Back
VIKRAM NATH, SANDEEP MEHTA, VIJAY BISHNOI
SRI – Appellant
Versus
State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, Q Branch, Ramanathapuram, Tamil Nadu – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. establishing the factual history and procedural timeline of the criminal trial. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 2. parties' contentions regarding the reliability of evidence and the identification process. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39) |
| 3. the principle that identity must be proven beyond doubt and cannot rely on suspicious, belated, or inconsistent testimonies. (Para 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61) |
| 4. setting aside conviction due to failure of the prosecution to prove identification beyond reasonable doubt. (Para 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66) |
JUDGMENT :
Sandeep Mehta, J.
1. Heard.
2. The appellant herein was arraigned as an accused in connection with FIR being Crime No. 1 of 2015, registered at Q Branch Police Station, Ramanathapuram, Tamil Nadu for the offences punishable under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 18601[For short, “IPC”], Sections 10(a)(i), 10(a)(iv) and 38(1) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 19672[For short “UAP Act”], Section 6 of the
In criminal trials, identification of an accused through aliases introduced long after investigation, without a Test Identification Parade or corroborative evidence, is insufficient to support a conv....
The prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the appellant's conspiracy to revive a banned organization, supported by credible witness testimonies and recovered incriminating materials.
Failure of prosecution to prove charge beyond reasonable doubt due to inordinate delay in FIR and weak identification evidence.
The prosecution failed to establish the appellants' guilt beyond a reasonable doubt due to inconsistencies in witness testimonies and procedural irregularities in identification parades.
(1) Conviction in a criminal trial is required to be certain and not doubtful. Burden of proof of guilt of accused is upon prosecution. It must stand by itself. (2) Cr.P.C does not oblige investigati....
The court emphasized that lack of essential documentation and procedural compliance invalidates the prosecution's case, leading to the acquittal of the accused who were convicted of kidnapping for ra....
Identification parade compromised by prior exposure to witnesses renders conviction invalid.
The evidence of identification before the court is substantive, while the evidence of the identification parade is weak and only has corroborative value. The prosecution must prove that the accused w....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
