{"id":298354,"date":"2023-08-02T17:30:42","date_gmt":"2023-08-02T12:00:42","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=298354"},"modified":"2023-08-04T16:52:39","modified_gmt":"2023-08-04T11:22:39","slug":"dying-declaration-section-32-1-evidence-act-exception-rule-against-hearsay-evidence-bombay-hc","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/02\/dying-declaration-section-32-1-evidence-act-exception-rule-against-hearsay-evidence-bombay-hc\/","title":{"rendered":"Dying Declaration | Section 32(1) of Evidence Act is an exception to general rule against hearsay evidence: Bombay High Court upholds conviction order against the accused"},"content":{"rendered":"
\nBombay High Court:<\/strong> In an appeal challenging conviction for offences under Section 302<\/a> of Penal Code, 1860<\/a> (\u2018IPC\u2019) by the Trial Court sentencing the appellant with life imprisonment and fine, the Division Bench of Vibha Kankanwadi and S.G. Chapalgaonkar, JJ. dismissed the appeal after finding that the prosecution had proved the offence against the accused beyond reasonable doubt while clarifying that Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act makes the statement of the deceased admissible as against hearsay evidence.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The matter was related to the deceased who died after sustaining burn injuries allegedly caused by the accused after some dispute, who were neighbours. While the deceased was still in hospital, her statement was recorded by police and a crime punishable under Section 307 of IPC was registered. She was shifted to another hospital for further treatment but expired on 10-11-2012 and Section 302 of IPC was added. The accused was arrested, and trial proceeded.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Court\u2019s Analysis on Evidentiary Value of Dying Declaration<\/h2>\n

The Court clarified that the instant case was one based on dying declaration which may solely be made the basis of conviction after qualifying the test of truthfulness, voluntariness and free from suspicion and doubt. It was cautious that in cases of dying declarations, Courts have to be careful while assessing dying declaration, being on guard that the deceased\u2019s statement was not a result of tutoring, prompting or a product of imagination, and the deceased was in a fit state of mind to give dying declaration. The Court referred to Paniben (Smt) v. State of Gujarat<\/em>, (1992) 2 SCC 474<\/a> for Supreme Court\u2019s 10 pointers containing principles governing dying declaration, as relied, and applied in Surinder Kumar v. State of Punjab<\/em>, (2012) 12 SCC 120<\/a> and Madan v. State of Maharashtra<\/em>, (2019) 13 SCC 464.<\/a> It further referred to Ganpat Bakaramji Lad v. State of Maharashtra<\/em>, 2018 SCC OnLine Bom 321<\/a> for additional tests to be actuated before accepting a dying declaration. The Court emphasized the aspect of absence endorsement of the dying declaration vis-a-vis appreciation of evidence.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The Court clarified that \u201cNeither the provision of Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act nor any decision of the Apex Court prescribe any particular format in which a dying declaration is to be recorded. It can be oral as well as written. In case of oral dying declaration, the question of existence or insistence upon reading over and explaining the declaration to the deceased does not arise. If that be so, how can such insistence be in respect of written dying declaration? It is not the requirement of any statute or of the decision of the Apex Court that a written dying declaration must contain a column to be duly filled in that the statements of the declarant are read over and explained to him and that he found it to be true and correct. Such a requirement therefore cannot be held as mandatory.\u201d<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The Court relied on Constitution Bench\u2019s observations in Laxman v. State of Maharashtra<\/em>, (2002) 6 SCC 710<\/a> regarding doctor\u2019s certification of a dying declaration. It further relied on Vikas v. State of Maharashtra<\/em>, (2008) 2 SCC 516<\/a> respecting the special sanctity accorded to evidence of dying declaration. It was commented that \u201cSection 32(1) of the Evidence Act is an exception to the general rule that hearsay evidence is no evidence. Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act makes a statement of the deceased admissible. Those statements made by a person as to the cause of his death or to any of the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in his death, are admissible when the person\u2019s death comes into question. The essential requirement of such statement to be accepted as evidence would be that the person who makes such statement is under the expectation of death. The special sanctity has been given to such statements as it is believed that a person on the death-bed will not speak lie.\u201d<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

