Ev

idencecase12t
o17
Thecasesaresummer i
zedbyABHI
SHEKKUMAR
MISHRA,CLC,8299556360
SUDHAKARVSTATEOFMAHARASHTRA
Sect
ion32(
1)
Fact
-Int
hiscase,aschoolt
eacherwasal
l
egedl
yrapedbyt
heheadmast
erandaco-
teacher
.Thepr osecut
ri
xnarratedt
heinci
denttwoort hreedayslatert
oherf at
her
.The
mat t
erwasreportedtothepol
ice11day
saftert
heinci
dentinwhichshenarr
atedthewhol
e
i
ncidentandexpl ai
nedt hedelayf
ornotlodgi
ngther eportear
li
er.Aft
er5mont hsshe
commi t
tedsui
cide.

I
ssue-Theprosecuti
onr
eli
edupont
hest
atementmadet
othepol
i
cet
reat
ingi
tast
he
dyi
ngdeclarat
ionbeingadmi ssi
bleinevidenceunderSec.32oft
heEv i
denceAct
.Thei
ssue
rel
atedt
ot headmissibi
l
ityoftheaforesaidstat
ementasady i
ngdecl
arat
ion.

Deci
sion-I
nthepr
esentcase,
ther
eisnol
egal
evi
denceonr
ecor
dthatt
hepr
osecut
ri
xator
abouttheti
meofmakingt hestatementhaddi sclosedhermi ndforcommi t
tingsuicideThe
ci
rcumstancesst
atedi
nt hestatementmadet ot hepolicedonotsuggestt hataper sonmaking
suchastatementwoul
dundert henor malcircumst ances,commi tsui
cideaftermor ethanfi
ve-
and-a-
halfmont
hs.TheHighCour twas,therefore,notjusti
fiedinrel
yi
ngupont heaforesai
d
stat
ementasady i
ngdeclarat
ionholdingthatt hesaidst at
ementwasi nseriesof
ci
rcumstancesoft
hetransacti
onwhi chresultedint hedeathoft hedeceased.

PATELHI
RALALJOI
TARAM vSTATEOFGUJARAT
Sect
ion32(
1)
I
ssue-Thei
ssuewaswhet
herherst
atementhadbeencov
eredbySec.32(
1)oft
heEv
idence
Actt
obear
eli
abl
edy
ingdecl
arat
ion.

Deci
sion-Thecourthel
d:Looki
ngatt
hedy
ingdecl
arat
ioni
ntheabov
eper
spect
ive,
ther
e
i
snodoubtt hatherst
atementi
sinext
ri
cablyi
ntert
winedwiththeepisodei
nwhichshewas
burntandeventual
lydiedofsuchburns.Thus,theclar
if
icact
orystatementmadebyt he
deceasedunderSec.161,Cr
.P.
C.wouldfal
lwithi
ntheambi tofSec.32(1)oft
heEvidence
Act.
Thecasesaresummer i
zedbyABHI
SHEKKUMAR
MISHRA,CLC,8299556360

LaxmanvSt
ateofMahar
asht
ra
Sect
ion32(
1)
I
ssue-Ismedi
calopi
nionofadoct
ornecessar
yforaccept
anceofdy
ing
decl
arati
oni
nthecourtofl
aw?

Deci
sion-Normallythecourtinordertosatisfywhetherthedeceasedwasinafitmental
condi
ti
on( soastoobserveandidenti
fyt
heassail
ant)t
omaket hedyingdecl
arat
ionlooksupt
o
themedicalopi
nion.Butwheret
heey ewit
nessorMagistr
atesaidt
hatthedeceasedwasi naf
it
andconsciousstatetomakethedyingdecl
arat
ion,t
hemedicalopi
nioncannotprev
ail.

RAM NARAI
NvSTATEOFU.
P
Sect
ion45/
47

I
ssue-whetheropi
nionofexper
tissaf
etoex
ceptasev
idence.

