Identification

Prompt registration of FIR, gave no time for concoction and evidence of eye-witnesses and other prosecution witnesses corroborated one another in all material aspects as to robbery and kidnapping

Prosecution witnesses were reliable, trust worthy and confidence inspiring who were not damaged during lengthy cross-examination

Short interval between release of abductee and identification of accused, when he was arrested on the spot and the abductee had no reason to falsely implicate him

Prosecution through its witnesses, especially the abductee was able to correctly identify accused as one of the persons involved in his kidnapping for ransom

Lack of Hulia and identification parade did not preclude correct identification of accused as was one of those persons involved in kidnapping for ransom

High Court declined to interfere in conviction and sentence awarded to accused by Trial Court

Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

Evidence relating to identification of accused in torch light was weak piece of evidence.

Identification of accused in court after a considerable delay of the incident cannot satisfy the requirement of law for proving his identity.

Magistrate who had conducted the said proceedings did not check and narrate the features of the dummies and their comparison, if any, made with the features of the accused

Identification of accused by simply placing hands on their heads was not sufficient, rather further their roles were to be disclosed as to which part of the occurrence had been played by each of them and how

Prosecution witnesses were interested and chance witnesses of the occurrence, who had not plausibly explained their presence at the scene of crime and their evidence was highly doubtful

Accused were acquitted in circumstances.

Record revealed that documents of private partition having been filed clearly showed separation of property and location of property

Objection of the applicants carried no weight.

Identification of an accused in Court produced months after the event, cannot satisfy the requirements of law for proving his identity.

Plaintiff ladies claimed to be owners in possession of suit-land and assailed mutations of sale on ground of those being a result of fraud and collusion

Trial Court dismissed the suit but Appellate Court allowed the appeal and decreed the suit in favour of plaintiffs

Validity

Statements of two prosecution witnesses and one defence witness, negated the story of presence of ladies at the time of sanction of mutation in question

Lumberdar or local councilor was not called to identify plaintiffs

Absence of any close relative at the time of attestation of mutation to identify vendors, supported the stance of plaintiffs that mutations in question were attested through impersonation

Alleged sale consideration was paid without receipt and defendant stated that whole amount of sale consideration was paid at the time of sanction of mutation but mutation proved otherwise

Mutation mentioned that it was sanctioned for consideration without indicating that amount was paid at the time of sanctioning of mutation

No witness of defendant came forward to state in witness box that the consideration was paid in his presence at the time of attestation of mutation in question

Defendant neither produced Fard Patwar nor Pert Sarkar and had admitted that Roznamcha Waqiatti was also not available

In absence of relevant material record of Revenue Department, veracity and genuineness of mutation in question could not be established

No instance of misreading or non-reading of evidence was found in judgment passed by Lower Appellate Court and was free from any illegality or infirmity and did not call for interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction of High Court.

No conviction could be awarded merely on identification test, of the ocular testimony was discarded.

Leave to appeal granted to examine contentions (i) that medical evidence contradicted eye-witnesses account; (ii) that eye-witnesses having motive to falsely implicate accused were interested witnesses and no conviction could take place on their testimony without strong corroboration; and (iii) that corroboration sought from lead piece was in reality of no avail to prosecution as it did not match with any crime weapon.

Distantly related through inter marriages-Half an hour of sunset on third of lunar month, held, would not be so dark for identification.

Streets of big town are lit with electric light-Witnesses not suggested during cross-examination that it was dark night-Held, in absence of suggestion there being no evidence to indicate that it was dark night-Contention that it was night occurrence and identification of accused doubtful, held, has no force in circumstances.

Witnesses seeing accused before identification parade-Such parade, held, lost its value.

Identification-Footprints, evidence of-Identifier stating to have seen accused's footprints at place of occurrence twenty days earlier but to have made no moulds thereof-Such evidence, held, must be totally discarded.

Identification Accused known to witnesses by name and face and coming so close that their identity could not be mistaken Contention that occurrence having taken place at dark hours of night accused could not have been identified, held, loses all force, in circumstances-Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 392/397.

