Identification Parade

Trial Court convicted the accused and sentenced him to death but High Court converted the sentence into imprisonment for life

Validity

After the arrest of accused, he was put to test identification parade and although he had been correctly picked up by eye-witnesses yet indisputably such identification had been made without any reference to the role allegedly played by accused during the incident

Evidentiary value of such identification in test identification parade was next to nothing

Courts below failed to appreciate that accused was not nominated in F.I.R. and no evidence was brought on record to establish that his absence or avoidance of arrest was intentional

No question was put to accused at the time of recording of statement under S.342, Cr.P.C. regarding his alleged abscondance

Accused did not fire at anybody during the incident and alleged recovery of pistol from his custody during investigation had been discarded by Trial Court itself

Prosecution failed to prove its case against accused beyond reasonable doubt

Delay in filing of appeal was condoned by Supreme Court and conviction and sentence awarded to accused was set aside

Supreme Court acquitted the accused of the charge extending him benefit of doubt

Appeal was allowed.

Identification parade lost its veracity when accused was previously known to those prosecution witnesses who were not produced

Such identification parade which had not been relied upon regarding involvement of acquitted accused, the same could not have been relied upon against convicted accused, as the witnesses had identified the accused who was previously known to them and the same had been disbelieved.

If statement of a witness qua identity of accused even in court inspires confidence and the witness is consistent on all material particulars and there is nothing in evidence to suggest that he is deposing falsely, absence of holding of identification parade would not be fatal to prosecution case.

Accused were convicted under Ss.302(b) and 392, P.P.C. by Trial Court and sentenced to imprisonment for life and ten years, respectively

Plea raised by accused was that they were falsely implicated in the case and they had been shown to prosecution witnesses before identification parade

Validity

Arrest of accused persons was result of incriminating evidence collected through elaborate investigation

Both the accused, next day after their arrest, were sent to judicial lockup and five days later, identification parade was held in lockup/jail premises

Nothing was available in evidence to indicate that accused were at police station where they were shown to witnesses or their photographs were taken

Accused while making such bald allegation did not specify time, date and place, when they were shown to witnesses neither they made such allegation before the Magistrate who supervised identification parade or in their statement under S. 342, Cr.P.C. during the trial

Evidence of identification inspired confidence and ocular account was corroborated by recovery of share amount from both the accused

One of the accused also led to recovery of .30 bore pistol which was taken into possession from his house

Forensic Science Expert revealed that empties recovered from the spot were wedded with the pistol recovered from the accused

Supreme Court declined to interfere in the conviction and sentences awarded to accused by the courts below

Appeal was dismissed.

Holding of such test is a check against false implication and it is a good piece of evidence against the genuine culprits.

Cutting short process of investigation by way of supplementary statement does not serve any lawful purpose nor it creates any admissible evidence, and such a statement cannot be equated with lawful evidence of test identification parade.

Practice of police to cut short investigation by producing supplementary statement instead of holding identification parade was deprecated by High Court.

Conviction could not be based on the basis of perfunctory and hollow identification parade.

In order to ensure that identification parade was conducted fairly, it would become the duty of the prosecution to adopt such measures so that identifying witness could not see the accused after commission of crime till the identification parade was held immediately after the arrest of accused persons as early as possible

If role of accused was not described by the witness at identification parade, such type of identification would lose its value and could not be relied upon, if prosecution witnesses had seen the accused before identification parade

Such piece of evidence of identification parade could not be relied upon

Identification at identification parade or in court would be of no use, unless role of each accused in crime was attributed at the very outset

Absence of complete description of dummies at the test of identification parade, without their address, their occupation and without any clue, whether they were fellow prisoners or outsiders, admitted dissimilarity in height, physique, features, complexion, appearance and dress of dummies and accused persons, would render such exercise always open to serious doubts.

Bail petition of accused was allowed and he was released on bail.

Identification parade becomes essential and inevitable only when a witness gets a momentary glimpse' of the accused and he claims that he would be able to identify the accused.

