Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.28 seconds)Mulla & Another vs State Of U.P on 8 February, 2010
30. It is a matter of great importance both for the
investigating agency and for the accused and a fortiori for the
proper administration of justice that a TIP is held without
avoidable and unreasonable delay after the arrest of the
accused. This becomes necessary to eliminate the possibility
of the accused being shown to the witnesses before the test
identification parade. This is a very common plea of the
accused, and therefore, the prosecution has to be cautious to
ensure that there is no scope for making such an allegation. If,
however, circumstances are beyond control and there is some
delay, it cannot be said to be fatal to the prosecution. But
reasons should be given as to why there was a delay (Mulla v.
State of U.P. and Suresh Chandra Bahri v. State of Bihar)."
C. Muniappan & Ors vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 30 August, 2010
Therefore, TIPs, even if held,
cannot be considered in all the cases as trustworthy evidence
on which the conviction of an accused can be sustained (State
of H.P. v. Lekh Raj and C. Muniappan and Ors v. State of T.N.).
Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Rajesh Govind Jagesha vs State Of Maharashtra on 2 November, 1999
18. The broad guidelines for conduct of TI parade find place
in the Criminal Manual and though it is expected that the test
identification should be conducted with promptitude, the delay
in it's conduct will have to be construed in the light of the
M.M.Salgaonkar
::: Uploaded on - 29/03/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 30/03/2023 18:39:07 :::
14/16 J APEAL-319-99+1.odt
surrounding circumstances featuring to the case of the
prosecution. A prompt test identification parade would ensure
justice and fairness to the accused as well as to the
prosecution, as immediately after the arrest of the accused,
the TI parade is expected to be conducted to affirm the
suspicion about a person, being the perpetrator of crime and
no hard and fast rule can be laid down about the period within
which such TI parade should be held as in such cases,
prejudice to the accused would assume great significance. The
delay, at times, will be considered to be fatal, if during the
interregnum, the photograph/picture is disclosed to the
witnesses and in Rajesh Govind Jagesha Vs. State of
Maharashtra 5, delay of about one month was viewed seriously,
since there was a possibility of the accused being shown to the
witness.