Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.53 seconds)Section 27 in The Arms Act, 1959 [Entire Act]
Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Mohanlal Gangaram Gehani vs State Of Maharastra on 17 February, 1982
―It is well settled that where a witness identifies an accused
who is no known to him in the Court for the first time, his
evidence is absolutely valueless unless there has been a
previous T.I. parade to test his powers of observations. The
idea of holding T.I. parade under Section 9 of the Evidence
Act is to test the veracity of the witness on the question of
CRL. A 4/1993 Page 41 of 43
his capability to identify an unknown person whom the
witness may have seen only once. If no T.I. parade is held
then it will be wholly unsafe to rely on his bare testimony
regarding the identification of an accused for the first time
in Court.‖
In Mohanlal Gangaram Gehani v. State of Maharashtra: (1982) 1
SCC 700 also the same view is expressed.
Laxmipat Choraria And Ors vs State Of Maharashtra on 14 December, 1967
In Laxmipat Choraria and Others v. State of Maharashtra: AIR
1968 SC 938, the Supreme Court categorically observed that showing
of a photograph prior to the identification makes the identification
worthless. The Supreme Court also observed that there could be no
doubt that if the intention on the part of the prosecution is to rely on the
identification of the suspect by a witness, his ability to identify should
be tested without showing him the suspect or his photograph or
furnishing him the data for identification.
Section 9 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
N.J.Suraj vs State Rep. By Inpsector on 28 October, 2002
The same view is expressed
by the Supreme Court in N. J. Suraj v. State: (2004) 11 SCC 346
wherein the Supreme Court observed that in view of the fact that the
photograph of the accused had been shown to the witnesses, their
identification in the test identification parade became meaningless and
no reliance could be placed thereon.
State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Chamru @ Bhagwandas Etc.Etc on 19 June, 2007
In State of Madhya Pradesh v.
Chamru: 2007 Crl. L. J. 3509, the Supreme Court observed that the
showing of a photograph of the accused Chamru to the child witnesses
before the TIP parade took way the effect of the Test Identification
Parade.
1