Joseph @ Baby vs The Sub Inspector Of Police on 4 April, 2014
Since the decision reported in AIR 1972 SUPREME COURT 283
"Hasib v. State of Bihar" is of larger bench, we are bound to
follow that judgment.
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 160 (2.75 seconds)Documents citing
Sheikh Hasib Alias Tabarak vs The State Of Bihar on 23 August, 1971
Prince George vs Govt. Of Kerala on 28 October, 1992
This Court relied on the decision in Sheikh Hasib (alias) Tabarak v. State of Bihar (1971 (II) SCWR 446).
Bhagwati Singh @ Pappu vs State Of U.P. on 29 June, 2022
15. The case law of Hasib Vs. State of Bihar (supra) is also of no help because in that case decoits were identified by the Police Inspector, but in the case in hand the independent witness whose presence was very natural at the spot identified the miscreant/convict. Likewise the other case laws cited on this point are also of no help to the convict for the difference in facts and circumstances of the case.
Ganga Singh vs The State Of Rajasthan on 8 April, 1977
Their Lordships of the Supreme Court also observed in Hasib v. State of Bihar (1972 Cri LJ 233) (SC) (supra) that the test-identification parade should be held at the earliest opportunity after the arrest of the accused.
Rajnish Purushottam Pogade & One vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. P.S.O., P.S. ... on 10 June, 2019
In Hasib v. The State of Bihar, it was observed
by the Court that identification parades belong to
the investigation stage and therefore it is desirable
to hold them at the earliest opportunity. An early
opportunity to identify tends to minimise the
chances of the memory of the identifying witnesses
fading away due to long lapse of time. Relying on
::: Uploaded on - 11/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 12/06/2019 01:36:34 :::
20 a786of18&787of18
this decision, counsel for the appellant contends that
no support can be derived from what transpired at
the parade as it was held long after the arrest of the
appellant. Now it is true that in the instant case
there was a delay of about three months in holding
the identification parade but here again, no
questions were asked of the investigating officer as
to why and how the delay occurred. It is true that
the burden of establishing the guilt is on the
prosecution but that theory cannot be carried so far
as to hold that the prosecution must lead evidence to
rebut all possible defences. If the contention was that
the identification parade was held in an irregular
manner or that there was an undue delay in holding
it, the Magistrate who held the parade and the
Police Officer who conducted the investigation
should have been cross-examined in that behalf.
Govind Kishor Sorte (In Jail) vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. P.S.O., P.S. ... on 10 June, 2019
In Hasib v. The State of Bihar, it was observed
by the Court that identification parades belong to
the investigation stage and therefore it is desirable
to hold them at the earliest opportunity. An early
opportunity to identify tends to minimise the
chances of the memory of the identifying witnesses
fading away due to long lapse of time. Relying on
::: Uploaded on - 11/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 12/06/2019 01:36:39 :::
20 a786of18&787of18
this decision, counsel for the appellant contends that
no support can be derived from what transpired at
the parade as it was held long after the arrest of the
appellant. Now it is true that in the instant case
there was a delay of about three months in holding
the identification parade but here again, no
questions were asked of the investigating officer as
to why and how the delay occurred. It is true that
the burden of establishing the guilt is on the
prosecution but that theory cannot be carried so far
as to hold that the prosecution must lead evidence to
rebut all possible defences. If the contention was that
the identification parade was held in an irregular
manner or that there was an undue delay in holding
it, the Magistrate who held the parade and the
Police Officer who conducted the investigation
should have been cross-examined in that behalf.
The United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs Kesavan Alias Kesavaraj on 28 February, 2011
15.The learned counsel for the appellant disputes the very accident
and he relies on Ex.A1 in support of his submission. As stated above, Ex.A1 -
First Information Report was given by one Mr.Sekaran. According to Ex.A1,
Mr.Sekaran had seen the accident as he was going behind the motorcycle rode by
the first respondent - claimant and that the claimant fell into the ditch on the
road and sustained injuries. But, the said Mr.Sekaran was not examined before
the Tribunal. Even the Investigating Officer of the appellant - R.W.2, did not
get a statement from Mr.Sekaran and no reason was given by R.W.2 for not
examining Mr.Sekaran during his investigation. Further, as rightly contended by
the learned counsel for the first respondent - claimant, the Honourable Apex
Court in Sheikh Hasib alias Tabarak Vs. The State of Bihar reported in 1972 (4)
SCC 773 held as follows:
Mohd. Ali Bhatt @ Kille vs The State on 22 November, 2012
agreed, speaking for the Court, observed that the substantive
evidence of a witness is his statement in court but the purpose
of test identification is to test that evidence and the safe rule is
that the sworn testimony of witnesses in court as to the identity
of the accused who are stranger to the witnesses, generally
speaking, requires corroboration which should be in the form
of an earlier identification proceeding or any other evidence.
