https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769035 The prosecution had to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was the same person as Seema Choudhari named in the contemporaneous recovery and arrest records. The FIR, seizure memo, arrest memo, remand report and medical examination memo consistently recorded only Seema Choudhari, while the Section 313 CrPC examination did not confront the appellant with the identity case, causing prejudice. A bail order based on summary inquiry without oral evidence was not a final determination on identity. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to establish identity, so the conviction and sentence could not stand and the appellant was acquitted. en-us Wed, 16 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 18 Apr 2025 08:38:15 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769035 The prosecution had to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was the same person as Seema Choudhari named in the contemporaneous recovery and arrest records. The FIR, seizure memo, arrest memo, remand report and medical examination memo consistently recorded only Seema Choudhari, while the Section 313 CrPC examination did not confront the appellant with the identity case, causing prejudice. A bail order based on summary inquiry without oral evidence was not a final determination on identity. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to establish identity, so the conviction and sentence could not stand and the appellant was acquitted. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 16 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769035