9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
The issues involved in this case are the identification of the accused, the reliability of the test identification parade, and the admissibility of evidence based on newspaper publications. Identification of the Accused: The appellant and another individual were accused of a murder based on eyewitness testimonies. The witnesses claimed to have identified the accused during a test identification parade held after their photographs were published in a newspaper. However, discrepancies arose in the identification process, with some witnesses failing to accurately identify the accused. The court noted the importance of a reliable identification process and raised doubts about the accuracy of the identification in this case. Reliability of Test Identification Parade: The court emphasized the significance of conducting a test identification parade promptly to ensure the credibility of witness identifications. In this case, the test identification parade was held ten days after the incident, following the publication of the accused's photographs in a newspaper. The court criticized the delayed parade and highlighted the risk of witnesses identifying the accused based on external influences rather than genuine recognition. The judgment underscored the need for a clear and timely identification process to avoid vague identifications leading to convictions. Admissibility of Evidence from Newspaper Publications: The court addressed the admissibility of evidence derived from newspaper publications, specifically photographs of the accused with accompanying names in a local daily. The defense presented a witness who confirmed the publication of the accused's photographs, which were acknowledged by prosecution witnesses. The court found the evidence from the newspaper cutting to be credible and noted that the witness was not challenged during cross-examination. The judgment emphasized that the authenticity of such publications was not disputed and did not require further verification by the accused. Ultimately, the court ruled in favor of the appellant, highlighting the lack of conclusive evidence in the case and granting the appellant the benefit of the doubt.
|
