Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.51 seconds)Shudhakar vs State Of M.P on 24 July, 2012
7.1 In the case of Shudhakar vs. State of Madhya
Pradesh reported in (2012) 7 SCC 569, the Apex Court has
held that a "dying declaration" is the last statement made by a
person at a stage when he is in serious apprehension of his
death and expects no chances of his survival. At such time, it
is expected that a person will speak the truth and only the
truth and that normally in such situations, courts attach
intrinsic value of truthfulness to such statement. It is also
held that once such statement has been made voluntarily, it is
reliable and is not an attempt by deceased to cover up truth or
falsely implicate a person, then courts can safely rely on such
dying declaration and it can form the basis of conviction,
more so where version given by other prosecution evidence,
Page 7 of 11
HC-NIC Page 7 of 11 Created On Wed May 04 00:12:05 IST 2016
R/CR.A/444/2012 JUDGMENT
there is no reason for courts to doubt truthfulness of such
dying declaration.
Krishan Lal Gera vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 4 July, 2011
In the case of Krishan vs. State of Haryana reported
in (2013) 3 SCC 280, the Apex Court has held that it is not
an absolute principle of law that a dying declaration cannot
form the sole basis of conviction of an accused. Where the
dying declaration is true and correct, the attendant
circumstances show it to be reliable and it has been recorded
in accordance with law, the deceased made the dying
declaration of her own accord and upon due certification by
the doctor with regard to the state of mind and body, then it
may not be necessary for the court to look for corroboration.
In such cases, the dying declaration alone can form the basis
for the conviction of the accused. But where the dying
declaration itself is attended by suspicious circumstances, has
not been recorded in accordance with law and settled
procedures and practices, then, it may be necessary for the
court to look for corroboration of the same.
Bhaikon @ Bakul Borah vs State Of Assam on 3 May, 2013
14. Accordingly, appeal is hereby dismissed. The judgement
and order dated 08.04.2011 passed by the Additional Sessions
Judge, FTC No. 3, Panchmahal at Godhra in Sessions Case No.
218 of 2009 is confirmed. However, life imprisonment as
awarded by the trial court would not be till last breath and the
case of the appellants may be reviewed by the appropriate
authority after 14 years of his serving sentence considering
the decision of Apex Court in the case of Bhaikon @ Bakul Borah
(supra). The accused shall be given benefit of remission and set off
in accordance with law. R & P, if lying with this court, to be
sent back forthwith.
Life Convict Bengal@Khoka@ Prasanta ... vs B.K. Srivastava & Ors on 13 February, 2013
"15. This Court, in a series of decisions has held
that life imprisonment means imprisonment for
whole of life subject to the remission power
granted under Articles 72 and 161 of the
Constitution of India. [Vide Life Convict @ Khoka
Prasanta Sen vs. B.K. Srivastava & Ors. (2013) 3
SCC 425, Mohinder Singh vs. State of Punjab,
(2013) 3 SCC 294, Sangeet and Anr. vs. State of
Haryana (2013) 2 SCC 452, Rameshbhai
Chandubhai Rathod (2) vs. State of Gujarat (2011)
2 SCC 764, Chhote Lal vs. State of Madhya
Pradesh (2011) 8 SCR 239, Mulla and Another vs.
State of Uttar Pradesh (2010) 3 SCC 508, Maru
Ram vs. Union of India & Ors. (1981) 1 SCC 107,
State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Ratan Singh & Others
(1976) 3 SCC 470 and Gopal Vinayak Godse vs.
State of Maharashtra AIR 1961 SC 600].
Rameshbhai Chandubhai Rathod vs State Of Gujarat on 24 January, 2011
"15. This Court, in a series of decisions has held
that life imprisonment means imprisonment for
whole of life subject to the remission power
granted under Articles 72 and 161 of the
Constitution of India. [Vide Life Convict @ Khoka
Prasanta Sen vs. B.K. Srivastava & Ors. (2013) 3
SCC 425, Mohinder Singh vs. State of Punjab,
(2013) 3 SCC 294, Sangeet and Anr. vs. State of
Haryana (2013) 2 SCC 452, Rameshbhai
Chandubhai Rathod (2) vs. State of Gujarat (2011)
2 SCC 764, Chhote Lal vs. State of Madhya
Pradesh (2011) 8 SCR 239, Mulla and Another vs.
State of Uttar Pradesh (2010) 3 SCC 508, Maru
Ram vs. Union of India & Ors. (1981) 1 SCC 107,
State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Ratan Singh & Others
(1976) 3 SCC 470 and Gopal Vinayak Godse vs.
State of Maharashtra AIR 1961 SC 600].
Gopal vs The Administrative Officer, Madhya ... on 19 August, 1985
In the case of Gopal vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
reported in (2009) 12 SCC 600, the Apex Court in para 13
has observed as under:
Gopal Vinayak Godse vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 12 January, 1961
"15. This Court, in a series of decisions has held
that life imprisonment means imprisonment for
whole of life subject to the remission power
granted under Articles 72 and 161 of the
Constitution of India. [Vide Life Convict @ Khoka
Prasanta Sen vs. B.K. Srivastava & Ors. (2013) 3
SCC 425, Mohinder Singh vs. State of Punjab,
(2013) 3 SCC 294, Sangeet and Anr. vs. State of
Haryana (2013) 2 SCC 452, Rameshbhai
Chandubhai Rathod (2) vs. State of Gujarat (2011)
2 SCC 764, Chhote Lal vs. State of Madhya
Pradesh (2011) 8 SCR 239, Mulla and Another vs.
State of Uttar Pradesh (2010) 3 SCC 508, Maru
Ram vs. Union of India & Ors. (1981) 1 SCC 107,
State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Ratan Singh & Others
(1976) 3 SCC 470 and Gopal Vinayak Godse vs.
State of Maharashtra AIR 1961 SC 600].