https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311358 Eyewitness identification was held reliable despite the appellant's claim of darkness at the scene, because the defence evidence about fused street lights was vague and unproved. The eyewitnesses were not shown to be unreliable, and their testimony on identification was not shaken in cross-examination. The investigating officer's evidence did not prove that the place was entirely dark; it only indicated that the light was insufficient for inquest formalities, not that no visibility existed. On that record, the courts were justified in finding enough light near the spot to identify the assailant, so the conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC was upheld and the appeal failed. en-us Wed, 28 Jan 1987 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 21 Dec 2023 17:42:49 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311358 Eyewitness identification was held reliable despite the appellant's claim of darkness at the scene, because the defence evidence about fused street lights was vague and unproved. The eyewitnesses were not shown to be unreliable, and their testimony on identification was not shaken in cross-examination. The investigating officer's evidence did not prove that the place was entirely dark; it only indicated that the light was insufficient for inquest formalities, not that no visibility existed. On that record, the courts were justified in finding enough light near the spot to identify the assailant, so the conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC was upheld and the appeal failed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 28 Jan 1987 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311358