Identification of Accused
Having gone through the evidence adduced by PWs 4 and 5, we find that there are inconsistent statements as regard identification of the appellant by the torch light at the time of incident and the alleged story of apprehension of the appellant on the spot is totally false. Curiously enough, a new story was cooked up subsequently and if the appellant was apprehended on the spot as an assailant of the victim, there was no reason for filing initially a UD case and then a GD entry without mentioning the name of the appellant as the assailant. Therefore, the evidence of PW 4 and PW 5 is a downright falsehood. [73 DLR (AD) (2021) 194]
Recognition
The wife of the deceased
deposed in Court that she had recognised the assailants of her husband and
accused Akkel Ali gave channy blow, Delwar gave dao blow, accused Omar Ali gave
Lathi blow and accused Quasem gave rifle blow on her husband who succumbed to
the injuries on 15.6.1989 in the hospital which is corroborated by PWs. 1,2, 3,
4, 6 and 8 and the dying declaration and there is nothing to disbelieve the
credibility of there evidences and hence the prosecution proved the case beyond
all reasonable doubt and therefore the conviction and sentences under section
302/34 of the Penal Code against the condemned convict is sustainable. The
State Vs. Akkel Ali and others, 20 BLD(HCD) 484
Recognition
Recognition of accused by
torch light or hurricane light
Recognition of accused
persons by torch light or hurricane light at dead hours of night and under
dreadful circumstances is ordinarily doubtful unless the witnesses see the miscre-
ants in action from a close proximity. Moreover, it is highly unusual that
miscreants would focus torch light on their own faces to facilitate
recognition. The State Vs. Md. Musa alias Musaiya alias Shafir Bap,
15BLD(HCD)169
Recognition Means of recognition
in a case of dacoity taking place at night is a matter of vital importance.
When recognition becomes doubtful in the light of the attending facts and
circum- stances of the case the order of conviction cannot be sustained.
AbdurRazzak alias Geda Vs. The State, 16BLD(HCD)312
Recognition Means of
Recognition
Means of recognition of the
accused in an incident taking place at night is of vital importance. Absence of
a reliable means of recognition makes the prosecution case doubtful. The State
Vs. Manjur, 15BLD(HCD)193 Ref: 39DLR(AD)141; 34 DLR 208; 41 DLR 26 Cited
A test identification
parade which provides opportunities to the witnesses to see the accused persons
before they are put in the T.1. Parade, such T.I.Parade casts doubt regarding
the genuineness of their identification-Ben- gal Police Regulation, 1943. The
State Vs. Md. Musa, 15BLD (High Court Division 169
Memorandum recorded by the
Magistrate while conducting T.I. Parade not being a judicial proceeding it is
not per se admissible in evidence under section 80 of the Evidence Act.
Non-examination of the Magistrate holding the T.I. Parade renders his memorendum
inadmissible in evidence-Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 80. Mizanur Rahman alias Mija
alias Mizan Vs. The State, 17BLD (HCD) 82
Ref: (1982)3 SCC 368; 4IDLR
32; 19 DLR (1967) 662; 29 DLR 355; A.IR. 1964) (ALL) 290-Cited
A belated T.I. Parade provides opportunities to the witnesses to see the accused per sons before they are put in the T.I. Parade and as such any unusual delay in holding the T.I.Parade casts doubt regarding the genuine ness of the identification of the accused per sons.
The State Vs. Md. Musa alias Musaiya alias Shafir Bap, 15 BLD (HCD) 169 [The above case has been affirmed by the Appellate Division, reported in 21 BLD (AD) 125)
T.L. Parade
T. Parade held by a
Magistrate for the identification of the accused persons is not a judicial
proceeding and as such the T.1. P rade proceedings are not admissible in evidence
under section 50 of the Evidence Act Abdul Mannan alias Monej and others Vs.
The State, 17BLD (CD) 290.
