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

A man was convicted of mobile phone snatching under Section 379-A IPC based on the victim's in-court identification after over six months and recovery of the phone through a co-accused's statement. The Supreme Court set aside the conviction, holding that when an accused is identified by the victim for the first time in court without a proper Test Identification Parade, after a substantial delay, and especially where the victim had only a fleeting glimpse, the identification becomes unreliable. The Court found the prosecution had not established guilt beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted the appellant.

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

Criminal Procedure Eyewitness Identification Evidence Theft / Snatching Burden of Proof

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