Part of the Forensic Docket on Legal Desire Forensics — a conviction confirmed through final appeal, kept here as a method-of-crime record.
The facts
Under the Penal Code and the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1985 — Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 34, and Section 3 — the accused was prosecuted for an incident witnessed by an injured eyewitness who was known to the accused.
The Designated Court convicted the accused.
On appeal, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction, holding that the evidence of interested witnesses, if acceptable and creditworthy, can sustain the prosecution’s case, and, on the requirement of a Test Identification Parade, held that the failure to hold one does not matter where the fact of recognition and the placing of the accused’s name in the FIR already establish identity.
Status: conviction upheld through final appeal.
Why this belongs in the Forensic Docket: Where an accused is already known to the eyewitness and named promptly in the FIR, courts treat that recognition as doing the identification work a Test Identification Parade would otherwise have to do — useful for gauging when a TIP omission is fatal and when it simply is not.
Case details
| Citation | [2002] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 128 |
| Case number | Criminal Appeal No. 480/2001 |
| Court | Indian Supreme Court |
| Decided | 2002-10-07 |
| Module | MO Archive |
Read the full judgment (PDF), sourced from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open dataset (AWS Open Data Registry, CC-BY-4.0).
Explore more in the Forensic Docket or browse the full Forensics hub.
Where the legal industry reads first.
Enjoyed this article? Get the biggest legal industry updates, deals, appointments, insights and expert interviews in your inbox, free.
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.