Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.24 seconds)Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 3 in The Arms Act, 1959 [Entire Act]
Section 25 in The Arms Act, 1959 [Entire Act]
Section 16 in The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 [Entire Act]
Section 18 in The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 [Entire Act]
Section 20 in The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 [Entire Act]
Section 23 in The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 [Entire Act]
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Raju Manjhi vs The State Of Bihar on 2 August, 2018
16. The trial Court has relied upon the judgment of the
Supreme Court in the case of Raju Mazi Vs. State of Bihar [2018(6)
B.Cr.C. 458 S.C.] wherein the Court held that failure to hold a test
identification parade would not make the evidence of identification
inadmissible in the Court. The Court further held that weight to be
attached to such identification should be a matter for the Courts of fact.
The Court then held that in appropriate cases, it may accept the
evidence of identification even without insisting for corroboration.
Thus, in a given case, the Court may accept identification of accused
in the Court for the first time, which will be in other case, it may not.
Thus, it would depend on facts of each case whether or not the
ascertainment of identity of assailant during the course of investigation
would be necessary.