Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (1.92 seconds)Section 25 in The Arms Act, 1959 [Entire Act]
Sans Pal Singh vs State Of Delhi on 8 January, 1998
Reliance was also placed on behalf of the appellants on the verdict of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Sans Pal Singh Vs. State of Delhi"
Rohit @ Rahul @ Minto vs The State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) on 19 April, 2011
(1998) 2 SCC 371 to contend to similar effect that in the absence of
public witnesses being joined by the public personnel, the veracity of
the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses was rendered wholly
circumspect. Reliance was also placed on behalf of the appellants on
the verdict of this Court in "Rohit @ Rahul @ Minto Vs. The State
(Govt. of NCT of Delhi)" 2011 SCC OnLine Del 1794 to contend to
the effect that it was sufficient for the appellants to indicate the
CRL.A.288-856-708-484/2019 Page 15 of 25
possibility of the complainant having seen the appellants before the
TIP and in such circumstances, where justifiable grounds are put forth
by an accused to refuse to participate in the TIP, no adverse inference
can be drawn against the accused for in such instances, the
identification of the appellants in Court by the complainant after years
of the incident (the complainant was examined on 13.08.2013 in
relation to an incident on 12.11.2010),- was wholly insufficient.
Tain Singh vs State (Delhi Admn.) on 7 January, 1986
Reliance was also placed on behalf of the appellants on the verdict of
this Court in "Tain Singh Vs. State (Delhi Admn.)" 1986 SCC
OnLine Del 4 to contend to the effect that it is a settled law that the
accused is not to prove conclusively that he was shown to the
prosecution witnesses before he declined to participate in the
identification parade and it is enough if he brings on record cogent
circumstances to show that he was or could have been shown to
prosecution witnesses while he was in police custody or when he was
produced in Court for remand and it was observed vide paragraph 4 of
the said verdict to the effect:-
State Of Maharashtra Etc. Etc vs Sukhdeo Singh And Anr. Etc. Etc on 15 July, 1992
24. Reliance was also placed on behalf of the appellants likewise
on the verdict of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "State of
Maharashtra and Ors. Vs. Sukhdeo Singh and Ors." AIR 1992 SC
2100 with observations therein to the effect that where the direct
CRL.A.288-856-708-484/2019 Page 16 of 25
evidence regarding the identity of the culprits comprises of
identification for the first time after a considerable time in Court or
identification at the TIP in the case of total strangers, it would not be
safe to place implicit reliance on the evidence of witnesses who just
had a fleeting glimpse of the person identified, and who had no
particular reason to remember the person concerned if the
identification was made for the first time in Court.
Mulla & Another vs State Of U.P on 8 February, 2010
In
as much as, as regards the accused Kalu, he has been categorically
admittedly been identified by the complainant during the judicial TIP
along with co-accused Shahbuddin (since expired) against whom the
proceedings have already abated, which is a circumstance in support
of the prosecution version in relation to the veracity of the
complainant's testimony qua identification of the accused persons
involved in the commission of the crime as well, as laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Mulla and Another Vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh" (2010) 2 SCC (Cri) 1150 with specific observations in
paragraph 42 of the said verdict, which reads to the effect:-
Raju Manjhi vs The State Of Bihar on 2 August, 2018
31. Furthermore, the testimony of the complainant in the instant
case is categorical and cogent in relation to the identification of the
accused persons as being the perpetrators of the crime along with the
co-accused who has since expired namely Shahbuddin, and as laid
down thus by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Raju Manjhi Vs. State
of Bihar" AIR 2018 SC 3592 vide paragraph 15 thereof to the effect:-