Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.29 seconds)Smt. Laxmi vs Om Parkash & Ors on 9 July, 2001
The Apex Court in the case of Laxmi (Smt.) v. Om Prakash, reported in 2001 SCC (Cri) 993 : (2001 CriLJ 3302) observed that though conviction can solely be based on dying declaration the Court can look for corroboration if it suffers from infirmities. The main test of reliability of a dying declaration is mental and physical fitness and capability of make statement at that point of time. In the facts and circumstances of each case, the Court is to be satisfied as to whether the deceased making a dying declaration was in a fit mental and physical condition and was capable of making a statement.
Raghunath Laxman Wani And Ors vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 6 August, 1971
The Apex Court in the case of Laxman v. State of Maharashtra, reported in AIR 2002 SC 2973 : (2002 Cri LJ 4095) observed that absence of certification of doctor as to fitness of mind of declarant would not render dying declaration not acceptable. What is essentially required is that person who records it must be satisfied that the deceased was in fit state of mind. Certification by doctor is rule of caution. Voluntary and truthful nature of declaration can be established otherwise.
Smt. Kamla vs State Of Punjab on 18 November, 1992
10. Before discussing the question raised as to whether the dying declaration made by the deceased should be accepted or not, law in that regard should be looked into. The Apex Court in the case of Smt. Kamla v. State of Punjab, reported in (1993) 6 OCR (SC) 92 : (1993 Cri LJ 68) observed as follows (para 5) :
Section 161 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Section 65 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Prabhu Dayal Agrawal vs State Of Orissa on 31 October, 2000
In this connection, reference may be made to a decision of this High Court in the case of Prabhu @ Prabhu Dayal Agrawalla v. State, reported in (1989) 2 OLR 574. In the aforesaid case, this Court while interpreting Section 65 of the Evidence Act observed that when primary evidence has not been proved in accordance with law nor any basis has been shown for admission of secondary evidence, secondary evidence is not admissible. We have not referred to several other decisions in this regard since the law Is well settled. Exts. 6 and 7 being xerox copies of the dying declaration recorded by
P.W. 8 as well as Bed Head ticket and there being no explanation as to what happened to original, said secondary evidence produced before the Court and marked exhibits in spite of objection by the defence counsel are not admissible in evidence and therefore no reliance can be placed on the Exhibits 6 or 7. We are, therefore, constrained to discard the evidence of P.W. 8 so far as it relates to dying declaration made before him. P.W. 9 is the I.O. who in his evidence has stated that on receipt of casualty memo (Ext. 4) he proceeded to Nuagaon P.H.C. and examined the deceased and recorded her statement under Section 161, Cr,.P.C. which was marked as Exhibit 8. In cross-examination he has stated that the deceased was lying on the varandah and her condition was serious. Though she was not able to talk, but she sopke in unconscious state and this witness recorded her statement under Section 161, Cr.P.C. Much reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the appellants on this part of the statement made in cross-examination and it is argued that since the P.W. 9 admits that the deceased in in unconscious state, she could not have made any statement or declaration as claimed by this witness. In the very same paragraph this witness has again explained that the deceased had not totally lost her sense or was unable to talk, this witness has further stated that he recorded statement of the deceased under Section 161, Cr.P.C. in presence of the witness including the doctor.
1