Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.25 seconds)
Balkari And Anr. vs State Of Rajasthan on 11 August, 1975 cites

Lallubhai Devchand Shah And Ors. vs The State Of Gujarat on 3 November, 1971

In Lallubhai v. State of Gujarat , their Lordships were pleased to observe, The law with regard to dying declarations is very clear. A dying declaration must be closely scrutinised as to its truthfulness like any other important piece of evidence in the light of the surrounding facts and circumstances of the case, bearing in mind on the one hand, that the statement is by a person who has not been examined in court on oath and on the other hand, that the dying man is normally not likely to implicate innocent persons falsely.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 46 - D G Palekar - Full Document

Harbans Singh And Another vs State Of Punjab on 16 October, 1961

In Harbans Singh v. State of Punjab it has been held, ...It must be held that it is neither a rule of law nor of prudence that a dying declaration requires to be corroborated by other evidence before a conviction can be based thereon. The evidence furnished by the dying declaration must be considered by the Judge, just as the evidence of any witness, though undoubtedly some special considerations arise in the assessment of dying declaration which do not arise in the case of assessing the value of a statement made in court by a person claiming to be a witness of the occurrence.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 207 - K C Gupta - Full Document

Jagir Singh vs The State (Delhi) on 4 December, 1974

We have examined the case of Krushna Singh (supra)-The case on hand is totally distinguishable from the facts of the case of Krushna Singh (supra). Their Lordships of the Orissa High Court on the facts of that case, came to the conclusion that the appellant in that case, Krushna Singh, at the time of occurrence was beside his mind due to drinks whereas in the case on hand, there is nothing on record on the basis of which it can be held that the appellant Balkari was so much under the jn-fluence of drink that his mind was so obscured as to be incapacitated to form the required /intention. The statement of P, W. 3 Laxmi read with the statement of P.W. 1 Padmaratn and the first information report (Ex. P.4) very clearly show that the accused Balkari at the time of commission of the crime was not incapacitated to form the requisite intention. He along with Multan was loitering in the lane and uttering obscene words. When Gopal objected as to why they were loitering in the lane and using filthy language, Multan fired a pistol-shot which missed the mark and soon after that Balkari fired another pistol-shot at Gopal (deceased) which caused injuries on the left side of his chest. Content with their doing immediately the accused took to their heels. All these facts, in our opinion, go to prove that there was not proved incapacity in the accused Balkari to form the intention to cause bodily injury at the place where it was caused. There is sufficient evidence on record that the appellant Balkari aimed the shot at the chest of the deceased which is undoubtedly a vital part of the body, and the injury inflicted was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. As already observed, the evidence disclosed that Balkari was not heavily drunk, otherwise he could not have walked independently and talked coherently. He knew the nature of the act which he was performing. Simply because the mind of the accused was so affected by drink that he more readily gave way to some violent passion, does not rebut the presumption that a man intends the natural consequences of his act.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 51 - P N Bhagwati - Full Document

Epari Chinna Krishna Moorthy, ... vs State Of Orissa(With Connected ... on 12 March, 1964

23. The other case relied upon by the learned Counsel for the appellants is Krishna Singh v. State of Orissa 1971 Cri L] 1497 (Ori). Placing reliance on this case the learned Counsel urged that having regard to the provisions of Section 86 I. P.C. and because of the total absence of motive or premeditation to commit the murder of Gopal and the fact that the appellants were heavily drunk at the time of occurrence the offence committed by the appellants, if at all, would fall only under Sec 304 Part II I. P.C. and not under Section 302 I. P.C. of which the accused Balkari has been convicted.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 36 - P B Gajendragadkar - Full Document

Gulab Singh vs State Of Rajasthan on 13 March, 1974

22. Lastly it was urged that the trial Court committed an error of law in convicting the appellant Balkari under Section 302 I. P.C. He further pleaded that the case against the appellants falls under Section 304 Part II I, P. C Admittedly both the appellants were under the influence of drink. Their minds were obscured to such an extent that they were not in a position to form the required intent, necessary for convicting the accused under Sec 3021. P.C. Reliance has been placed on Gulab Singh v. State of Rajasthan 1975 Cri LJ 695 (Raj). That case has no bearing on the facts of the case on hand. That was a case of inflicting a lathi blow on the head of the deceased, by a person who was not directly in controversy, but was interested only in helping the other accused. The case is entirely distinguishable on facts from the present one, and so it cannot be of any avail to the accused.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 13 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1