Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.88 seconds)Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 32 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Nallam Veera Stayanandam & Ors vs The Public Prosecutor, High Court Of A.P on 24 February, 2004
In the decision of Nallam Veera Stayanandam (supra) as cited from
the Bar the Hon'ble Apex Court while dealing with the subject of multiple
dying declaration expressed the following view:-
Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Thakur Amar Singhji vs State Of Rajasthan(And Other ... on 15 April, 1955
In further considered view of us the decision of Makhan Singh (supra)
as cited from the side of the appellants has been delivered in a different
perspective which is quite distinguishable from the facts and circumstances
of the case involved in the instant case.
Atbir vs Govt. Of N.C.T Of Delhi on 9 August, 2010
In considered view of us if the yardsticks of acceptances of dying
declaration as decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the reported
decision of Atbir (supra) is applied in the case in hand it would appear to us
that the learned trial court made no mistake while passing the impugned
judgement in placing his reliance upon the second dying declaration i.e.
Exhibit 4/1 since sufficient materials have been placed before the learned
trial court that such declaration was made by the victim in a fit state of
mind and the same is not the result of tutoring, prompting or imagination
and the same is true and voluntary. In course of hearing of the instant
appeal as discussed hereinabove nothing could be placed on behalf of the
present appellants that the second dying declaration i.e. Exhibit 4/1 was
either suffering from any infirmity or surrounded by any suspicious
circumstances for which the same should not be acted upon. Though not
necessary even if we exercise our prudence it would reveal that the contents
of the dying declaration being Exhibit 4/1 not only gets due corroboration
from the evidence of PW15 and PW16 but also from the evidence of PW7 who
being the 'Muhalladar' of the area of the accused persons categorically
18
stated the same facts and circumstances as recorded by the PW13 especially
when no case could be made out as against him (PW7) by the defence that
he had an enimical relationship with the convicts. The argument of Mr.
Acharya, learned advocate for the appellants that Exhibit 4/1 i.e. the second
dying declaration also suffers from material illegality since the same was not
recorded in verbatim but in a summarized form as stated by PW13 in his
cross-examination is also not acceptable to us since it is the settled position
of law that there is no requirement that a dying declaration must contain all
the details of the occurrence or that it should be in question and answer
form. On close scrutiny of Exhibit 4/1 i.e the second dying declaration it
appears to us that the same has been written practically in verbatim and in
clear and unequivocal manner for which we do not find any cogent and
coherent reasons to disbelieve the same either with regard to its true
contents or with regard to the manner of its recording.
1