CITATIONS

41.:
In absence of test identification parade- victim has sufficient
time and opportunity to see the accused persons- nothing unnatural if
victim identified his tarmentors- during trial and said identifications
could not be doubted – Accused having practiced knife though did not
cause injury to victim would to use of weapon to attract Sec.397 IPC.
Convictions called for no interference.
395 & 397 I.P.C. DOC. IDENTIFICATION.
*****

125.
IPC.397: Accused lance in a car infront of Victim PW.5 sho was
conveying bag containing Rs.75,000/- Pay cause act of car and using
knife they snatched the bag and ran away – persunt to information by
accused after their arrest money and weapon of offence recoverd-
Accused were identified by PW.5 in test identification - Conviction by
Trial Court – Though same of independent witnesses of recovery, as
well of identification.- Pared were declared hostile – But no reason to
disbelieve complainant. So as the point – Mere use of weapon was
sufficient to prove offence u/s. 397 IPC and it was got that injurey
should have caused .
CRIMES 2006(2) page 44 (Rajasthan H/C):

Identifying accused in Court – Where victim has sufficient time

& opportunity to see the accused person and idenfied him in court
during trial. Evidence inspired confidence. In absence of
identification parade.
CRIMES 2008(4) page 409 (Chathisgarah H/C):
*****

60.
Presence of Blood in nail clipping of Accused - Held is a vital
circumstance considered with other ever found acceptable- Item
provide additional heritage to the prosecutions case.
S.C.C.(Cri) 2004 page 1750 (Vilas P.Patil v/s Maharastra):
*****
148. Where accused made the statement pleading disconvey of the
weapon of the offence. The statement of the accused is admissible
is evidence u/s.27. It cannot be rejected merely the ground that
witnesses of the statement and recovery seriled frame it.
CR.L.J.2002 PAGE 3118 (J.K. State v/s Abdul Rashid) :
*****
154.
Sec.27 does not lay down that the statement made to a police
officer should always be in the presence of independent witnesses,
the court seeks corroboration in such cases as a matter of caution
and not as a matter of rule. But in cases, where the court is satisfied
that the evidence of a police can be independently relied upon, than
in such cases there is no prohibition in law that the same cannot be
accepted without independent corroboration.
S.C.C. 2003(12) page 199 (Praveen kumar V/S Karnataka state)
*****
155.
Where the investigating Officer, who recovered the material
object is convincing. The evidence has to recovery need not be
rejected as the ground that Seizure punch witnesses did not support
the Prosecution version.
S.C.C. 2001(9) page 362( Mohamed aslam V/S Maharastra)
S.C.C. 2004(10) page 657(Anter Singh V/S State of Rajasthan)
*****

157.
The Supreme Court thought that such discharge by two or more
persons in police custody did not go out of preview of Sec.27 Evd.
Altogether. If information was given one after another without by
break – almost simultaneously and if such information followed up by
pointing the material thing by both of them that there was no good
reason to eschew such evd. Frame the reginee of 27 Evd.
CR.L.J.2005 page 1350- 27 Evd. Parliament attack case.(The State
of N.C.T.Delhi v/s Navajotswella).
*****
82. Where evidence of witnesses was trust worthyand corrabrated
bymedical evidence. There was clear testimony of investigating
officer relating to seizure of materal objects – but punch witnesses
were declared hostile – Aspect of seizure of material object could not
be disbelieved merely because punch witnesses were declared
Hostile.
CR.L.J.2005 page 568 (Toorapati v/s A.P.)
*****

128. False Implication - The foundation for the plea of false

implication has got to be established by the accused adversing the
plea.
1. CR.L.J.2002, 4337 S.C. Ruliram v/s State of Hariyana
2. CR.L.J.2003 page 1210 S.C. State of Punjab v/s Suchesingh.

129. While appreciating the evidence of a witness minor discripincies

as trial matter’s which do ot affect the case of prosecution case
should not be taking in to consideration as they cannot frame ground
to reject the evidence as a whole.
CRIMES 2010(3) S.C. 214.
*****
126.
Giving more details while diparing before Sessions Cout are not
improvements of such a nature as would create any doubt regarding
her truthfulness.
CR.L.J.2000 page 1417 S.C.
****

