Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 22 (0.23 seconds)Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Thangaiya vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 8 December, 2004
632). Conduct of the chance witness, subsequent to the incident may
also be taken into consideration particularly as to whether he has
informed anyone else in the village about the incident. (vide
Thangaiya v. State of Tamil Nadu (2005) 9 SCC 650).”
Dana Yadav @ Dahu & Ors vs State Of Bihar on 13 September, 2002
32. That apart, as already stated, no test identification parade was
conducted and the witnesses identified A-1 to A-3 in the Court during trial. The
Honourable Supreme Court in Dana Yadav v. State of Bihar reported in
(2002) 7 SCC 295, held that in the absence of test identification parade and in
the absence of any corroborative evidence, it is highly unsafe to rely upon the
identification of the accused first time in the Court. Relevant portion of the
said judgment is extracted hereunder:
Kanta Prashad vs Delhi Administration(And Connected ... on 6 February, 1958
“It is also well settled that failure to hold test identification
parade, which should be held with reasonable despatch, does not make
the evidence of identification in court inadmissible rather the same is
very much admissible in law. Question is what is its probative value?
Ordinarily identification of an accused for the first time in court by a
witness should not be relied upon, the same being from its very nature,
inherently of a weak character, unless it is corroborated by his previous
Identification in the test identification parade or any other evidence. The
purpose of test identification parade is to test the observation, grasp,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
22/26
Crl.A.(MD) No.549 of 2018
memory, capacity to recapitulate what a witness has seen earlier,
strength or trustworthiness of the evidence of identification of an
accused and to ascertain if it can be used as reliable corroborative
evidence of the witness identifying the accused at his trial in court. If a
witness identifies the accused in court for the first time, the probative
value of such uncorroborated evidence becomes minimal so much so
that it becomes, as a rule of prudence and not law, unsafe to rely on such
a piece of evidence. We are fortified in our view by a catena of decisions
of this Court in Kanta Prashad v. Delhi Administration, AIR (1958) SC
350: 1958 Cri LJ 698, Vaikuntam Chandrappa v. State of A.P, AIR 1960
SC 1340:1960 Cri LJ 1681, Budhsen v. State of U.P, (1970) 2 SCC
128:1970 SCC(Cri) 343, Kanan v. State of Kerala, [1979] 3 SCC
319:1979 SCC(Cri) 621, Mohanlal Gangaram Gehani v. State of
Maharashtra, [1982] l SCC 700:1982 SCC(Cri) 334, Bollavaram Pedda
Narsi Reddy v. State of A.P, (1991) 3 SCC 434: 1991 SCC(Cri.)
Bollavaram Pedda Narsi Reddy And Ors vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 7 May, 1991
“It is also well settled that failure to hold test identification
parade, which should be held with reasonable despatch, does not make
the evidence of identification in court inadmissible rather the same is
very much admissible in law. Question is what is its probative value?
Ordinarily identification of an accused for the first time in court by a
witness should not be relied upon, the same being from its very nature,
inherently of a weak character, unless it is corroborated by his previous
Identification in the test identification parade or any other evidence. The
purpose of test identification parade is to test the observation, grasp,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
22/26
Crl.A.(MD) No.549 of 2018
memory, capacity to recapitulate what a witness has seen earlier,
strength or trustworthiness of the evidence of identification of an
accused and to ascertain if it can be used as reliable corroborative
evidence of the witness identifying the accused at his trial in court. If a
witness identifies the accused in court for the first time, the probative
value of such uncorroborated evidence becomes minimal so much so
that it becomes, as a rule of prudence and not law, unsafe to rely on such
a piece of evidence. We are fortified in our view by a catena of decisions
of this Court in Kanta Prashad v. Delhi Administration, AIR (1958) SC
350: 1958 Cri LJ 698, Vaikuntam Chandrappa v. State of A.P, AIR 1960
SC 1340:1960 Cri LJ 1681, Budhsen v. State of U.P, (1970) 2 SCC
128:1970 SCC(Cri) 343, Kanan v. State of Kerala, [1979] 3 SCC
319:1979 SCC(Cri) 621, Mohanlal Gangaram Gehani v. State of
Maharashtra, [1982] l SCC 700:1982 SCC(Cri) 334, Bollavaram Pedda
Narsi Reddy v. State of A.P, (1991) 3 SCC 434: 1991 SCC(Cri.)
State Of Maharashtra Vs. Respondent: ... vs Sukhdev Singh Alias Sukha And Others on 15 July, 1992
586,
State of Maharashtra v. Sukhdev Singh., [1992] 3 SCC 700:1992
SCC(Cri) 705, Jaspal Singh alias Pali v. State of Punjab, [1997] l SCC
510:1997 SCC(Cri) 358, Raju alias Rajendra v. State of Maharashtra,
[1998] l SCC 169:1998 SCC (Cri) 296, Ronny alias Ronald James
Alwaris v. State of Maharastra , 1998 3 SCC 625:1998 SCC(Cri)
859,George and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Anr., [1998] 4 SCC
605:1998 SCC(Cri) 1232, Rajesh Govind Jagesha v. State of
Maharastra, 1999 8 SCC 428:1999 SCC(Cri) 1452,State of H.P. v. Lekh
Raj and Anr., [2000] l SCC 247:2000 SCC(Cri) 147 and Ramanbhai
Naranbhai Patel and Ors. v. State of Gujarat, [2000] l SCC 358:2000
SCC(Cri) 113.