Accused were convicted by Trial Court under S. 7(a) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, and were sentenced to death on four counts

Validity

Availability of heavy layer of smoke caused by two strong explosions between prosecution witnesses on one side of place of explosions and accused on the other and finally chaos, panic and pandemonium resulting from explosions and vague and general kind of description of three accused given through F.I.R., made possibility of prosecution witnesses having registered faces and identity of accused open to serious exception and to the resultant doubts

Absence of complete description of dummies at test identification parade without their addresses, their occupation and without any clue whether they were fellow prisoners or outsiders; admitted dis-similarities in height, physique, features, complexion, appearance and dress of dummies and accused persons; absence of any information whether accused persons and dummies were similar in matters of beards or being clean-shaven; absence of disclosure by prosecution about actual date of arrest of three accused persons; declared involvement of three accused in another case and possibility of accused having remained in police custody on account of that another case prior to identification; absence of any finding and decision by Magistrate supervising identification parade contradicting admitted assertion of accused persons being in fetters at the time of identification; mere alleged pointation of three accused persons by three prosecution witnesses without disclosing connection in which they had been identified or role which each or anyone of them had played in the occurrence; non-sealing of report of identification proceedings and other relevant documents after report had been finalized on the day of test identification and providing copy of the same to Investigating Officer before sealing the same on next day; four sheets of identification report being of a kind different from last two sheets of report, were the kind of infirmities in actual proceedings leading to test identification of accused persons which would render the exercise also open to serious doubts

Entire fate of prosecution case hinged exclusively on identification of accused persons by three alleged eye-witnesses

Finding of guilt recorded against three accused was not sustainable in view of established legal principles regulating the subject

Conviction and sentence awarded to accused by Trial Court and maintained by High Court were set aside and all accused were acquitted of the charge

Appeal was allowed.

Identification test is of no value if description of accused is not given in the F.I. R.

Failure on the part of witnesses to describe the role of accused at the time of identification parade is an inherent defect, which renders the identification parade valueless and unreliable.

Picking out of accused in identification parade is not a substantive piece of evidence, but 'is merely of corroborative nature.

Identification parade was not a substantive piece of evidence, but was a corroboration in nature and in circumstances, complete reliance and conviction could not be made and based solely on such evidence

Identification of the culprit made during course of investigation though was material and could be considered as a piece of evidence, but that identification must be for the purpose of identifying the real culprit, further specifying the role played by the person so identified in commission of offence; and in absence of the same, the identification so made was of no legal effect and devoid of consideration.

Description of assailants was not mentioned in F.I.R. and even during identification parade accused was not picked up with reference to the role allegedly played by him during occurrence and it was simply stated that witnesses had identified the accused

Evidentiary value of identification parade of accused in identification parade without attributing to his role in the crime had no evidentiary value.

One prosecution witness lived in the locality for a long time, therefore, possibility of his having prior sighting of accused could not be ruled out

Another prosecution witness was close to investigating officer as he had been involved in a number of criminal cases and had also been lodged in jail for quite some time and evidence of such prosecution witness could not be accepted at its face value

Investigating officer in his cross-examination accepted that after identification parade, accused and witnesses were taken in the same vehicle back to police station

If the accused and witnesses were taken to court in separate vehicle then there should have been an explanation as to where did the second vehicle had gone and why accused and witnesses travelled in the same vehicle

Investigating Officer also admitted that when prosecution witness had come to police station, accused persons were present in lock-up

One of the prosecution witnesses alleged that he saw deceased drowsy and charge was of administration of intoxicating substance but no chemical report of any intoxicant having been administered was produced

Another prosecution witness claimed that he taped telephone calls but investigating officer did not take possession of the tape and obtained no voice matching information

Investigating Officer also admitted that he did not inspect even petrol pump where prosecution witness stated to have seen the deceased with accused

Investigating officer recorded statement of one of the accused but did not produce that statement in court

Investigating Officer had performed very poorly and prima facie it appeared that when he was entrusted with the case in order to prove his success and earn plaudits, he caught hold of lady accused and thereafter created evidence

High Court recommended departmental authority to take appropriate action against Investigating Officer in accordance with law

High Court set aside the conviction and sentence awarded to accused persons and acquitted them of the charge

Appeal was allowed in circumstances.