T. 1. Parade
The identification
proceedings should be undertaken as soon as possible after the arrest of the
suspected person or persons and care should be taken that before the commencement
of the proceedings the identifying wit- nesses are kept in charge of a Court
peon or other person not being a Police Officer at such a distance from the
place where the proceedings are held as have no chance of seeing the suspects Primary
object of test identification proceedings is to test the ability of the witness
to identify a suspected person and to ascertain whether there is sufficient
evidence to place him on trial. Mirza Abdul Hakim &ors Vs. The State, 19BLD
(AD) 304
T.I. Parade
There is no dispute that
the delay in holding T.L. parade reduces the value of such identification. The
delay which matters in a T.L. parade is the delay from the date of occurrence and
not from the date of arrest of the accused. It is common knowledge that human
memory fades with lapse of time and when T.I. parade is held after inordinate
delay from the date of commission of the offence the chance of mistake
increases. This is a major reason for not depending solely on the TI parade
held long after the incident. Mirza Abdul Hakim &ors Vs. The State, 19BLD
(AD) 304
Ref: 1992 Supreme Court
Decision Vol. III Page 700. 19DLR 662; 39DLR72: 15 BLD169-relied upon
T.I. Parade
Great care must be
exercised before acting on a belated identification parade by a witness who
cannot be said to be an independent and unbiased person. In the case of total
strangers, it is not safe to place implicit reliance on the evidence of
witnesses who had just a fleeting glimpse of the person identified or who had
no particular reason to remember the person concerned. Test Identification
Parade, if held promptly and after taking necessary precautions to ensure its
credibility, would lend the required assurance which the Court ordinarily seeks
to act on it. In the absence of such test identification parade it would be
extremely risky to place implicit reliance on test identification made after a
long lapse of time. Mirza Abdul Hakim &ors Vs. The State, 19BLD (AD) 304)
Sections 302/34
It is un-questionable that evidence given in Court is substantive evidence. Hence, when a witness identified the accused in the Court as the assailant that evidence can be corroborated by the evidence of the T.L. Parade.
It is apparent that the killer was a mercenary who murdered the victim without any motive other than carrying out the task of killing the victim. In such view of the matter the Appellate Division is of the opinion that hired killers like him are a threat to society and do not deserve any sympathy from the Appellate Division. There is no knowing who will be the victim of his next mercenary killing. In the facts and circumstance discussed above, the Appellate Division does not find any reason to interfere with the conviction and sentence awarded by the trial Court and confirmed by the High Court Division. Accordingly the Criminal Appeal No. 98 of 2017 is dismissed and the connected Jail Petition No. 2 of 2018 is also dismissed. The sentence of death of the appellant passed by the trial Court and affirmed by the High Court Division is maintained....(22, 23 & 24)
[31 ALR (AD) (2024) 23]
Test Identification Parade (TIP)
It is an accepted proposition that evidence of T.I. Parade is not substantive evidence, but there are numerous decisions that the evidence is admissible and is corroborative evidence. [31 ALR (AD) (2024) 23]
Identification Parades-Object of.
The object of holding test identi- fication parades is two-fold, namely (1) to satisfy the investigating authorities that a certain person, not previously known to the witnesses, was involved in the commission of the crime and the investigation was proceeding on correct lines, and (2) to furnish evidence to corroborate the testimony which the witnesses concerned tender before the investigating officer. Lalji v. State of U. P., 1982 All Cri R 131.
Relied on-
Ram Bahadur v. State, 1977 All Cri R 293.
Delay in holding identification parade
The Supreme Court observed that a delay of 42 or 44 hours in conducting the identification parade after the occurrence is not fatal to effecting the mental images of accused in the money of the witnesses.
Ashok Narhari Naik v. State of Maharashtra, 1980 CS Cri R 388: 1980 SCC (Cri) 538.
