Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.62 seconds)K Ramachandra Reddy & Anr vs The Public Prosecutor on 5 May, 1976
(iii) The Court has to scrutinise the dying declaration
carefully and must ensure that the declaration is not the
result of tutoring, prompting or imagination. The deceased
had an opportunity to observe and identify the assailants
and was in a fit state to make the declaration. (See K.
Ramachandra Reddy v. Public Prosecutor,(1976) 3 SCC 618)
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. (See
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. (See Kake Singh v. State of M.P., 1981
Supp SCC 25)
State Of Maharashtra vs Krishnamurti Laxmipati Naidu on 12 November, 1980
(vii) Merely because a dying declaration does contain
the details as to the occurrence, it is not to be rejected. (See
State of Maharashtra v. Krishnamurti Laxmipati Naidu,1980
Supp SCC 455)
Mohanlal Gangaram Gehani vs State Of Maharastra on 17 February, 1982
(xi) Where there are more than one statement in the
nature of dying declaration, one first in point of time must be
preferred. Of course, if the plurality of dying declaration
could be held to be trustworthy and reliable, it has to be
accepted. (See Mohanlal Gangaram Gehani v. State of
Maharashtra,(1982) 1 SCC 700)"
Puran Chand vs State Of Haryana on 13 May, 2010
(ii) In Puran Chand vs. State of Haryana, (2010) 6 SCC
566, this Court once again reiterated the abovementioned
principles.
Panneerselvam vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 15 May, 2008
(iii) In Panneerselvam vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2008) 17
SCC 190, a Bench of three Judges of this Court reiterating
various principles mentioned above held that it cannot be laid
9
down as an absolute rule of law that the dying declaration
cannot form the sole basis of the conviction unless it is
corroborated and the rule requiring corroboration is merely a
rule of prudence.
Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Sham Shankar Kankaria vs State Of Maharashtra on 1 September, 2006
(i) In Sham Shankar Kankaria vs. State of
Maharashtra, (2006) 13 SCC 165, this Court held as under: