MD. KALAM @ ABDUL KALAM versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN

MD. KALAM @ ABDUL KALAM versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN

The appellant was properly identified by PW-3 both in the test identification parade and in Court; there was no infirmity in the evidence or procedure; the conviction under Section 395 IPC was proper and does not warrant interference.

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Md. Kalam @ Abdul Kalam; Respondent: State of Rajasthan
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
14 March 2008
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction Under Section 395 Ipc; Supreme Court Judgment Affirming Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence affirmed
Legal Topics
Robbery Under Section 395 IPC, Test Identification Parade (tip), Evidence (identification), Appeal Against Conviction
Criminal Law Robbery Under Section 395 IPC Test Identification Parade (tip) Evidence (identification) Appeal Against Conviction

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Md. Kalam @ Abdul Kalam

Appellant

State of Rajasthan

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction Under Section 395 Ipc; Supreme Court Judgment Affirming Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 395 IPC based on identification in test identification parade and in Court is sustainable
  2. 2 Nature, evidentiary value, and necessity of test identification parade
  3. 3 Effect of delay in holding test identification parade

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant was properly identified by PW-3 both in the test identification parade and in Court; there was no infirmity in the evidence or procedure; the conviction under Section 395 IPC was proper and does not warrant interference.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence affirmed

Orders

  • Appellant's conviction under Section 395 IPC and sentence of 10 years rigorous imprisonment and Rs. 1,000 fine confirmed