Occurrence was alleged to have taken place at about midnight and on the basis of identification parade conducted in police station under the supervision of Naib-Thesildar, accused were convicted under S.392 P.P.C. and were sentenced to seven years of imprisonment

Validity

In absence of any corroborative piece of evidence, prosecution should have carried out identification parade in accordance with procedure / criteria laid down in R.26.32 of Police Rules, 1934 or guidelines laid down by superior courts of country

Procedure adopted by prosecution was novel and un-warranted in law while holding identification parade

No law authorized any investigator to hold identification parade inside police station especially when suspect / accused were visible from the office of Station House Officer, where the identifiers were made seated and possibility to have seen the accused by identifiers before identification parade could not be ruled out

Concerned Station House Officer or Investigating Officer was required to detain the accused in jail without wasting a single moment and without showing them to identifiers

Investigation agency instead of holding identification parade in a fair and transparent manner adopted a self-styled procedure for identification parade, inside the premises of police station in presence of Naib Tehsildar instead of Magistrate First Class

As per identification report, ten dummies were intermingled with two accused in joint identification parade while as per R.26.34 of Police Rules, 1934, nine or ten dummies of similar dress and. of same religion, age and social status were required to be intermingled with one suspect/ accused but the same was not done by Investigating Officer

Identifiers also failed to attribute any role to accused at the time of identification parade

Statements of both the prosecution witnesses were not sufficient for conviction because of non-transparent rather illegal procedure adopted by investigator while conducting identification parade and in absence of other material

Prosecution failed to establish guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt

Every doubt which could arise, would go in favour of accused and such conviction was not sustainable

Supreme Appellate Court set aside the conviction and sentence awarded to accused by the Trial Court and they were acquitted of the charge

Appeal was allowed.

Nature, evidentiary value, scope and utility of identification parade explained.

Complainant in written complaint had stated that they had enmity in the Illaqa and because of such animosity murder of deceased was committed, but during his statement in the court he came with the version that accused had come to commit dacoity

Complainant and other prosecution witness were subjected to cross-examination by the defence, but nothing damaging to the prosecution or favourable to the defence could be elicited from their statements as they remained consistent with each other on the point that accused had not been specifically identified by them and they had only noted their features and statures

Identification parade was not conducted under the supervision of Magistrate

Identification parade had been conducted in a highly unprofessional and illegal manner, which was sheer violation, of the procedure laid down in High Court (Lahore) Rules and Orders as well as settled principles on that point

Investigating Officer and the Judicial Magistrate had not bothered to initiate any precautionary measures ensuring that identity of accused was not leaked out

Report of the Judicial Magistrate was silent on the question whether he had ensured that the dummies, who were made to mix up with accused persons, had any similarities with accused on the point of their colour, height or other features of the body

Nothing was on record to suggest the basis on which the witnesses had identified accused persons, whether by their colour, height, ages or even by their clothes

Mere saying that witness identified such and such person as accused without mentioning their specific role, could hardly be considered to be piece of evidence to connect accused with commission of crime, which ultimately could entail capital punishment

Conviction could not be recorded merely on probabilities and prosecution had to prove its case beyond any shadow of doubt, which the prosecution had not been able to prove in the case

Conviction and sentence awarded to accused by the Trial Court, were set aside and accused was ordered to be released.

Prosecution witnesses had picked up the accused in the identification parade without describing the role played by each of them in the commission of the crime

Such identification proceedings were illegal and had no evidentiary value in the eyes of law

Prosecution, thus, had failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt

Benefit of doubt was extended to accused in circumstances and they were acquitted accordingly.

Occurrence took place in dark hours of night and it had not been disclosed as to how prosecution witnesses were able to identify accused persons

Presumption at the most could be that accused were seen in headlights of vehicle but accused could not have been seen by prosecution witnesses more than once and that too for a while

Though it was alleged that deceased as well as complainant were fired at by one of the culprits yet, it had not been pointed out as to who was that accused, nor description of that accused was given in F.I.R.

