Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 49 (0.39 seconds)The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Section 162 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Mano Dutt & Anr vs State Of U.P on 29 February, 2012
In Mano Dutt and Another vs.
State of Uttar Pradesh, (2012)4 SCC 79, it was held
as under:
Mukesh & Anr vs State For Nct Of Delhi & Ors on 5 May, 2017
In Mukesh & Anr. v. State (NCT Delhi) & ors.,
reported in (2017) 6 SCC 1, it has been held:
Malkhansingh & Ors vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 July, 2003
1991 SCC (Cri) 172] unless the suspect has been seen by
the witness or victim for some length of time. [State of
U.P. v. Boota Singh, (1979) 1 SCC 31 : 1979 SCC (Cri)
115] In Malkhansingh v. State of M.P. [(2003) 5 SCC 746
: 2003 SCC (Cri) 1247] it was held: (SCC pp. 751-52,
para 7)
"7. ... The identification parades belong to the
stage of investigation, and there is no provision in
the Code of Criminal Procedure which obliges the
investigating agency to hold, or confers a right
upon the accused to claim a test identification
parade. They do not constitute substantive
evidence and these parades are essentially
governed by Section 162 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure. Failure to hold a test identification
parade would not make inadmissible the evidence
of identification in court. The weight to be
attached to such identification should be a matter
for the courts of fact."
Jadunath Singh & Anr vs State Of U.P on 7 December, 1970
16. However, if the suspect is known to the witness or
victim [Jadunath Singh v. State of U.P., (1970) 3 SCC
518 : 1971 SCC (Cri) 124] or they have been shown a
photograph of the suspect or the suspect has been
exposed to the public by the media [R. Shaji v. State of
Kerala, (2013) 14 SCC 266 : (2014) 4 SCC (Cri) 185] no
identification evidence is necessary. Even so, the failure
of a victim or a witness to identify a suspect is not always
fatal to the case of the prosecution.
Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma vs State (Nct Of Delhi) on 19 April, 2010
[Kanta Prashad v. Delhi Admn., AIR 1958 SC
350 : 1958 Cri LJ 698; Harbajan Singh v. State of J&K,
(1975) 4 SCC 480 : 1975 SCC (Cri) 545; Jadunath Singh
v. State of U.P., (1970) 3 SCC 518 : 1971 SCC (Cri) 124;
George v. State of Kerala, (1998) 4 SCC 605 : 1998 SCC
(Cri) 1232; Dana Yadav v. State of Bihar, (2002) 7 SCC
295 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 1698] Earlier, a similar view was
expressed in Manu Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi)
[Manu Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2010) 6 SCC 1 :
R. Shaji vs State Of Kerala on 4 February, 2013
16. However, if the suspect is known to the witness or
victim [Jadunath Singh v. State of U.P., (1970) 3 SCC
518 : 1971 SCC (Cri) 124] or they have been shown a
photograph of the suspect or the suspect has been
exposed to the public by the media [R. Shaji v. State of
Kerala, (2013) 14 SCC 266 : (2014) 4 SCC (Cri) 185] no
identification evidence is necessary. Even so, the failure
of a victim or a witness to identify a suspect is not always
fatal to the case of the prosecution.