Merely corroborative evidence-Cannot by itself establish identity of accused.

Not a sufficient piece of evidence.

Identification Identification-Probability of identifying witness having seen accused in Police lock-up before identification test not ruled out

No weight, held, can be attached to such identification -Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302.

Identification -Test identification parade Identification, unless it relates to recognition of suspect in commission of offence not of much value for drawing inference of guilt-Evidence Act (I of 1872), S. 9.

Weight to be given to accused-Must depend on circumstances of each of other corroborative or independent evidence.

Identification Identification-Defining features of accused by moon-light even at a shorter distance-Practically impossible.

S. 9-Identification-First. Information Report not mentioning names of prosecution witnesses nor such witnesses telling Investigation Officer that they could recognise culprits-Recognition of accused by such witnesses, held, not safe to accept as evidence.

Description of accused given in F. I. R. as naujawan (youth), of average height and of wheatish complexion- Accused, however, found to be aged 50 years, 5 ft. and 8 inches in height and of dark complexion -Held, weighty reasons for disbelieving identify of accused with actual culprits- No fault can be found with judgment of Courts below.

Identification-(Murder case)-Recovery of a gun matched, by expert opinion, with crime cartridge-Cartridge picked up from spot of occurrence-Recovery witnesses, however, discrepant on material points; and recovery itself doubtful ; and one of witnesses inimical to accused-High Court, held, justified in discarding such evidence of recovery-Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302.

Description of accused given in F. I. R. as naujavan (youth), of average height and of wheatish complexion-Accused, however, found to be aged 50 years, 5 ft. and 8 inches in height and of dark complexion-Held, weighty reasons for disbelieving identity of accused with actual culprits-No fault can be found with judgment of Courts below.

Mere fact that witness correctly picked up accused at identification parade-Not in itself sufficient to connect accused with crime-Possibility, in circumstances of case, that accused were shown to witness before identification parade.

Identification Identification -Defining features of a person by moonlight even at shorter distance - Held, practically impossible.

Evidence of very weak type-Dacoity Delayed identification test (after 8 months) based on momentary and partial glimpse of faces of assailants-No reliance can be placed on such identification-Dacoity committed at night-Persons terrorised at moment cannot be expected to memorise faces of large number of dacoits-Evidence of identification, in circumstances; rejected-Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 395 & 397.

Identification Identification-Complainant having had several opportunities of seeing accused at police station-Test of no value.

Identification Identification-Murder-Delayed identification test (held 20 days after occurrence) based on momentary, and partial glimpse of face of assailant in torch light-Held, extremely difficult to accept with reliance.

(Moon-lit night; lighted road; evening time ; accused previously known)-Witness had ample opportunity of recognising culprits.

Identification -Delay between date of incident and holding of identification test-Test of no value.

Identification Hurricane lamp light under shed-Accused at distance of l2 feet in courtyard-Identification of accused, held, not satisfactory.

Cannot be relied upon unless corroborated in material particulars.

Identification Proportion of innocent to be mixed with suspects, at the least 9 or 10 to 1.

Identification -Deceased in two dying declarations saying first that he identified his assailant (who was muffled) as N (a co-villager and relative) because N, to his query, said that he was, and, in his second declaration, saying, that he identified N by his voice-Identification, held, doubtful.

Identification -Evidence as to, in criminal trial-Whether sufficient in conjunction with other circumstances of case to establish guilt of accused-Question of fact in each case.

Identification Identification parade held by police-Statement of identifying witness that he had identified accused at parade-Not hearsay-Statement admissible-Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 162-Act of identification not a "statement"-Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S. 9.

Identification -Of skeleton-Impossible after lapse of ten to twelve months after death in circumstances of case.

Value of statement of identifying witness made at parade Omission to specify at parade part played by accused-Whether weakens statement as to such part made at trial.

Not safe to rely on. The evidence of identification is not safe to rely on.

Darkness with only a lantern and a few torches-Memorising faces of "so many" (15 to 25) dacoits-Doubtful.

Identification-By witness no- named Should be viewed with suspicion.

Dark night-Mistake in identity possible.