Category: Dying Declaration

The main legal issues are whether the dying declaration is reliable, voluntary and free from tutoring, and whether it can be the sole basis of conviction without any corroboration – The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of Pappi @ Mashkoor based on the dying declaration, which was found to be cogent, trustworthy and consistent – However, the Court acquitted ‘N1’ and ‘N2 as the dying declaration did not attribute any specific role to them.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NAEEM — Appellant Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No. 1978…

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 302 read with Section 34 – Murder – Dying declaration – There is no specific material piece of evidence to establish that the deceased was alive or in a position to speak when his brother & mother reached the spot – There is no material to corroborate the said dying declaration – Conviction and sentence is set-aside – Appeal allowed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH JITENDRA KUMAR MISHRA @ JITTU — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Pankaj Mithal,…

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Evidence Act, 1972 – Section 32 – Murder by poisoning – Dying declaration – A statement made by a person who is dying is made exception to the rule of hearsay and has been made admissible in evidence under Section 32 of the Evidence Act, it would not be prudent to base conviction, relying upon such dying declaration alone – Conviction and sentence set-aside – Appeal allowed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH HARIPRASAD @ KISHAN SAHU — Appellant Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH — Respondent ( Before : Bela M. Trivedi and Dipankar Datta, JJ. ) Criminal…

Murder of wife – First Information Report and the dying declarations on record clearly contain the statement of the deceased that when she had poured kerosene upon herself to deter the appellant from fighting and assaulting, he lighted a matchstick and with the intention to kill her, threw it upon her by saying “You Die” – Conviction and Sentence upheld.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ANIL KUMAR — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF KERALA — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Pankaj Mithal, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…

There is no hard and fast rule for determining when a dying declaration should be accepted; the duty of the Court is to decide this question in the facts and surrounding circumstances of the case and be fully convinced of the truthfulness of the same – although the accused has been named in the two dying declarations as a person who set the room on fire yet the surrounding circumstances render such statement of the declarants very doubtful – Appellant directed to be released – Appeal allowed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH IRFAN @ NAKA — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai, J.B. Pardiwala and Prashant Kumar Mishra,…

Multiple dying declarations – in case the court comes to the conclusion that the dying declaration is true and reliable, has been recorded by a person at a time when the deceased was fit physically and mentally to make the declaration and it has not been made under any tutoring/duress/prompting; it can be the sole basis for recording conviction – In such an eventuality no corroboration is required

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAJARAM — Appellant Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : S. Ravindra Bhat and Sudhanshu Dhulia, JJ. ) Criminal…

There is no rule to the effect that a dying declaration is inadmissible when it is recorded by a police officer instead of a Magistrate. HELD The “two-finger test” or pre vaginum test must not be conducted – It has no scientific basis and neither proves nor disproves allegations of rape. It instead re-victimizes and re-traumatizes women who may have been sexually assaulted, and is an affront to their dignity

The “two-finger test” or pre vaginum test must not be conducted – It has no scientific basis and neither proves nor disproves allegations of rape. It instead re-victimizes and re-traumatizes…

You missed