Sh. Satender vs State Through Gnctd on 3 December, 2021
In pursuance to the notice
4
Satender Vs State
CR No. 35/2020
u/s 133 M. V. Act, the registered owner of motorcycle bearing no.
DL-6SAR-3672 has categorically informed that on the date of the
incident, the said motorcycle was with revisionist Satender
Kumar. Now in such circumstances, separate supplementary
statement recorded u/s 161 CrPC identifying the revisionist as
perpetrator of the offence, coupled with the CCTV footage of
robbery incident and the response of the registered owner u/s
133 M.V. Act raises a very grave suspicion against the revisionist
fully justifying his case to be put on trial. Failure of the TIP
proceedings would constitute a very important factor in favour of
the accused. However, the TIP proceedings is not conclusive in
nature and is merely corroborative in nature. In the case at hand,
the entire incident of robbery has been captured in CCTV
footage. I concur with the Ld. Addl. PP that the substantive
identification of the accused takes place only during the trial in
the court and mere failure of the TIP proceedings or the expert
opinion in the FSL result is not sufficient in itself to efface the
other incriminating evidence available on record i.e. the
supplementary statement of the complainant u/s 161 CrPC and
reply of the registered owner in pursuance to notice u/s 133 of
the M.V. Act.