Identification Parades-Importance of. Identification parades have been in common use for a very long time for the object of placing a suspect in a line up with other persons for identification is to find out whether he is the perpetrator of the crime. This is all the more necessary where the name of the offender is not mentioned by those who claim to be eye witnesses of the inci- dent but they claim that although they did not know him earlier, they could recall his features in sufficient details and would be able to identify him if and where happened to see him. The holding of test identification in such cases is as much in the interest of the investigating agency or the prosecution as in the interest of the suspect or the accused. For while it enables the investi- gating officer to ascertain the correctness or otherwise of the claim of those witnesses who claim to have seen the perpetrator of the crime and their capa- city to identify him and thereby fill the gap in the investigation regarding the identity of the culprit, it saves the suspect or the accused from the sudden risk of being identified in the dock by the self-same witnesses during the course of the trial. The line up of the suspect in the test identification parade is therefore a workable way of testing the memory and veracity of witnesses in such cases and has worked well in actual practice.
Ram Nathan v. State of T. N., AIR 1978 SC 1204: 1978 Cri LJ 1137: (1978) 3 SCC 86: 1978 SCC (Cri) 341: 1978 SC Cri R 241; 1978 Cri LR (SC) 318: 1978 Cri App R (SC) 226.
Identification parades-Necessity of.
It is well-settled that where a wit- ness identifies an accused, who is not khown to him, in the Court for the first time, his evidence is absolutely valueless unless there has been a previous T. I. parade to test his powers of observations. This idea of holding T. L. parade under Section 9 of the Evidence Act is to test the veracity of the witness on the question of his capability to identify an unknown person whom the witness may have seen only once. If no T. I. parade is held then it will be wholly unsafe to rely on his bare testimony regarding the identification of an accused for the first time in Court. Kishan Chand v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1978 SC 1127.
Single identification parade for several suspects.-Held, the practice to hold a single identification parade for several suspects is fundamentally wrong. Atar Singh v. State of U. P., 1982 All WC 329.
Occurrence taking at sunset. No doubt occurrence took near about sunset but the accused person were known to the witness. They could be easily identified.
Manna Subbarao v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1979 Cri LR (SC) 455: 1979 Cri AR (SC) 397.
Witness failed to identify torch-Other factum-Effect. It was established that lecturer was burning in the 'Angan' in which the accused persons could be easily identified. It one witness does not identify the torch that would not put the prosecution case out of the Court.
Ram Janam v. State of U.P., 1979 Cri LR (SC) 417: 1979 SCC (Cri) 645.
Identification parade-Absence-When not relevant. Supreme Court ob- served that in view of the corroborative evidence we find no substance in the arguments urged on behalf of the appellant that the Investigating Officer ought to have held an identification parade and that the failure of Munshi Ram to mention the names of the two accused to the neighbours who came to the scene immediately after the occurrence shows that his story cannot be true. As observed by this Court in Jadu Nath Singh v. State of U. P., AIR 1971 SC 363, absence of test identification is not necessarily fatal. The fact that Munshi Ram did not disclose the names of the two accused to the villagers only shows that the accused were not previously known to him.
Har Bhajan Singh v. State of J. & K., AIR 1975 SC 1814: 1975 Cri LJ 1553: 1975 SCC (Cri) 545: (1975) 2 SCWR 213.
Identification parade-When accused denied the opportunity. The circum- stances that the accused has voluntarily accepted the risk of being identified in a parade but was denied that opportunity, was an important point in his favour. The High Court rejected it as inconsequential by observing that the oral testimony of witnesses, even if not tested by holding an identifi- cation parade, can be made basis of conviction if the request made by the accused is groundless and the witnesses knew the accused prior to the occurrence. It is correct to say that no rule of law requires that the oral testimony of a witness should be corroborated by evidence of identification. In fact evidence of identification is itself a weak type of evidence. But the point of the matter is that the Court which acquitted the accused was justifiably influenced by the consideration that though at the earliest stage he had asked that an identification parade be held. the demand was opposed by the prosecution and the parade was, therefore, not held.
Shri Ram v. State of U. P., AIR 1975 SC 175.
Identification parade-Purpose of. As observed by the Supreme Court in Vaikunatam Chandrappa v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1960 SC 1340, the substantive evidence in the statement of a witness in Court and the pur- pose of test examination is to test the evidence, the safe rule being that the sworn testimony of the witness in Court as to the identity of the accused who is a stranger to him, as a general rule, requires corroboration in the form of an earlier identification proceeding. If there is no substantive evidence about the appellant having been one of the dacoits when P. W. 10 saw them on January 23, 1963 then the test identification parade as against him cannot be of any assistance to the prosecution.
