Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.56 seconds)
Chandan Singh vs State Of Punjab on 5 October, 2011 cites

Naginbhai Laxmanbhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat on 25 February, 2002

Therefore, identification of the accused for the first time in the court is not totally irrelevant evidence though it may be a weak type of evidence. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and the persons making the identification, that evidence regarding the identification can be duly considered even in the absence of any test identification parade. It was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramanbhai Naranbhai Patel and others v. State of Gujarat 2000 (1) Apex Court Journal 201:1999 Crl. L.J. 5013, that absence of test identification parade does not render the evidence of eye witness, identifying the accused, as inadmissible or totally useless. Whether such evidence deserve credence or not depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Again it was held by the Hon'ble Crl. Appeal No. 890 SB of 2003 13 Apex Court in Ronny @ Ronald James Alwaris etc. vs State of Maharashtra 1998 (2) Apex Court Journal 12 (S.C.) that identification of accused at trial is relevant piece of evidence under Section 9 of the Evidence Act, though the same is inherently of weak character. Evidence of identification in test identification parade is not substantial evidence and is only a corroborative evidence. It was within the realm of investigation The substantive evidence that statement of the witness made in the court identifying the accused by a witness, if he had an opportunity to interact with him to notice his distinctive features lends assurance to his testimony in Court and that the absence of corroborative evidence by way of test identification parade would not be material.
Gujarat High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 15 - Full Document
1   2 Next