Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.36 seconds)Section 27 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 11 in The M.P. Dakaiti Aur Vyapharan Prabhavit Kshetra Adhiniyam, 1981 [Entire Act]
Section 13 in The M.P. Dakaiti Aur Vyapharan Prabhavit Kshetra Adhiniyam, 1981 [Entire Act]
Section 157 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 11 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 13 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 24 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
The M.P. Dakaiti Aur Vyapharan Prabhavit Kshetra Adhiniyam, 1981
Acharaparambath Pradeepan & Anr. à ... vs State Of Kerala à Respondents on 15 December, 2006
In the case of Acharaparambath
Pradeepan (supra), the Apex Court has found that the
delay of two months was fatal to the identification
proceedings and the identification was discarded
whereas in case of Rajesh Govind Jagesha (supra),
the Apex Court has found that due to inordinate delay
the evidence of TIP was discarded. In the present case,
appellant Chainu @ Chaina Kori was arrested on
17.01.2003 whereas Pooran was arrested on 11.04.2003
11 Cr.A. No.02/05, 20/05, 22/05 & 148/05
and Ram Singh and Gopal were arrested on 16.04.2003
whereas TIP was arranged on 29.04.2003. Under these
circumstances, it can be said that arrangement of test
identification parade relating to appellant Chainu @
Chaina Kori was highly delayed whereas identification
of appellants Gopal, Ram Singh, Pooran was done
within reasonable time and therefore the aforesaid
judgments of the Apex Court shall be applicable to the
appellant Chainu @ Chaina Kori and the evidence of TIP
against Chainu @ Chaina Kori shall be discarded.
(14) The learned counsel for the appellants has pointed
out that Naib Tahsildar Ku. Mamta Shakya (PW-4) has
accepted that she did not mention the description of
persons who were mixed with the accused persons at
the time of arrangement of TIP.