68. Prosecution evidence to be weighted end not to be ca…… and

it is just because any other resident of vicinity has not been cited as
witness will be no ground to through away the otherwise reliable
testimony of witneses which is natural and inspired confidence.
CRIMES 2005(4) S.C. page 192.: EVIDENCE ACT:
*****
70. where an accused furnishes false answers as regard proved
facts court might to draw an adverse influence due to him and such
as inference shall become an additional circumstance to prove the
guilt of the accused.
CRIMES 2010(2) S.C. page 163:
*****
The fact of prosecutions cannot be left to the discreation of
prosecuting agency alone and the courts must play a mere dynamic
role in the judicial presences of determinating evidence.
A I R 2008 S.C. page 1943 (State of M.P. v/s Him Singh ).
 Absence of Injury Report – Evidence act – Reliability of eye
witnesses who has stated to be injured in incident – where eye
witness was stated to injured is incident injury report however was
absent – name of eye witnesses is also not given in. F I R. or
statement given by information to police – Held it will not be a ground
to discard their entire evidence and evidence of these witnesses was
held reliable.
CR.L.J. 2002 page 3775 S.C. (Shankar Mehta v/s Bihar)
*****

162. FIR – Cryptic telephonic message cannot be treated as FIR as

their object only is to get the police to the sense of offence and not to
register the FIR.
CRIMES 2010(2) page 163 S.C. (Manusharma v/s NCT Delhi):
*****

164. Where as accused furnishes false answers as regards to

proved facts court ought to draw an adverse infrance deea (against)
him and such as if inference shall become as additional circumstance
to prove the guilt of the accused.
CRIMES 2010(2) page 163 S.C. (Manusharma v/s Delhi):
*****
56
Where accused offers false answers in examination u/s.313
against established facts that can be counted as promoting a nursing
link for completing chain.
S.C.C. CRI. 2003- 292, D’Souza v/s Karnataka: 313 – link in chair –
Conduct of accused:
*****

57. Reasurable doubt – Meaning – Re should be a reasonable

doubt for acquitting an accused – acquitting an accused as the basis
of imaginery doubt should not be allowed –(SCC. Cri. 2003-1697–
Suche Sing v/s Punjab)
S.C.C. CRI. 2003 – 32 -- Gangadhar Behri v/s Orissa:
*****

11.
 Marginal variations between the prosecution witness recorded
u/s. 161 Cr.p.c. & testimony given in court cannot be dubbed as
improvements – They are eloborations ellicited by the public
prosecutor deeming the examination in chief. It is the prerogative of
public prosecutor to elicit – such points frame witnesses as he deems
necessary for the case – no public prosecutor can be to the
statement recorded u/s.161 Cr.p.c.
S.C.C. Cri. 2001 page 1504 S.C.
*****
1.
Merely because there is delay the out came of th identification
parade cannot be thrown out, if the same was properly done, after
following th procedure.
There is no provision in the Cr.p.c. entitling the accused to
demand that identification should be held at or before the enquiry of
the trial – The fact that particular witness has been able to identify the
accused at an identification parade is a circumstance
corroborative of the identification in court.
CRIMES 2010(1) S.C. page 157.

S.C.observed in general as followed:

1. The actual evidence regarding identification is that which is given
by witness in court. There is no provision in Cr.p.c. Entittling the
accused todemand identification parade.
2. Failure to hold identification parade does not make the evidence
of identification in court in-admissible, rather the same is very much
admissible in law. “ Identification test does not constitute substantive
evidence”. They are primerily sent for the purpose of helping the
investigating agency, with an assurance that their progress in
investigation is proceeding on right line. Re-identification can only
be used as corroborative of the statement in court.
Crimes 2010(1) page 157 S.C.
*****
2.
Contention that panch witness had turned hostile and injured
PW.2 & complaint PW.9 turned hostile and there were discripincies in
evd.- minor discripincies painted out were not of a nature which
created infirmity in the case – panch witnesses though denied
recoveries, affected in their presence has admitted their signatures
on recovery memos – nobody’s case that accused and police Pw.2 &
9 had previous enimity which could warrant for faisting false case –
conviction could not be interfered with.
CRIMES 2006(1) S.C. page 153: 392 & 397 IPC.
*****
3.
Though some independent witnesses of recovery as well of
identification parade were declared hostile, but no reason to
disbelieve complainant and investigating officer as the paint – mere
use of weapon was sufficient to prove offence u/s.397 IPC. And it
was not necessary that injury should have come.
CRIMES 2006(2) S.C. page 44 (Rajasthan H/C): 392 & 397 IPC.

4. Diognial variation between the statement of prosecution

witnesses and statement recorded u/s.161 Cr.p.c. The testimony in
court cannot be dubbed as improvement.
S.C.C.(Cri) 2001 page 1504 S.C.(Chandrashekhar Bhat v/s
Maharastra).

5. After recording statement of the witness the re obtained their

signatures as it – it is not an in admissible evidence.
CR.L.J. 1985 S.C. page 494 (State of U.P. v/s M.K.Anthony).

6. In absence of corroboration by independent sources evidence

of police official cannot be discarded in the ground that he is police
officer and interested in the out come of the case.
CRIMES 2008(4) S.C. page 390 (Chathisgarh H/C):