that the delay of 25 days in conducting the test
identification parade (TIP) is unexplained. The delay assumes significance since
14
unveiled photographs ... articles containing photographs. Furthermore, it was
submitted that the procedure of the TIP was questionable as Rahul and Manoj
were made to stand together
themselves and that there
was no documentary proof in that regard. The TIP of the case property had
not been conducted and even independent witnesses ... alleged recoveries were from the open place, accessible
to all, that no TIP proceedings were conducted, associating PW-8, owner of
the car and that
Gomati, Deepak and Dharambir were
arrested by the IO. On 15.02.2005 the TIP of the three accused was conducted at
Tihar Jail; PW-6 correctly ... Gomati and accused Deepak;
however accused Dharambir refused to participate in the TIP. The IO completed
Crl.A. Nos.94, 783/2011 & 6/2012
themselves and that there
was no documentary proof in that regard. The TIP of the case property had
not been conducted and even independent witnesses ... alleged recoveries were from the open place, accessible
to all, that no TIP proceedings were conducted, associating PW-8, owner of
the car and that
were monitored in order to secure leads. Eventually, the prosecution was tipped-off
about the likelihood of two accused - Anil and Rajender @ Pappu reaching ... this happened late night on 19.07.1994. The police party acting on this tip-off,
ambushed Amar Mishra and Rajender @ Pappu, who were riding a motorcycle
that the testimony of PW-2 also established that
even before the TIP could be conducted; the appellants had been shown to the witness. This ... reason why TIP was refused. Having first seen the accused/appellant in police custody, the
witness (PW-2) had no difficulty in later identifying them
Gomati, Deepak and Dharambir were
arrested by the IO. On 15.02.2005 the TIP of the three accused was conducted at
Tihar Jail; PW-6 correctly ... Gomati and accused Deepak;
however accused Dharambir refused to participate in the TIP. The IO completed
Crl.A. Nos.94, 783/2011 & 6/2012
themselves and that there
was no documentary proof in that regard. The TIP of the case property had
not been conducted and even independent witnesses ... alleged recoveries were from the open place, accessible
to all, that no TIP proceedings were conducted, associating PW-8, owner of
the car and that
themselves and that there
was no documentary proof in that regard. The TIP of the case property had
not been conducted and even independent witnesses ... alleged recoveries were from the open place, accessible
to all, that no TIP proceedings were conducted, associating PW-8, owner of
the car and that
that the testimony of PW-2 also established that
even before the TIP could be conducted; the appellants had been shown to the witness. This ... reason why TIP was refused. Having first seen the accused/appellant in police custody, the
witness (PW-2) had no difficulty in later identifying them
