Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 18 (0.65 seconds)
Documents citing Venkatesha vs State Of Karnataka on 8 January, 2013

The State Of Mah.Thr.Telhara P.S. vs Ab.Ajij Sk.Mehboob And 22 Others. on 24 November, 2025

Judgment 494 apeal42.02 156 identification parade. She further submitted that it is pertinent to note that substantial gap of 12 years raises a doubt as to the identification. She placed reliance on the decision in the case of Venkatesha and ors vs. State of Karnataka supra wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has ruled out the evidence of identification after eight years and observed that substantial gap of approximately eight years raises serious concern regarding identification. If no identification parade of the unknown persons took place, their identification in the trial court for the first time would cast a serious doubt on the veracity of the prosecution case.
Bombay High Court Cites 58 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs Rahul Kuamr on 21 February, 2025

In this regard, the attention of this Court goes towards the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Venkatesha & Ors. Vs State of Karnataka 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 116 wherein it has been categorically held that- " While identification of a witness in a given case for the first time in witness box would be permissible, the substantial gap of approximately eight years raises serious concern regarding identification. If no identification parade of the unknown accused persons took place, their identification in the trial Court, for the first time would cast a serious doubt on the veracity of the prosecution's case". Upon examining the facts of the present case in light of the aforesaid observations of the Hon'ble Summit Court, it is evident that the complainant identified the witness for the first time after a gap of more than six years from the date of the alleged incident FIR No. 654/14 PS Rajouri Garden State Vs. Rahul Kumar Page 11 of 14 Digitally signed SHASHANK by SHASHANK NANDAN NANDAN BHATT BHATT Date: 2025.02.21 15:26:03 +0530 as he had not joined the TIP proceedings at the stage of investigation. As discussed hereinbefore, the circumstances in which the witness stated to have seen the accused (in the police lock-up after a few days of the incident) is also doubtful as the complainant has narrated contradictory accounts of the same.
Delhi District Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Kallu Verma @ Arvind vs State Of U.P. on 16 April, 2025

22. With regard to the test identification parade not conducted soon after the arrest of the appellant renders the prosecution story wholly doubtful, learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Venkatesha & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka : 2025 LawSuit (SC) 148, wherein in para-15, it has been observed as below:
Allahabad High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - G Chowdhary - Full Document
1   2 Next