Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.46 seconds)Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Sheikh Hasib Alias Tabarak vs The State Of Bihar on 23 August, 1971
30. The Supreme Court in Hasib vs State of Bihar, AIR 1972 SC
2 8 3 , has noted that whenever, there is delay in holding a T.I.P. the
prosecution should explain it, and the absence of a reasonable explanation
will distract the value of the test.
Mulla & Another vs State Of U.P on 8 February, 2010
Similarly in Mulla and another versus State
of Uttar Pradesh, (2010) 3 SCC 508, in Para-45 it is noted that the T.I.P.
soon after arrest eliminates the possibility of the accused being shown to the
witnesses prior to the T.I.P.
Shabad Pulla Reddy & Ors vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 20 August, 1997
In Shabad Pulla Reddy vs. State of A.P., AIR 1997 SC 3087, the
Supreme Court has held that where the Test Identification Parade was held
after about 3-4 months of arrest of the accused persons and no explanation
was given for the inordinate delay, identification evidence of such T.I.
Parade was held to be unreliable.
Sanjeet Kumar Singh @ Munna Kumar Singh vs The State Of Chhattisgarh on 30 August, 2022
38. When these facts are taken into consideration then in the light of
the judgment of Supreme Court in Manoj alias Munna versus State of
Chhattisgarh, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2858, where in Paras 26, 27 & 28 the
Supreme Court referred to the judgments in case of Rambraksh v. State of
Chhattisgarh, (2016) 12 SCC 251, Krishnan alias Ramasamy v. State of
Tamil Nadu, (2014) 12 SCC 279, Arjun Marik v. State of Bihar, 1994 Supp
(2) SCC 372 and that in Kanhaiya Lal v. State of Rajasthan, (2014) 4 SCC
715, to hold that conviction cannot be recorded against the accused merely
on the ground that the accused was last seen with the deceased. In other
words, conviction cannot be based on the only circumstance of last seen
together. It is held that the evidence of last seen together is a weak evidence
and conviction only on the basis of last seen together without their being any
other corroborated evidence against the accused will not be sufficient to
convict the accused for an offence under Section 302 & 201 of IPC.
Rambraksh @ Jalim vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 12 May, 2016
38. When these facts are taken into consideration then in the light of
the judgment of Supreme Court in Manoj alias Munna versus State of
Chhattisgarh, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2858, where in Paras 26, 27 & 28 the
Supreme Court referred to the judgments in case of Rambraksh v. State of
Chhattisgarh, (2016) 12 SCC 251, Krishnan alias Ramasamy v. State of
Tamil Nadu, (2014) 12 SCC 279, Arjun Marik v. State of Bihar, 1994 Supp
(2) SCC 372 and that in Kanhaiya Lal v. State of Rajasthan, (2014) 4 SCC
715, to hold that conviction cannot be recorded against the accused merely
on the ground that the accused was last seen with the deceased. In other
words, conviction cannot be based on the only circumstance of last seen
together. It is held that the evidence of last seen together is a weak evidence
and conviction only on the basis of last seen together without their being any
other corroborated evidence against the accused will not be sufficient to
convict the accused for an offence under Section 302 & 201 of IPC.
Krishnan & Ramasamy & Ors vs State Of Tamilnadu on 1 July, 2014
38. When these facts are taken into consideration then in the light of
the judgment of Supreme Court in Manoj alias Munna versus State of
Chhattisgarh, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2858, where in Paras 26, 27 & 28 the
Supreme Court referred to the judgments in case of Rambraksh v. State of
Chhattisgarh, (2016) 12 SCC 251, Krishnan alias Ramasamy v. State of
Tamil Nadu, (2014) 12 SCC 279, Arjun Marik v. State of Bihar, 1994 Supp
(2) SCC 372 and that in Kanhaiya Lal v. State of Rajasthan, (2014) 4 SCC
715, to hold that conviction cannot be recorded against the accused merely
on the ground that the accused was last seen with the deceased. In other
words, conviction cannot be based on the only circumstance of last seen
together. It is held that the evidence of last seen together is a weak evidence
and conviction only on the basis of last seen together without their being any
other corroborated evidence against the accused will not be sufficient to
convict the accused for an offence under Section 302 & 201 of IPC.