Breaking SUPREME COURT CRACKS DOWN ON HOME LOAN SUBVENTION FRAUD: CBI PROBE EXPEDITED, 30-DAY SANCTION DEADLINE FOR BANK OFFICIALS
New Delhi · Saturday, 08 August 2026 9888666310 | [email protected]
Free Law — free judgments and free headnotes Free Lawby De Jure
Supreme Court of India 2019-01-25 allowed

Suraj Pal vs State of Haryana

Bench: 2 — Banumathi

In Brief

The appellant was convicted under Section 379-A IPC for snatching a mobile phone and sentenced to five years' imprisonment. The Supreme Court allowed his appeal and acquitted him. The victim identified the appellant for the first time in court, over six months after the incident, without a Test Identification Parade and having seen the alleged snatcher only briefly. The mobile phone was recovered based on the co-accused's disclosure statement. The Court held that such delayed identification, without proper procedure and based on a few seconds of observation, creates reasonable doubt about whether the victim could actually identify the appellant. The prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, entitling the accused to the benefit of doubt.

The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.

Criminal Law Evidence Identification of Accused Mobile Phone Snatching Test Identification Parade Criminal Appeal

Read the full judgment & headnote. It's free.

Register to read the complete Supreme Court judgment text and the headnote, and to search 1 lakh+ Supreme Court judgments by meaning. It is a free service.

Register Free Login