Hasib v. State of Bihar, AIR 1972 SC 283: 1972 Cri LJ 233.
Identification parade-Delay.-(i) Where the contention was that the identification parade was held in an irregular manner or that there was an undue delay in holding it, the Magistrate who held it and the police officer who conducted the investigation should have been cross-examined in that behalf.
Bharat Singh v. State of U. P., AIR 1972 SC 2478.
(ii) The Supreme Court observed that the identification parades are of little value of the prosecution and there is no question of the accused having been prejudiced by identification parades.
Raj Kishore v. State of Bihar, AIR 1971 SC 1058.
Identification-Vital factors in determining the value of. The identification tests or parades belong the e investigation stage and d they serve to provide the to investigating authority with material to assure themselves themselves if the investigation is the proceeding is is proceeding on right lines. It is accordingly, desirable that such parades are held at earliest possible opportunity to identify also tends to minimise the chances of the memory of the identifying witnesses fading away by reason of long lapse of time. But much more vital factor in determining the value of such identification parades is the effectiveness of the precautions taken by those responsible for holding them against identifying witnesses having an opportunity of seeing the persons to be identified by them before they are paraded with other persons and also against the identifying witnesses being provided by the investigating authority with other unfair aid or assis- tance so as to facilitate the identification of the accused concerned.
Hasib v. State of Bihar, AIR 1972 SC 283.
Identification-Promptness. It is a matter of great importance both for the investigating agency and for the accused and a fortiori for the proper administration of justice that the identification is to be held without avoidable and unreasonable delay after the arrest of the accused and that all the necessary precautions and safeguards are effectively taken so that the investigation proceeds on correct lines for punishing the real culprit. It would, in addition, be fair to the witness concerned, who was a stranger to the accused, because in that event the chances of his memory fading are reduced and he is required to identify the alleged culprit at the earliest possible opportunity after the occurrence.
Rameshwar Singh v. State of J. & K., AIR 1972 SC 102: 1972 Cri LJ 115: 1972 All WR (HC) 247: (1972) 1 SCJ 594: 1972 All Cri R 156.
Identification parades-Legal effect of. Identification proceedings in their legal effect amount simply to this, that certain persons are brought to jail or some other place and make statements either express or implied that certain individuals whom they point out are persons whom they recognise as having been concerned in the crime. They do not constitute substantive evidence. These parades are essentially governed by Section 162, Cr. P. C. It is for this reason that the identification parades in this case seem to have been held under the supervision of a Magistrate.
Keeping view of the purpose of the identification parades the Magistrate holding them are expected to take all possible precautions to eliminate any suspicion of unfairness and to reduce the chance of testimonial errors.
Budhsen v. State of U. P., AIR 1970 SC 1321: 1970 Cri LJ 1149.
Identification parades-Considerations in conducting of. The Magistrates conducting the inentification parades must bear in the mind the considerations that (i) the life and liberty of an accused may depend on their vigilance and caution, and (ii) that justice should be done in the identification.
Budhsen v. State of U. P., AIR 1970 SC 1321: 1970 Cri LJ 1149.
Identification Parades-Factors to be seen. In identifications two factors seem to be, of basic importance in the evaluation of identification, that the person required to identify and accused should have had no opportunity of seeing him after the commission of the crime and before identification and secondly that no mistakes are made by them or the mistakes made are negligible.
Budhsen v. State of U. P., AIR 1970 SC 1321; 1970 Cri LJ 1149.
Identification Parades-Reasons for holding.-During the investigation of a crime the Police has to hold enabling witnesses to tification parades for the purpose of identify the properties which are the subject matter of the offence or to identify the person who are concerned therein. They have thus two fold object: first, to satisfy the investigating authorities that a certain person not previously known to the witnesses was involved in the commission of the crime or a particular property was the subject of the crime. It is also desigued to furnish evidence to corroborate the testimony which the witness concerned tenders before the Court. AIR 1955 SC 104 relied on.
