Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Checking relevance for Saritha S. Nair VS State of Kerala...
Checking relevance for Shan Muhammed, S/o. Muhammed vs State Of Kerala...
Checking relevance for Gopalakrishnan VS State of Kerala...
Checking relevance for H. RAMA VS P. A. ABOOBACKER...
Checking relevance for John VS Shibu Cherian, S/o. Cherian...
Checking relevance for State Of Kerala Rep. By The Addl. Public Prosecutor VS Civic Chandran @ C. V. Kuttan...
Checking relevance for Ravindra Alias Ravi Bansi Gohar: Kishore Amarsingh Maheshkar VS State Of Maharashtra...
Checking relevance for Mahabir VS The State of Delhi...
Mahabir VS The State of Delhi - 2008 3 Supreme 111 : If the accused was not shown and identified by the de facto complainant during investigation, it does not render the identification evidence inadmissible in court. Identification tests (such as test identification parades) are not substantive evidence but are only corroborative. The main purpose of such tests is to verify the memory of witnesses and assist the prosecution in determining whether witnesses can be cited as eye-witnesses. Failure to conduct a test identification parade does not invalidate the identification made in court. The weight and credibility of identification evidence depend on the facts of each case, and courts may accept identification even without prior identification proceedings, especially if the witness is not a total stranger and has a reasonable basis for recognition. However, if the identification in court is made for the first time by a witness who had only a fleeting glimpse or no particular reason to remember the accused, the evidentiary value is weak. Crucially, in cases where the accused were already shown to the witnesses before the test identification parade, the parade becomes irrelevant, and conviction cannot rest solely on such a parade.Checking relevance for Jarnail Singh VS State of Punjab...
Jarnail Singh VS State of Punjab - 2009 6 Supreme 526 : If the accused was not shown and identified by the de facto complainant during investigation, the absence of an identification parade does not necessarily undermine the case, especially when the accused were arrested in the presence of the witnesses who had already identified them. The court held that where the accused were arrested in the presence of the witnesses, or even if their photographs were shown prior to the identification parade, the holding of a formal identification parade becomes inconsequential. This is because the witnesses had already seen and identified the accused at the time of arrest, thereby eliminating the need for a subsequent parade. The court emphasized that the identification by witnesses at the time of arrest serves as sufficient corroboration and ensures the investigation is proceeding on the right lines.Checking relevance for Dana Yadav VS State Of Bihar...
Dana Yadav VS State Of Bihar - 2002 6 Supreme 508 : If the accused was not shown and identified by the de facto complainant during investigation, the identification of the accused in court for the first time should not ordinarily be relied upon, especially when the witness did not disclose the accused''''s name before the police. This is particularly true when there is no evidence that the accused was known to the witness prior to the incident. However, there are exceptions in exceptional circumstances, such as when the witness was injured and unconscious during the incident, or could not meet the informant before the FIR was lodged. In such cases, identification in court may be accepted if the evidence is credible and unimpeachable. The failure to hold a test identification parade does not make court identification inadmissible, but it does make the evidence inherently weak unless corroborated by prior identification or other evidence. The main consideration is whether the witness''''s claim of prior knowledge and identification in court is trustworthy.Checking relevance for K. S. Joseph VS Philips Carbon Black Ltd. ...
Checking relevance for Ramkishan Mithanlal Sharma VS State Of Bombay...
Ramkishan Mithanlal Sharma VS State Of Bombay - 1954 0 Supreme(SC) 143 : If the accused was not shown and identified by the de facto complainant during investigation, the evidence of such identification may be inadmissible if it was obtained through a test identification parade conducted under the City of Bombay Police Act, 1902, prior to 1st August 1951, because Section 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code did not apply to investigations under that Act. However, the process of identification—whether express, implied, or through gestures—constitutes a statement made to a police officer in the course of investigation and is therefore subject to the ban under Section 162 if the identification occurred after 1st August 1951. In such cases, the evidence of identification by the identifier would be inadmissible unless the identifier testifies at trial. The key distinction is that the physical act of identification is not separate from the communication of that identification to a police officer, which falls within the prohibition of Section 162. Thus, if the identification was not made during a police-supervised parade and was instead conducted under the exclusive supervision of Panch witnesses, the evidence may be admissible. In the case at hand, the test identification parades for accused 1 and 2, held before 1st August 1951, were not governed by Section 162, so the evidence was admissible. However, for accused 4, whose parades were held after 1st August 1951, the evidence was inadmissible under Section 162.Checking relevance for Vinod Kumar VS State of Punjab...
Vinod Kumar VS State of Punjab - 2015 6 Supreme 1 : If the accused was not shown and identified by the de facto complainant during investigation, it does not necessarily vitiate the prosecution case, especially when the complainant''''s initial testimony in examination-in-chief is corroborated by other reliable evidence. In cases where the complainant turns hostile, the prosecution may still rely on the earlier consistent testimony if it is supported by other witnesses and circumstantial evidence. The evidence of a hostile witness is not completely effaced, and conviction can be based on such evidence if corroborated. In the present case, although the complainant (Jagdish Verma) turned hostile in cross-examination, his initial evidence was consistently corroborated by a shadow witness and other reliable evidence, including the recovery of tainted money and the sequence of events surrounding the trap, which enabled the court to uphold the conviction. Thus, the absence of identification by the complainant during investigation does not fatally undermine the prosecution''''s case if other credible evidence supports the charge.