Effect

Absence of such details in F.I.R. militated against bona fides of prosecution and greatly marred evidentiary value of test identification parade

When description by appearance of accused was not given in F.I.R. and specific role was not attributed to him, identification of such accused in court for the first time, in absence of strong corroboratory evidence was not safe to be relied upon as by passage of time memory would fade and possibility that accused might not have been mistakenly picked out was augmented

Occurrence had not taken place in the manner as suggested by prosecution and prosecution had failed to produce confirmatory evidence in such regard

Supreme Court found room for benefit of doubt, which must go to accused

Supreme Court set aside the conviction and sentence awarded to accused persons and acquitted them of the charge

Appeal was allowed.

All the accused were acquitted by Trial Court but High Court, in exercise of appellate jurisdiction, convicted one accused and sentenced him to imprisonment for life

Validity

Statements under S.161 Cr.P.C. of prosecution witnesses were recorded after more than one month and 21 days

Police record showed that statements of prosecution witnesses were recorded on 30-10-2000, while deposing on oath, one prosecution witness had given the date of recording of his statement as 30-11-2000, creating such doubts in statements of prosecution witnesses with regard to their presence, at the time of alleged occurrence, recording of their statements and identification parade

Identification parade had lost its worth when two prosecution witnesses had admitted that accused was produced before Magistrate in handcuffs and in the custody of police

Statements of both the prosecution witnesses was more than enough to pronounce acquittal of accused in the case

Identification test was conducted after lapse of 76 days and at the time of identification test, prosecution witnesses had not described role of each accused, which was played by him at the time of alleged occurrence

Memo of identification test had also not shown details, names and addresses of dummies

Many other infirmities in their statement were also appearing due to which identification test had lost its verity

Supreme Court set aside the conviction and sentence of accused awarded by High Court and acquitted him of the charge

Appeal was allowed.

F.I.R. alleged that at night time all the three accused opened fire on police party from behind the bushes due to which one police official was killed

One accused was sentenced to death by Trial Court while other two accused were awarded imprisonment for life

High Court set aside conviction and sentence awarded under S.302 P.P.C. to two co-accused and maintained death sentence of the accused

Plea raised by accused was that neither his description was mentioned in F.I.R. nor any test identification parade was conducted during investigation

Validity

F.I.R. did not contain requisite details regarding identification of accused, nor his description by appearance was given there with sufficient details

Omission so made was fatal to prosecution case, particularly when neither accused' persons after their arrest were put to 'identification test, nor any of prosecution witnesses had picked out or identified the accused at trial

Prosecution had failed to produce confirmatory evidence to prove charge against the accused and there was room for doubt, benefit whereof must go to accused

Supreme Court set aside conviction and sentence awarded to accused and acquitted him of the charge

Appeal was allowed.

Evidence of identification parade would lose its efficacy and cannot be relied upon, if prosecution witnesses would not describe the role played by each of the accused at the time of commission of the offence

Same would be the position, if prosecution witnesses, while making statements in the Court, would also not attribute any individual role to the accused played by them during the occurrence.

Neither the name of accused found place in F.I.R. nor after his arrest any identification parade was held to identify him as culprit

Accused was not required by police for further investigation

Three nominated accused were released by police under S.169 Cr. P. C. read with Ss. 496 and 497 Cr. P. C. and challan against them had been accepted by concerned Trial Court

Order for acceptance of such challan was not challenged by complainant side before any competent court of law

Effect

Case for grant of bail was made out by accused

Bail was granted in circum­stances.

Twelve culprits participated in commission of offence at about 6 a.m. and there was no evidence that accused was previously known to complainant, therefore his identification required corroboration

Name of accused was given in F.I.R. by complainant under S.161, Cr.P.C. after eleven days, in such circumstances it was the duty of prosecution at least to hold an identification test before some Judicial Officer immediately after recording arrest, in order to confirm his identity but prosecution failed to do the same

Arrest of accused and recovery of rifle on his pointation was also not supported by both the private witnesses when they were examined to prove such facts

Neither rifle nor empties secured from place of incident were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for certification that both match with each other

Such recovery of rifle on pointation of accused, even if proved on the basis of evidence of Investigating Officer, had no nexus with commission of offence by accused

Conviction and sentence awarded by Trial Court was set aside and accused was acquitted

Appeal was allowed in circumstances.