The law laid down in the aforesaid decision has been reiterated
in the cases of Budhsen and another v. State of U.P. 1970(2)
SCC 128, Sheikh Hasib alias Tabarak v. The State of Bihar
(1972) 4 SCC 773, Bollavaram Pedda Narsi Reddy and others
v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1991) 3 SCC 434, Ronny alias
Ronald James Alwaris and others v. State of Maharashtra
(1998) 3 SCC 625 andRajesh Govind Jagesha v. State of
Maharashtra (1999) 8 SCC 428. It is well settled that
identification parades are held ordinarily at the instance of the
investigating officer for the purpose of enabling the witnesses to
identify either the properties which are the subject matter of
alleged offence or the persons who are alleged to have been
Death Sent.2/10; Crl.A.948 to 951/10 Page 128
involved in the offence. Such tests or parades, in ordinary
course, belong to the investigation stage and they serve to
provide the investigating authorities with material to assure
themselves if the investigation is proceeding on right lines. In
other words, it is through these identificationparades that the
investigating agency is required to ascertain whether the
persons whom they suspect to have committed the offence were
the real culprits.
State vs Mohd. Naushad & Ors on 22 November, 2012
agreed, speaking for the Court, observed that the substantive
evidence of a witness is his statement in court but the purpose
of test identification is to test that evidence and the safe rule is
that the sworn testimony of witnesses in court as to the identity
of the accused who are stranger to the witnesses, generally
speaking, requires corroboration which should be in the form
of an earlier identification proceeding or any other evidence.
The law laid down in the aforesaid decision has been reiterated
in the cases of Budhsen and another v. State of U.P. 1970(2)
SCC 128, Sheikh Hasib alias Tabarak v. The State of Bihar
(1972) 4 SCC 773, Bollavaram Pedda Narsi Reddy and others
v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1991) 3 SCC 434, Ronny alias
Ronald James Alwaris and others v. State of Maharashtra
(1998) 3 SCC 625 andRajesh Govind Jagesha v. State of
Maharashtra (1999) 8 SCC 428. It is well settled that
identification parades are held ordinarily at the instance of the
investigating officer for the purpose of enabling the witnesses to
identify either the properties which are the subject matter of
alleged offence or the persons who are alleged to have been
Death Sent.2/10; Crl.A.948 to 951/10 Page 128
involved in the offence. Such tests or parades, in ordinary
course, belong to the investigation stage and they serve to
provide the investigating authorities with material to assure
themselves if the investigation is proceeding on right lines. In
other words, it is through these identificationparades that the
investigating agency is required to ascertain whether the
persons whom they suspect to have committed the offence were
the real culprits.
State vs . Jitender Mohla on 30 October, 2012
Ld. Defence counsel has further submitted that G.D Entry
Ex PW 13/A should have been the FIR. There is delay in lodging of
the FIR. GD Entry is not treated as FIR in the present case, which is
fatal to prosecution case and has relied upon judgment in Hallu &
others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1974 Supreme Court 1936;
Apren Joseph @ Current Kunjukunju & ors Vs. The State of Kerala
AIR 1973 Supreme Court 1; Sunil Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of Madhya
Pradesh AIR 1997 SC 940; Superintendent of Police CBI & Ors Vs.
Tapan Kumar Singh AIR 2003 SC 4140; Rajesh Kumar @ Raju
Sharma Vs. State of Delhi 2011 (4) JCC 3055; Lallan Chaudhary &
others Vs. State of Bihar & Another AIR 2006 SC 3376; Hasib Vs.
State of Bihar AIR 1972 SC 283 and Shankar Vs. State of UP AIR
1975 SC 757.