|
|
|
|
|
|
SUKHIR V/S STATE OF U.P. 1999(4) CRIMES 191 S.C. Under section 161 CR PC statement of the injured was recorded by police, the statement was treated as first information report During trial the injured person also died. can the cause of death and the time of death not known it was held that the first information report as well as statement given by the injured with investigating officer is not admissible as a dying declaration under section 32
RAMPRASAD V/S STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AIR1999 SC 1996 dying declaration-person making it surviving- his statement cannot be treated as dying declaration. Section 157 of the evidence act permits proof of any former statement made by a witness relating to the same facts before any authority legally competent to investigate the fact but its use his limited to Coroboration of the testimony of such witness.though a police officer is legally competent to investigate ,any statement made to him is hit by section 162 but a statement made to a magistrate is not affected by the prohibition he can record the statement of the person as provided in section 164 .such a statement would either be elevated to the status of section 32 if the maker of the statement survives the statement recorded by a magistrate becomes usable to corroborate the witness as provided in section 157.
HARJEET KAUR V/S STATE OF PUNJAB AIR 1999 SC 2571 dying declaration a-endorsement by Dr as to the fitness of the deceased to make statement-was made not on the dying declaration itself but on the application it would not render the dying declaration suspicious in any manner. circumstances clearly showing that the deceased was not free person at the time of recording first dying declaration , reasons given were not considering first dying declaration as voluntary and true were quite convincing . second dying declaration cannot be regarded as untrue merely because it contrary to her statement made earlier.
KAMLESH RANI V/S STATE OF HARYANA 1998 SCC(Cri)713 dying declaration-. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the casethe deceased was indifferent condition to give the dying declaration. Bride burning debtor deceased suffering 80% burn and thereafter given an injection of pathedine . The doctor recorded the statement and the doctor who assisted him positively stated that the deceased was cautious when she gave her statement. It can be inferred that the deceased was in a fit condition to give dying declaration.
BALRAM PRASAD AGGRAWAL V/S STATE-OF BIHAR AND OTHERS 1997 SCC (CRI) 612 = death of housewife by drowning in a well her father's evidence about what the deceased told him earlier about her sufferings at the hands of the accused is admissible under section 32. the father had deposed that to his daughter was retreated for not bring in Tory whose satisfaction of the accused and also or not giving birth to children. It can therefore be presumed under section 114 of the evidence act that the cruel treatment continued till very last when she was forced to commit suicide.
SUNIL KUMAR V/S STATE OF M. P.= 1997 SCC (CRI) 879 DYING DECLARANT SURVIVING -- maker of the dying declaration if survives, his dying declaration can be treated as a statement recorded under section 164, criminal procedure code and can be used for corroboration or contradiction
RATAN SINGH V/S STATE OF H.P.= 1997 S. C. C. (CRI) 525 = CONDITIONS TO BE SATISFIED = the statement need not be made under expectation of death expression " circumstances of the transaction which resulted in his death " in section 32 (1) they are need not necessarily be a direct Nexus between " circumstances " and death -- even distant circumstances can become admissible if it has Nexus with a transaction which resulted in death
SURJEET KAUR V/S STATE OF M. P. 1993 J. L. J. 715 Starting from the case of KHUSAL RAO V/S STATE OF BOMBAY AI R 1958 S. C. 22 where in it was held that where the court comes to a conclusion that the dying declaration was the truthful version as the circumstances of the death and the assailants of the victim there is no question of further corroboration similarity in PENIBEN V/S STATE OF GUJRAT AIR 1992 S. C. 1817 ,the Supreme Court observed that though the dying declaration has a great value, but since the accused has no opportunity to cross-examine the same, the court has to satisfy that the statement of the deceased is not a result of tutoring, prompting, or a product of imagination , the court has further to be satisfied that the deceased was in a fit state of mind after a clear opportunity to observe and identify the assailants.Once the court is satisfied that the declaration was true and voluntary, undoubtedly conviction can be based on the same without any further corroboration OTHER CASES DISCUSSED : 1. NANASHURAM V/S STATE AIR 1988 SC 912 2. SURINDER KUMAR V/S STATE OF HARYANA AIR 1992 SC 2037
|
|
Copyright © 2001 rajeev bhatjiwale
|