Harnath Singh v. State of M. P., AIR 1970 SC 1619: 1970 MPWR 360: 1970 BLJR 417: 1970 MPLJ 616: (1970) 2 SCJ 293: (1970) 2 SCA 198: (1970) 2 SCR 289.
Identification parade-Person having peculiar-Feature. In identification parades one of the culprit bears brown eyes no such person is mixed in parades who has brown eyes like the culprit. Consequently, if only a a hint with regard to the colour of his eyes to be given by some one interested in his identification, it was possible for him to be picked out from the parades by the identifying witnesses from that peculiar features which would distinguish from the out siders mixed with him in the parades.
Chander Singh v. State of U. P., AIR 1973 SC 1200: (1972) 2 SCWR 790: 1973 Cri LJ 926: 1973 SCC (Cri) 133.
Identification parades-Infirmities-Effect. The infirmities in the test identification parade of a previously unknown bearded man whom even Zingu could only describe as "a guest from Gondia". The trial Court has also observed that the appellant Brahmanand had a beard. It is clear from the admission of Babaji and Jiwan that Brahmanand was brought by the police and made to sit outside the Court of the Magistrate where these witnesses also waited before the identification parade began. The Magistrate took no pre cautions to see whether similar bearded man joined the parade. Brahma- nand had also a tape on his neck as that time. The identification proceeding was, held, rightly rescribed by the trial court as a "farce".
Yeshwant v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1973 SC 337: 1972 Cri LJ 1254; (1972) 3 SCC 639: (1973) 1 SCR 291.
Identification Parades A supporting evidence. The evidence of test identification is admissible under Section 9 of the Evidence Act, it is, at best, supporting evidence. It can be used only to corroborate the substantive evidence given by the witnesses in Court regarding identification of the accused as the doer of the criminal act. The earlier identification made by the witnesses at the identification parade, by itself has no independent value. Nor is test identification the only type of evidence that can be tendered to confirm the evidence of a witness regarding identification of the accused, in Court, as the preparator of the crime.
S. T. Shinde v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1974 SC 791
Identification at the time of statement in the Court. The identification of the accused by the witness for the first time in the Court without being tested by a prior test identification parade was valueless,
State (Delhi Admn.) v. V. C. Shukla, AIR 1980 SC 1382.
Identification Parades-Conducting Officer must give evidence. The Supreme Court observed that ordinarily. The person who is supposed to have identified the assailants at the test identification parade must himself give evidence in regard to the identification. If he does not himself give such evidence and leaves it to the officer holding the identification parade to do so, the defence would be deprived of an opportunity of cross-examination for the purpose of showing that the witness had an opportunity of seeing the accused before they were brought for identification. In any event, the evidence in regard to identification at the test identification parade is at the highest corroborative piece of evidence and if the evidence of Xavier suffers from serious infirmities and cannot be accepted, the evidence in regard to identifica- tion by him at the test identification parade cannot improve the situation.
C. P. Fernandes v. Union Territory, Goa, AIR 1977 SC 135: 1977 SC Cri R 111: 1977 SCC (Cri) 154: 1977 Cri LJ 167.
Identification parade-Not a basis of charge but a corroborative of the state- ment in the Court.-The Supreme Court observed that the High Court seems to have committed serious error in ignoring that in the appellant's statement he had clearly stated that he had not seen amongst the assailants the accused Izhar Hussain present in the Court. The High Court seems to have misunder- stood the appellant's evidence and has also failed to apply its mind to the question of expediency. Reference by the High Court to identification parade is also some what inappropriate. Identification at test parades could by no stretch be considered to amount to a false charge against Izhar Hussain as contemplated by Section 211, 1. P. C., such identification is not substantive evidence and it can only be used as corroborative of the statement in the Court. The identification parade thus could not improve the prosecution case.
Santokh Singh v. Izhar Hussain, AIR 1973 SC 2190: (1973) 2 SCC 406: 1973 Cri LJ 1176; 1973 SCD 611.