After such detailed legal backing, the Court perused the dying declarations and related testimonies\/statements of witnesses and burn injuries to the upper extremity and concluded that both the dying declarations were proved beyond doubt by the prosecution. The Court found the act in two dying declarations to be different, but the same role attributed to the accused and refused to accept that only on that account of the said chronology, the dying declaration was unbelievable. It further admitted that the prosecution had proved that it was a homicidal death. The Court also highlighted the unexplained fact of how his clothes had kerosene residue, which went against the accused.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The Court therefore concluded that the prosecution had proved the offence against the accused beyond reasonable doubt since it could not find any illegality or error committed by the Trial Court in convicting the accused. Therefore, the Court dismissed the instant appeal.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

[Bhagwan Ramdas Tupe v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 SCC OnLine Bom 1554<\/a>, decided on 28-07-2023<\/span>]<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Judgment by: Justice Vibha Kankanwadi<\/strong><\/p>\n

\n

Advocates who appeared in this case :<\/strong><\/p>\n

For Appellant: Advocate A.B. Girase<\/p>\n

For State: Additional Public Prosecutor V.S. Choudhari\n<\/p><\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Bombay High Court clarified that the instant case was one based on dying declaration which may solely be made the basis of conviction after qualifying the test of truthfulness, voluntariness and free from suspicion and doubt.<\/i><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67513,"featured_media":293501,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,10],"tags":[2569,7931,6252,23754],"class_list":["post-298354","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-highcourts","tag-Bombay_High_Court","tag-dying-declaration","tag-evidence-act","tag-hearsay-evidence"],"yoast_head":"\nDying Declaration | Section 32(1) of Evidence Act an exception to rule against hearsay evidence: Bombay HC | SCC Blog<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Bombay High Court explained the evidentiary value of dying declaration the Section 32(1) of Evidence Act was an exception to general rule against hearsay evidence.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/02\/dying-declaration-section-32-1-evidence-act-exception-rule-against-hearsay-evidence-bombay-hc\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Dying Declaration | Section 32(1) of Evidence Act is an exception to general rule against hearsay evidence: Bombay High Court upholds conviction order against the accused\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Bombay High Court explained the evidentiary value of dying declaration the Section 32(1) of Evidence Act was an exception to general rule against hearsay evidence.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/02\/dying-declaration-section-32-1-evidence-act-exception-rule-against-hearsay-evidence-bombay-hc\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2023-08-02T12:00:42+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2023-08-04T11:22:39+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/bombay-high-court.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"886\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"590\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Ridhi\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"Dying Declaration | Section 32(1) of Evidence Act is an exception to general rule against hearsay evidence: Bombay High Court upholds conviction order against the accused\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Ridhi\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"4 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/02\/dying-declaration-section-32-1-evidence-act-exception-rule-against-hearsay-evidence-bombay-hc\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/02\/dying-declaration-section-32-1-evidence-act-exception-rule-against-hearsay-evidence-bombay-hc\/\",\"name\":\"Dying Declaration | Section 32(1) of Evidence Act an exception to rule against hearsay evidence: Bombay HC | SCC Blog\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/02\/dying-declaration-section-32-1-evidence-act-exception-rule-against-hearsay-evidence-bombay-hc\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/02\/dying-declaration-section-32-1-evidence-act-exception-rule-against-hearsay-evidence-bombay-hc\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/bombay-high-court.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2023-08-02T12:00:42+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2023-08-04T11:22:39+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/a21428c608a56b14de2f1880af8ab8ea\"},\"description\":\"Bombay High Court explained the evidentiary value of dying declaration the Section 32(1) of Evidence Act was an exception to general rule against hearsay evidence.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/02\/dying-declaration-section-32-1-evidence-act-exception-rule-against-hearsay-evidence-bombay-hc\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/02\/dying-declaration-section-32-1-evidence-act-exception-rule-against-hearsay-evidence-bombay-hc\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/02\/dying-declaration-section-32-1-evidence-act-exception-rule-against-hearsay-evidence-bombay-hc\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/bombay-high-court.