| Topics |
Headnote |
Judgement |
| INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT , 1872 |
|
PDF |
| INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT , 1872 |
Criminal Jurisprudence —Evidence Act — S 3 —relevant fact —Name & description of the accused not given in the complaint — Identification & involvement— tracing out from the evidence of other witnesses during the trial — Duty of the investigating agency — to arrange identification parade — & it is required to be established during trial that accused involved in the crime in question — in the absence of aforesaid procedure — no identity as well as involvement of the accused can be established during the course of trial. (Para 7) |
PDF |
| INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT , 1872 |
Criminal Jurisprudence — Rule of prudence — Evidence Act — S 3 — Relevant fact — Test Identification Parade — Failure to hold — does not make the evidence of identification in court inadmissible — rather the same is very much admissible in law — but ordinarily identification for the first time in court should not form basis of conviction — Dana Yadav @ Dahu and ors V/S State of Bihar — referred. (Para 30) |
PDF |
| INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT , 1872 |
Evidence Act — S 3 — Relevant fact — Test Identification Parade — Non holding of — the accused were apprehended in a raid from a house wherein the victims were held captive — Held, sufficiently prove the complicity of the accused — holding or non-holding of a Test Identification Parade is not significant — IPC — S 364A. (Para 32) |
PDF |
| INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT , 1872 |
Evidence Act — S 9 — facts necessary to explain or introduce, relevant fact — Identification — in test identification parade vis-à-vis identification in court — Held, identification in court — is substantive evidence — Whereas identification in test identification parade is — though a primary evidence but not substantive one —can be used only to corroborate identification of accused by a witness in court — Dana Yadav @ Dahu and ors V/S State of Bihar — referred. (Para 30) |
PDF |
| INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT , 1872 |
Evidence Act — S 9 — facts necessary to explain or introduce, relevant fact — Identification of an accused — first time in court — Nature of — is weak — unless it is corroborated by previous identification in the test identification parade — or any other evidence— Dana Yadav @ Dahu and ors V/S State of Bihar — referred. (Para 30) |
PDF |
| INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT , 1872 |
Evidence Act — S 9 — facts necessary to explain or introduce, relevant fact — Previous Identification — in the test identification parade — Evidentiary value of — is a check value to the evidence of identification in court of an accused by a witness — & is a rule of prudence and not law— Dana Yadav @ Dahu and ors V/S State of Bihar — referred. (Para 30) |
PDF |
| INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT , 1872 |
Evidence Act — S 9 — facts necessary to explain or introduce, relevant fact — Identification of an accused first time in court — without corroboration by previous identification in the test identification parade or any other evidence — Standard of proof — Basing conviction on — Held, can form the basis of conviction in exceptional circumstances only— Dana Yadav @ Dahu and ors V/S State of Bihar — referred. (Para 30) |
PDF |
| INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT , 1872 |
Evidence Act — S 9 — facts necessary to explain or introduce, relevant fact — Identification — at a later date — first time in court — Victims & accused traveled together too long — Accused were guarding them in turns while they were detained in a room — Held, the victims had sufficient time and opportunity to see the accused —would not have difficulty in identification at a later date. (Para 31) |
PDF |
| INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT , 1872 |
Evidence Act — S 3 — Facts with in the special knowledge— relevant fact — three persons were in company of the deceased till the last — it would be within their special knowledge as to what had happened to the deceased exactly. (Para 30) |
PDF |
| INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT , 1872 |
Evidence Act — S 65 — Secondary evidence — Tape recorded conversation —Admissibility of — Pre-conditions essential for tape recordings to be admissible as evidence— Not been satisfied— the recordings cannot be relied upon. (Para 28) |
PDF |
| INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT , 1872 |
Evidence Act — S 65 — Inadmissible secondary evidence — Tape recorded conversation — Non-admissibility of — Effect on other evidence — Evidence of victims — accused had recorded their voice messages — Evidence of PWs indicates that when they asked the caller/abductor to allow them to talk to the victims, the caller had played the pre-recorded voice of victims — Non-admissibility will not disturb or affect the statement made by the witnesses — Evidence Act — S 3 — Relevant fact. (Para 28) |
PDF |