Identification Parade-Evidence-When can be believed.-Where the wit- ness correctly identifies the accused at a Test Identification Parade held by a Magistrate after observing all the essential formalities and taking the necessary precautions and then identifies the accused also in Court the evidence of identification can be believed unless the evidence of witness suffers from some other infirmity. Moreover, the evidence of identification becomes stronger if the witness has an opportunity of seeing the accused not for a few minutes but for some length of time, in broad day light when he would be able to note the features of the accused more carefully carel than on seeing the accused in a dark night for a few minutes.
State of U. P. v. Boota Singh, AIR 1978 SC 1770: 1978 All LJ 1156: 1978 Cri App R (SC) 340.
Accused were known to the witnesses-Non-holding of indentification is not fatal. Where the accused are previously known to the witnesses and they recognised them, the holding of identificate parade in such a case has no importance.
Suryamani v. State of U. P., 1971 SCC (Cri) 136: 1971 UJ (SC) 126.
Identification-Not impossible at 5.30 p. m. in February as it would not be dark. The Supreme Court remarks-
The High Court held that the occurrence must have taken place while it was dark as there was no sufficient light to enable the eye witnesses to identify the assailants of the deceased, the identity of the respondents was not established.
The Supreme Court observed that the occurrence had taken place towards the end of February in open field at about 5.30 p. m. when it would not be so dark as to make identification impossible.
The High Court ought to have considered the heinous nature of the
offence alleged to have been committed by the accused resulting in the death
of two persons.
State of U. P. v. Manohar Lal, AIR 1981 SC 2073,
Identification Parade-Defects in proceedings. The Supreme Court re- marked-
The proceeding in the identification parade discloses that A-2 was identi-
fied by most of the eye witnesses. Because of some defects in proceedings
relating to identification parade, we will not be justified in rejecting the
evidence of the witnesses regarding the participation of A-2.
Somappa v. State of Mysore, AIR 1979 SC 1831: 1979 Cri LJ 1385: 1979 Cri LR (SC) 499; 1979 SCC (Cri) 910: 1979 Cri App R (SC) 332.
Witness identified, accused but did not say anything regarding part played by him during identification. The Supreme Court states that "it is true that while picking out this accused at parade these witnesses did not say anything with regard to the specific part played by him in the commission of the crime. That however does not render the evidence of such indentification inadmis- sible".
State of A. P. v. K. V. Reddy, AIR 1976 SC 2207: 1976 Cri LR (SC) 210: 1976 SC Cri R 277: (1976) 3 SCC 454.
Identification Parade-Conducted at late stage of-Value. The test identi- fication of the accused was held 12 months after the occurrence and seven months after his arrest. The test identification of co-accused was held prior to the identification this accused but he was not put up for test identification at that time but his test identification was held subsequently after 22 days to the first one. No explanation was given by the prosecution as to why the accused was not promptly put up for test identification after his arrest. Held, evidence of identification was rightly rejected by the trial Court.
Avtar Singh v. State of M. P., AIR 1979 SC 1188.
Identification parade-Necessity of. The necessity for holding an identi- fication parade can arise only, where the accused are not previously known to the witnesses.
Mehtab Singh v. State of M. P., AIR 1975 SC 274: 1975 Mad LJ (Cri) 32: (1974) 1 SCR 567: (1975) 1 SCJ 125.
Identification-Decomposed body. Before Supreme Court Mrs. Sirur addressed some argument with regard to the identification of the dead body.
She contended that the body was in an advanced stage of decomposition and was not identifiable. The best person to throw light on this aspect of the matter was the Medical Officer Officer who conducted autopsy. But no question was put to him on this point. The very fact that the Medical Officer founds marks of injuries from which he could definitely opine about the cause of death shows that the decomposition was not so advanced as to defy identification. Furthermore, the clothes and the shoes which were found on the dead body were identified by Lok Chand and Nihal Chand as the same which the deceased was wearing on the day of his disappearance. Held, no merit is found in this contention.
Hardayal v. State of U. P., AIR 1976 SC 2055.