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/bombay-high-court.webp\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"bombay high court\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/02\/dying-declaration-section-32-1-evidence-act-exception-rule-against-hearsay-evidence-bombay-hc\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Dying Declaration | Section 32(1) of Evidence Act is an exception to general rule against hearsay evidence: Bombay High Court upholds conviction order against the accused\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/a21428c608a56b14de2f1880af8ab8ea\",\"name\":\"Ridhi\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/5bb725ff04af51d6ea760aba8bfa827caa7c4b3ff053baff285d71a0ab546955?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/5bb725ff04af51d6ea760aba8bfa827caa7c4b3ff053baff285d71a0ab546955?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Ridhi\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/scc_editor\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Dying Declaration | Section 32(1) of Evidence Act an exception to rule against hearsay evidence: Bombay HC | SCC Blog","description":"Bombay High Court explained the evidentiary value of dying declaration the Section 32(1) of Evidence Act was an exception to general rule against hearsay evidence.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/02\/dying-declaration-section-32-1-evidence-act-exception-rule-against-hearsay-evidence-bombay-hc\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Dying Declaration | Section 32(1) of Evidence Act is an exception to general rule against hearsay evidence: Bombay High Court upholds conviction order against the accused","og_description":"Bombay High Court explained the evidentiary value of dying declaration the Section 32(1) of Evidence Act was an exception to general rule against hearsay evidence.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/02\/dying-declaration-section-32-1-evidence-act-exception-rule-against-hearsay-evidence-bombay-hc\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2023-08-02T12:00:42+00:00","article_modified_time":"2023-08-04T11:22:39+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/bombay-high-court.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Ridhi","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"Dying Declaration | Section 32(1) of Evidence Act is an exception to general rule against hearsay evidence: Bombay High Court upholds conviction order against the accused","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Ridhi","Est. reading time":"4 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/02\/dying-declaration-section-32-1-evidence-act-exception-rule-against-hearsay-evidence-bombay-hc\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/02\/dying-declaration-section-32-1-evidence-act-exception-rule-against-hearsay-evidence-bombay-hc\/","name":"Dying Declaration | Section 32(1) of Evidence Act an exception to rule against hearsay evidence: Bombay HC | SCC Blog","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/02\/dying-declaration-section-32-1-evidence-act-exception-rule-against-hearsay-evidence-bombay-hc\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/02\/dying-declaration-section-32-1-evidence-act-exception-rule-against-hearsay-evidence-bombay-hc\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/bombay-high-court.webp","datePublished":"2023-08-02T12:00:42+00:00","dateModified":"2023-08-04T11:22:39+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/a21428c608a56b14de2f1880af8ab8ea"},"description":"Bombay High Court explained the evidentiary value of dying declaration the Section 32(1) of Evidence Act was an exception to general rule against hearsay evidence.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/02\/dying-declaration-section-32-1-evidence-act-exception-rule-against-hearsay-evidence-bombay-hc\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/02\/dying-declaration-section-32-1-evidence-act-exception-rule-against-hearsay-evidence-bombay-hc\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/02\/dying-declaration-section-32-1-evidence-act-exception-rule-against-hearsay-evidence-bombay-hc\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/bombay-high-court.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/bombay-high-court.webp","width":886,"height":590,"caption":"bombay high court"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/02\/dying-declaration-section-32-1-evidence-act-exception-rule-against-hearsay-evidence-bombay-hc\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Dying Declaration | Section 32(1) of Evidence Act is an exception to general rule against hearsay evidence: Bombay High Court upholds conviction order against the accused"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/a21428c608a56b14de2f1880af8ab8ea","name":"Ridhi","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/5bb725ff04af51d6ea760aba8bfa827caa7c4b3ff053baff285d71a0ab546955?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/5bb725ff04af51d6ea760aba8bfa827caa7c4b3ff053baff285d71a0ab546955?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Ridhi"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/scc_editor\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/bombay-high-court.