https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193124 Test identification parade evidence conducted under police direction and supervision was treated as inadmissible where it effectively proved communication to police during investigation under section 162 of the 1898 Code, while earlier parades were unaffected. Discovery evidence said to follow information from an accused was not excluded under section 27 because the excluded statement itself was not being proved, so the recovery evidence remained admissible. Objections to the jury charge failed because the summing up was fair as a whole, and the conviction could stand on the remaining admissible evidence where no failure of justice was shown. en-us Fri, 22 Oct 1954 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 14 Jul 2017 13:12:03 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193124 Test identification parade evidence conducted under police direction and supervision was treated as inadmissible where it effectively proved communication to police during investigation under section 162 of the 1898 Code, while earlier parades were unaffected. Discovery evidence said to follow information from an accused was not excluded under section 27 because the excluded statement itself was not being proved, so the recovery evidence remained admissible. Objections to the jury charge failed because the summing up was fair as a whole, and the conviction could stand on the remaining admissible evidence where no failure of justice was shown. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 22 Oct 1954 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193124