Identification-Witness would have identified in lantern light. The Supreme Court observed-
It is common ground that the witness knew Deena very well. The lantern that was burning was produced by PW-2, Nihal Singh, as soon as the Investi- gating Officer came to the scene of occurrence. The witness was sleeping to the south of the deceased person at the distance of the few feet and we do not think there could have been any difficulty in identifying the assailant. The High Court has fully considered the question as to whether PW-1 would have identified the assailant and has come to the conclusion that the prosecu- tion has established that the lantern was burning and the assailant used torches which enabled the recognition of the accused at the time of the incident.
Deena v. State of U. P., AIR 1978 SC 1605.
Statement in Court and statement at identification parade. The Supreme Court observed-
"The evidence given by the witness in Court was substantive testimony while the identification made by him at the parade was confirmatory of the fact. This proposition is well established and it is not necessary to discuss the rulings cited at the bar on this point."
State of A. P. v. K. V. Reddy, AIR 1976 SC 2207: 1976 Cri LR (SC) 210: 1976 SC Cri R 277: (1976) 3 SCC 454.
Identification parades-Witnesses committing no mistakes in identifying the suspects-Value of. In an identification parade three prosecution witnesses committed no mistakes in identifying the suspects. Gajram Singh identified 7 suspects correctly and did not commit any mistake. Ram Kumar Singh identified 8 suspects correctly and did not commit any mistake. Ram Chandra Singh identified 6 suspects correctly and committed two mistakes. There is no absolute rule that if a witness identifies all suspects correctly, his evidence is necessarily bad and should not be relied upon. It depends upon power of observation of each individual whether he is able to recollect the faces of the bad characters. The witnesses were all young men, therefore, they could have easily seen and remember the faces of the dacoits which they had seen for about an hour. In the circumstances of the present case the performance of the prosecution witnesses does not create any doubt as to their identification of the suspects.
Bhullan v. State, 1981 All WC 376.
Identification delayed-Evidentiary value. Test identification held long after the event is of little value. The value of identification depends on two most important factors, viz. that the person who identifies an accused had no opportunity of seeing him, after the commission of the crime and secondly that no mistake had been made by the witness. No importance can be attached to identification if the test identification is concluded long after the arrest of the accused.
Pritam Singh v. State, AIR 1971 Raj 184: ILR (1970) 20 Raj 439.
Identification-Witnesses know all the accused-Value of. Where in a test inentification parade the persons are known to each other, such test identi- fication parade held is of no value.
State of Assam v. Haladhar Bepari, 1980 Cri LJ 737 DB.
Identification in court-Accused shown to witness prior to statement-Value of. The Supreme Court observed-
The witness Shetty did not know the appellant before the occurrence and no test identification parade was held to test his power of identification and he was also shown by the police before he identified the appellant in the court. Held, his evidence becomes absolutely valueless on the question of identification.
Mohan Lal v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1982 SC 839: 1982 All Cri R 156 (SC): 1982 All WC 242.
Identification of Articles. The requirements of law is that similar articles are to be mixed for identification. It is not required that the identical articles should be mixed.
Iswari v. State, 1980 Cri LJ 571: 1980 All Cri R 119.
Identification parade-Failure to conduct-Not fatal in all cases.- Precedents discussed-
(1) Sajjan Singh v. Emperor, AIR 1945 Lah 48: 46 Cri LJ 550. [Where accused persons are already known, the identification parade would be only a waste of time.]
(2) State of U. P. v. Jagnoo, AIR 1968 All 333 1968 Cri LJ 1320 [When accused are known to witnesses, the conduct of identification parade would be wastage of time].
(3) Kanta Prasad v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1958 SC 350: 1958 SCR 1218: 1958 Cri LJ 698. [Failure to hold identification parade would not make inadmissible the evidence of identification in Court].
(4) Awadh Singh v. State, AIR 1954 Pat 483: 1954 Cri LJ 1546. [Test identification should be held especially when the accused persons definitely assert that they were unknown to the prosecution witnesses].
(5) Provash Kumar Bose v. The King, AIR 1951 Cal 475: 52 Cri LJ 819. [The evidence of having identified in test identification parade has no substantive value but is very important corroboration of the evidence of witnesses in Court.]