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":225953,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/02\/20\/bom-hc-person-who-pours-kerosene-on-someone-and-sets-him-on-fire-has-no-right-to-say-that-he-had-no-knowledge-that-this-act-would-cause-death-conviction-under-s-302-ipc\/","url_meta":{"origin":298354,"position":0},"title":"Bom HC | \u201cPerson who pours kerosene on someone and sets him on fire has no right to say that he had no knowledge that it would cause death\u201d \u2013 Conviction under S. 302 IPC upheld","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"February 20, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"Bombay High Court: A Division Bench of M.G. Sewlikar and T.V. Nalawade, JJ., upheld the decision of the trial court to convict the accused under Section 302 of Penal Code and held that, \u201c A person who pours kerosene on someone and sets him on fire has no right to\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":246978,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/04\/12\/husband-supreme-court-explains-the-yardstick-for-admissibility-of-a-dying-declarati\/","url_meta":{"origin":298354,"position":1},"title":"Husband & Sister-in-law walk free after deceased’s dying declaration fails to “inspire confidence” in a 30 year old case; Supreme Court explains the yardstick for admissibility of a dying declaration","author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","date":"April 12, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court: The bench of Navin Sinha and Krishan Murari, JJ has held that there cannot be any rigid standard or yardstick for acceptance or rejection of a dying declaration and whether or not it will be admissible in evidence will depend upon the fact of each case. The Court\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/sc-2-7.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/sc-2-7.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/sc-2-7.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/sc-2-7.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/sc-2-7.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":204074,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/10\/22\/section-106-evidence-act-not-a-substitute-for-the-burden-of-proof-which-rests-on-prosecution-murder-accused-acquitted-holding-prosecution-case-based-on-presumption-bombay-hc\/","url_meta":{"origin":298354,"position":2},"title":"Section 106 Evidence Act not a substitute for the burden of proof which rests on prosecution; murder accused acquitted holding prosecution case based on presumption: Bombay HC","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"October 22, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"Bombay High Court: A Division Bench comprising of S.S. Shinde and A.S. Gadkari, JJ., allowed a criminal appeal filed against the judgment of the trial court whereby the appellant was convicted for murder under Section 302 IPC. The appellant and the deceased were living in a live-in-relationship. Both were married\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":213565,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/04\/11\/ph-hc-suspicion-however-strong-cannot-take-place-of-the-positive-proof-and-cannot-be-made-basis-of-conviction\/","url_meta":{"origin":298354,"position":3},"title":"P&H HC | Suspicion, however strong, cannot take place of the positive proof and cannot be made basis of conviction","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"April 11, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Punjab And Haryana High Court: The Bench of Rajiv Sharma and Kuldip Singh, JJ., dismissed the application filed under Section 378(4) CrPC against the Judgment passed by the Additional Sessions Judge acquitting the accused-respondents of the charges framed against them under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and Section\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":285238,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/02\/25\/whether-the-statement-of-deceased-to-the-police-and-treating-doctors-pass-the-test-of-dying-declaration-allahabad-high-court-answers-legal-research-legal-news-up\/","url_meta":{"origin":298354,"position":4},"title":"Whether the statement of deceased to the police and treating doctors pass the test of dying declaration? Allahabad High Court answers","author":"Apoorva","date":"February 25, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Allahabad High Court reiterated that the dying declaration recorded by a police officer, can be acted upon if the same is found to be true, coherent, consistent, and free from any effort to prompt the deceased to make such a statement.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Allahabad High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/MicrosoftTeams-image-476.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/MicrosoftTeams-image-476.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/MicrosoftTeams-image-476.png?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/MicrosoftTeams-image-476.png?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":226505,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/03\/04\/bom-hc-act-of-pouring-kerosene-on-the-person-of-deceased-and-setting-her-on-fire-amounts-to-culpable-homicide-amounting-to-murder\/","url_meta":{"origin":298354,"position":5},"title":"Bom HC | Act of pouring kerosene on the person of deceased and setting her on fire amounts to culpable homicide amounting to murder","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"March 4, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"Bombay High Court:\u00a0A Division Bench of S.M. Gavhane and T.V. Nalawade, JJ., while partially allowing the appeal, held that, \"...with regard to offence under Section 498-A IPC, prosecuton has to prove that the accused in furtherance of their common intention caused cruelty within the meaning of cruelty given under explanation\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/298354","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67513"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=298354"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/298354\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/293501"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=298354"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=298354"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=298354"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}