HARNATH SINGH versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

HARNATH SINGH versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Statements in column 7 of the prescribed identification parade form, made by witnesses to a Third Class Magistrate not empowered under s. 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, are inadmissible in evidence. However, the record of identification (column 5), which pertains to the physical act of identification, is admissible. Since the High Court did not rely on inadmissible statements, the conviction stands.

Parties
Appellant: Harnath Singh; Respondent: State of Madhya Pradesh
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
27 September 1968
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From Judgment and Order of Madhya Pradesh High Court, Gwalior Bench Dated April 24, 1965 in Criminal Appeal No. 55 of 1964
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Test Identification Parade, Admissibility of Evidence, Criminal Procedure Code Section 164
Criminal Law Test Identification Parade Admissibility of Evidence Criminal Procedure Code Section 164

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Harnath Singh

Appellant

State of Madhya Pradesh

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From Judgment and Order of Madhya Pradesh High Court, Gwalior Bench Dated April 24, 1965 in Criminal Appeal No. 55 of 1964

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the record of a test identification parade conducted by a Magistrate of the Third Class is inadmissible in evidence as contravening s. 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Ratio Decidendi

Statements in column 7 of the prescribed identification parade form, made by witnesses to a Third Class Magistrate not empowered under s. 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, are inadmissible in evidence. However, the record of identification (column 5), which pertains to the physical act of identification, is admissible. Since the High Court did not rely on inadmissible statements, the conviction stands.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed. Conviction and sentence upheld.