[amp_mcq option1=”Pakala Narain Swami Vs Emperor” option2=”Sharad Virdichand Sarda Vs State of Maharashtra” option3=”Krishnayya Vs Venkata Kumar” option4=”Vijay Paul Vs State of Delhi ” correct=”option4″]<\/p>\n
The correct answer is (d). Vijay Paul Vs State of Delhi is not related to dying declaration.<\/p>\n
A dying declaration is a statement made by a person who is believed to be dying, and which relates to the cause of their death. Dying declarations are admissible in court as evidence of the facts stated in them, even if the declarant is not available to testify in person.<\/p>\n
The cases of Pakala Narain Swami Vs Emperor, Sharad Virdichand Sarda Vs State of Maharashtra, and Krishnayya Vs Venkata Kumar are all cases in which dying declarations were admitted as evidence. In Pakala Narain Swami Vs Emperor, the declarant stated that he had been murdered by the accused. In Sharad Virdichand Sarda Vs State of Maharashtra, the declarant stated that he had been killed by the accused in a fit of rage. In Krishnayya Vs Venkata Kumar, the declarant stated that he had been killed by the accused in a robbery.<\/p>\n
In Vijay Paul Vs State of Delhi, the declarant did not make any statement about the cause of his death. Instead, he made a statement about the accused’s character. This statement was not admissible as evidence, as it was not relevant to the cause of the declarant’s death.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
[amp_mcq option1=”Pakala Narain Swami Vs Emperor” option2=”Sharad Virdichand Sarda Vs State of Maharashtra” option3=”Krishnayya Vs Venkata Kumar” option4=”Vijay Paul Vs State of Delhi ” correct=”option4″]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[11],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2970","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-law","no-featured-image-padding"],"yoast_head":"\n