra, reported in 2004 ALL MR (Cri) 3220, and Abdul Riyaz
Abdul Bashir v. State of Maharashtra, reported in
2012 ALL MR (Cri) 2188, is supported by the decision of the Apex
Court in the case of Shaikh Bakshu, cited supra, and the subsequent
decision of the Apex Court in the case of Kanti Lal v. State of
Rajasthan, reported in (2009) 12 SCC 498.
Vithal Tukaram More & Ors vs The State Of Maharashtra on 23 July, 2002
According to them, the requirement
of reading over the declaration and explaining the contents of it to
the declarant and the declarant admitting the same to be true, is
mandatory and the view taken by the two Division Benches of this
Court in the cases of Shivaji s/o Tukaram Patdukhe v. State of
Maharashtra, reported in 2004 ALL MR (Cri) 3220, and Abdul Riyaz
Abdul Bashir v. State of Maharashtra, reported in
2012 ALL MR (Cri) 2188, is supported by the decision of the Apex
Court in the case of Shaikh Bakshu, cited supra, and the subsequent
decision of the Apex Court in the case of Kanti Lal v. State of
Rajasthan, reported in (2009) 12 SCC 498.
Kanti Lal vs State Of Rajasthan on 17 April, 2009
According to them, the requirement
of reading over the declaration and explaining the contents of it to
the declarant and the declarant admitting the same to be true, is
mandatory and the view taken by the two Division Benches of this
Court in the cases of Shivaji s/o Tukaram Patdukhe v. State of
Maharashtra, reported in 2004 ALL MR (Cri) 3220, and Abdul Riyaz
Abdul Bashir v. State of Maharashtra, reported in
2012 ALL MR (Cri) 2188, is supported by the decision of the Apex
Court in the case of Shaikh Bakshu, cited supra, and the subsequent
decision of the Apex Court in the case of Kanti Lal v. State of
Rajasthan, reported in (2009) 12 SCC 498.
Rambhau Patil, Secretary, National ... vs Maharashtra State Road Development ... on 9 October, 2001
According to them, in
another decision, which is unreported, in Criminal Appeal No.13 of
2008 [Raju s/o Rambhau Patile and another v. State of
Maharashtra] decided on 18-9-2012, the Division Bench of this
Court [M/s. P.V. Hardas & A.B. Chaudhari, JJ.] has followed the
view taken in Shivaji Patdukhe and Abdul Riyaz Abdul Bashir's cases.
Narender Kumar vs State(N.C.T.Of Delhi) on 25 May, 2012
(2002) 6 SCC 710; and Narender Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi),
reported in (2015) 17 SCC 451, to urge that the Apex Court has
laid down the rule of caution, and merely because there is no
endorsement that the declaration is not read over to the declarant
and the declarant admitting the same to have been correctly
recorded, that by itself would not be enough to reject the dying
declaration, if on the basis of other evidence on record it is found to
be trustworthy. According to them, this can at the most be one of
the relevant factors to be considered depending upon the facts and
circumstances of each case and validity of declaration cannot be
judged on this sole factor.
Paparambaka Rosamma & Ors vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 13 September, 1999
16. The Constitution Bench ruled that the view taken in
Paparambaka Rosamma's case is not the correct enunciation of law
and indeed a hypertechnical 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
::: Uploaded on - 09/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 10/03/2018 01:54:23 :::
14
apeal186.13.odt
whereafter he recorded the dying declaration.
Koli Chunilal Savji & Anr vs State Of Gujarat on 29 September, 1999
The Constitution
Bench confirmed the view taken in Koli Chunilal Savji's case.
Regional Manager & Anr vs Pawan Kumar Dubey on 8 March, 1976
40. For taking the aforesaid view, we derive strength from the
decision of the Apex Court in case of The Regional Manager and
another v. Pawan Kumar Dubey, reported in AIR 1976 SC 1766,
wherein it is held in para 7 as under :
State Of Himachal Pradesh vs Lekh Raj And Anr on 2 November, 1999
In the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of
H.P. v. Lekh Raj, reported in (2000) 1 SCC 247, it is observed that
the legal trial is conducted to ascertain the guilt or innocence of the
accused. In arriving at the truth, the Courts are required to adopt
::: Uploaded on - 09/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 10/03/2018 01:54:23 :::
41
apeal186.13.odt
rational approach and judge the evidence by its intrinsic worth and
the animus of the witnesses. The hyper technicalities or figment of
imagination should not be allowed to divest the Court of its
responsibility of sifting and weighing the evidence to arrive at the
conclusion regarding the existence or otherwise of a particular
circumstances keeping in view the peculiar facts of each case, the
social position of the victim and the accused, the larger interests of
the society particularly the law and order problem and degrading
values of life inherent in the prevalent system. The Courts are not
obliged to make efforts either to give latitude to the prosecution or
loosely construe the law in favour of the accused. The traditional
dogmatic hyper technical approach has to be replaced by rational,
realistic and genuine approach for administering justice in a
criminal trial.