Deci
sion-Thecour
thel
dthati
faf
tercompar
isonofdi
sput
edandadmi
tt
edwr
it
ingsbycour
t
i
tself
,iti
sconsideredsafetoaccepttheopinionofexpert,t
hentheconcl usionsoarri
vedat
cannotbeat t
ackedonspecialleavemer el
yont hegroundthatcompar i
sonofhandwr it
ingis
generall
yconsider
edhazardousandi nconclusi
ve.I
tshouldbenot edthattheev i
denceof
expertsisnotfi
nalorconcl
usive.Thecourtmaysat i
sfyit
selfbeforerel
yingont heexpert
opini
on.Thusinmanycases, theirLordshi
pshav ecomet othecontraryopinionandrej
ectedthe
expertopini
on,iti
smoresoi ncaseofhandwr i
ti
ng.
Thecasesaresummer i
zedbyABHI
SHEKKUMAR
MISHRA,CLC,8299556360
BODHRAJALI
ASBOAHAVSTATEOFJ&K
Sect
ion25/
26/
27

ssue-whe
I t
herdi
scov
eryofweaponofassaul
tont
hebasi
sofi
nfor
mat
iongi
venbyt
heaccused
whi
l
eincust
ody
,wassuf
fi
cientt
ofast
ent
hegui
l
toft
heaccused.

Deci
sion-Sec.27i
stheDoct
ri
neofConf
ir
mat
ionbysubsequentev
ent
s.Thedoct
ri
nei
s
foundedontheprinci
plethati
fanyf acti
sdi scover
edi nasearchmadeont hestr
engthof
anyinformat
ionobtai
nedf r
om apr i
soner,suchadi scoveryi
saguarant
eethatthe
i
nformationsuppl
iedbythepr i
soneristr
ueThei nf
ormat i
onmightbeconf
essionalornon-
i
nculpatoryi
nnaturebuti
fitresul
tsindiscov er
yofaf act,i
tbecomesarel
iablei
nformati
on.

I
nf or
mationregardingconceal
ingofthear
ticl
eofthecri
medoesnotleadtodi
scov
eryof
thearti
clebuti
tleadst odi
scoveryofthef
actthatthear
ti
clewasconceal
edatt
heindi
cat
ed
placetotheknowl edgeoftheaccused.

Thecourt
,ther
efor
e,hel
dthatt
hemer estat
ementthattheaccusedl
edthepol
iceandt
he
wit
nessestothepl
acewherehehadconcealedthearti
clei
snotindi
cat
iveoft
he
i
nformati
onascontemplat
edunderSec.27.

KHUSHALRAOvSTATEOFBOMBAY
Sect
ion32(
1)

ssue-Theque
I st
ionwaswhet
hert
heaccusedcoul
dbeconv
ict
edonl
yont
hebasi
soft
his
decl
arat
ion,
ort
hedecl
arat
ionneededcor
robor
ati
on.

Deci
sion-TheSupr
emeCour
t,agr
eei
ngwi
thMadr
asHi
ghCour
t,l
aiddownt
hef
oll
owi
ng
pr
inci
ples:

1.Thereisnoabsolut
erul
eoflawt
hatady
ingdecl
arat
ioncannotbet
hesol
ebasi
sof
convi
cti
onunlesscorr
obor
ated.

2.Eachcasemustbedet er
minedoni
tsownf
act
skeepi
ngi
nvi
ewt
heci
rcumst
ancei
n
whichthedy
ingdecl
arat
ionwasmade.

3.Ady
ingdecl
arat
ioni
snotaweakerki
ndofev
idence.

4.Adyingdeclar
ati
onrecor
dedbyacompetentMagist
rat
einapropermannerinthe
for
m ofquest
ionsandanswers,
andi
nthewor
dsofthemakerasf
araspract
icabl
e.

5.Ifthecour
t,af
tert
aki
ngever
ythi
ngint
oconsi
derat
ion,
isconv
incedthatthestatement
i
st rue,i
tisi
tsdutyt
oconvi
ct,
notwit
hst
andi
ngthatther
eisnocorroborat
ioninthetrue
sense.
Thestat
ementofthedeceasedi
nthi
scasesat
isf
iedal
lthesecondi
ti
onsandt
her
efor
ethe
appel
l
antsshoul
dbeconv
ict
ed.

Iam put
ti
ngt hi
seffor
tbecauseIwantt
omakeapl
acei
nyourhear
tandwant
t
obecomey ourbelov
edone.