Observed by the Supreme Court after considering the abovenoted cases that the absence of test indentification in all cases is not fatal and if the accused person is well known by sight it would be waste of time to put him up for identification. Of course, if the prosecution fails to hold an identification on the plea that the witnesses already know the accused well and it transpires in the course of the trial that the witnesses did not know the accused previously, the prosecution would run the risk of losing its case. It seems to us that if there is any doubt in the matter the prosecution should hold an identification parade specially if an accused says that the alleged eye witnesses did not know him previously. It may be there is no express provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure enabling an accused to insist on an identification parade but if the accused does make an application and that application is turned down and it transpires during the course of the trial that the witnesses did not know the accused previously, as pointed out above, the prosecution will, unless there is some other evidence, run the risk of losing the case on this point.
Jadunath Singh v. State of U. P., AIR 1971 SC 363: 1971 Cri LJ 305: 1971 All WR (HC) 692: (1971) 2 SCJ 285: 1971 Cri Ap R 10 (SC).
Identification-Whether State is bound to hold. The Supreme Court observed that it is urged before the learned Sessions Judge as no identification proceedings were held in the case it could not be said that the accused were the persons who were actually arrested at the spot. The learned Sessions Judge rightly held that it was not necessary for the state to hold identification parade when according to the prosecution they were arrested at the the spot, sed felt that the witnesses would not be able to identify them they If the accused should have requested for an identification parade.
State of U. P. v. Rajju, AIR 1971 SC 708: 1971 Cri LJ 642.
Identification tests-Whether substantive evidence. The Supreme Court has pointed out that the identification tests do not constitute substantive evidence. Such tests are primarily meant for the purpose of helping the investigating agency with an assurance that their progress with the investiga- tion into the offence is proceeding on right lines.
Matru v. State of U. P., AIR 1971 SC 1050.
Principle of identification of an accused by witness in dock when there was a previous TI parade Circumstances when a witness cannot possibly identify the accused in dock stated. Ratio decidendi in 1925 AIR (All) 223 approved.
We are in respectful agreement with the ratio decidendi reported in 1925 AIR (All) 223.
It is well-settled that the evidence that a witness gives in the witness box is the substantive evidence and it is always desirable that the witness should be able to identify the accused persons in dock when there was a previous TI Parade, but owing to lapse of time and other compelling reasons it may not be possible for the witness to identify the accused persons in dock. Ratan Kha vs State 40 DLR 186.
Failure of witnesses to identify accused persons who are strangers to the witnesses- Identification if made without naming them Court's duty to sift evidence in that circumstance -Any statement, express or implied, made by a witness identifying the accuseds but without naming them, it qualifies as substantive evidence -Test of. Ratan Kha vs State 40 DLR 186.
Improbable suggestion categorically denied by PWs. That the appellants were taken either to the house of the informant or to the police barrack first and were shown to the PWs 1- 3 before the TI parade has no leg to stand upon. Ratan Kha vs State 40 DLR 186.
Sections 395 and 397-Accused Ali Howla- dar's conviction under section 395/397 Penal Code can not be sustained in law as the officer who conducted TI Parade was not examined. Amir Hossain vs State 41 DLR 32.
Sections 395 and 397-So far as accused Ali Howlader is concerned the learned Sessions Judge has relied upon the evidence of the identifying witnesses to convict him; and since for non- examination of the officer who conducted the TI parade the evidence of the identifying witnesses in the Test Identification parade cannot be relied upon his conviction under sections 395/397 of the Penal Code cannot also be sustained in law. Amir Hossain vs State 41 DLR 32.
TI Parade Great care must be exer- cised before acting on a belated identification by a witness who cannot be said to be an independent and unbiased person. Mirza Abdul Hakim, Son of Jainal Mondal vs State 52 DLR (AD) 14.
TI Parade-When TI parade is held after an inordinate delay from the time of commission of the crime, the chance of mistake increases and this is a major reason for not depending on such TI parade. Mizanur Rahman vs State 49 DLR 83.
