Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.29 seconds)Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Prakash vs State Of Karnataka on 15 April, 2014
39. In the present case, from the evidence of
Darare (PW 10), it is clear that he had taken
maximum care to see that the T.I. parade in respect
of accused nos.1 and 2 is held as per the provisions
of Criminal Manual. The only defects on his part are
that he got called the panchas through police and
further instead of recording specific time of test
identification in respect of each individual
identifying witness, he mentioned the total time in
the memorandums that was required by him to
complete the proceedings. In the circumstances,
in our view, the evidentiary value of the T.I. parade
would get minimised. It has been held in the case
of Prakash Vs. State of Karnataka (supra) cited by
the learned A.P.P., the purpose of pre-trial
identification evidence is to provide corroboration
to the evidence given by the witness or
::: Uploaded on - 30/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/12/2017 00:50:56 :::
33 cri.appeal.147 and 134
victim later in Court and if the suspect is a
complete stranger to the witness then an
identification parade is desirable. In our view,
even if the corroborative evidence pertaining to T.I.
parade is kept out of consideration for the above-
mentioned faults on the part of Darare (PW 10) in
conducting T.I. parade, considering the strong and
dependable substantive evidence of Janhavi (PW 6),
Sister Juvana (PW 9) and that of Hand Writing Expert
Kathar (PW 13), the prosecution established beyond
reasonable doubt identity of accused nos.1 and 2 as
the persons involved in the incident in question.
Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 63 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 65 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Puttaswamy vs State Of Karnataka & Anr on 11 December, 2008
49. The learned Senior Counsel further referred
to the case of Puttaswamy Vs. State of Karnataka and
anr., 2009 AIR SCW 1744, wherein the offences were
non-compoundable, but since the parties had reached
at a compromise, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while
maintaining the conviction increased fine from
Rs.2,000/- to Rs.25,000/- and reduced the sentence to
the period already undergone. On the strength of
these rulings, the learned Senior Counsel prays that
leniency may be shown to the accused in the matter of
inflicting punishment.
Vilas Vasantrao Patil vs The State Of Maharashtra, ... on 20 December, 1995
ii. Vilas Vasantrao Patil Vs. State of
Maharashtra, 1997(Supp.) Bom.C.R.152;