Unless role to each accused in crime is attributed at the very outset, his identification at identification parade or in court would be of no use.

Out of three accused who were convicted and sentenced by Trial Court, two were acquitted by High Court and one was sentenced to imprisonment for life

Plea raised by accused was that neither he was known to prosecution witnesses nor he was named in F.I.R. and no identification parade was conducted

Validity

As the accused was not known to prosecution witnesses by face and his name was not mentioned in F.I.R., it was all the more necessary for prosecution to hold identification parade of the accused

Prosecution was under an obligation to prove its case against accused person beyond any shadow of doubt

No evidence was available on record to connect accused with commission of crime, inasmuch as, according to prosecution witnesses, he did not fire even a single shot

Case of accused was on much better footing and position as compared to two accused who were acquitted by High Court

High Court convicted the accused on the basis of no evidence and committed grave illegality, inasmuch as, the evidence was completely misread

Prosecution totally failed to prove charge against accused and findings of High Court that prosecution had succeeded in establishing its case against the accused were erroneous and not sustainable in law

Supreme Court reversed the findings and set aside the judgment of High Court regarding accused who was acquitted of the charge

Appeal was allowed.

Contention of accused was that they had not been charged in F.I.R. and evidence against them was that of identification parade held after about a month of their arrest

Accused further contended that though there was positive report of Forensic Science Laboratory regarding empties recovered from the spot and weapons recovered from them after their arrest but there was sufficient delay of examination of the recoveries in the Laboratory

Leave to appeal was granted by Supreme Court to reappraise the evidence.

One accused was acquitted by Trial Court, while three were convicted and sentenced to death, which sentence was maintained by High Court

Validity

Proceedings of identification parade where accused were picked up without describing role played by them in crime, suffered from illegalities and infirmities rendering it completely unreliable having no evidentiary value

Possibility that police had got accused identified by witnesses prior to identification parade could not be excluded

Supreme Court, while giving benefit of doubt to accused, set aside convictions and sentences recorded by Trial Court and maintained by High Court and accused were acquitted of the charge.

Procedure for making arrangements for identification parade easier was prescribed by High Court for circulation to Prosecutor General, Advocate-General, Additional Inspector General of Police (Investigation) and all the Sessions Judges of the Province, who shall pursue the same and circulate it to all concerned and subordinate courts and offices for appropriate legal action and observance.

Law requires that at the time of identification parade the accused should be picked up while describing the roles played by them in the crime.

Where there is no description of culprits made in F.I.R, except making mention of their height, the identification parade even if had been held, could have hardly advanced prosecution case.

Holding of identification parade is a check against false implication and it becomes necessary in cases where the culprits are not nominated in the F.I.R.

Identification parade must be held as early as possible after the arrest of the accused, but not later than fifteen days

Identification parade is always held for two purposes, one to establish identity of the culprit and the second to pin-point the role played by him in the commission of the offence

Even if the identification parade is held, but no role is attributed to the accused during the commission of the offence, the identification parade loses its sanctity.

In absence of any identification parade or recovery from possession of accused, evidence in shape of statement of co-accused, prima facie, was not strong enough to deny concession of bail

Even such statement was not corroborated and without corroboration it was not acceptable against other accused

Prima facie, there was no sufficient evidence against accused connecting him with commission of offence with which he was charged

Bail was granted in circumstances.

Identification parade as such is not a requirement of law, it is a method to test the veracity of the witness and is a relevant fact under Art.22 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984

Fact that a witness identifies the accused at the trial is sufficient unless it is shown that he had no opportunity of having seen the accused before

Prosecution evidence through identification parade is not substantive piece of evidence, but it has only corroborative value.

If a witness has a glimpse of a culprit then identification test before a Magistrate is essential and if such identification test is not held then identification by the witness in Court carries no weight.

­Identification test would become necessary where names of culprits were not given in F.I.R. and holding of such a test was not only a check against false implication, but was a good piece of evidence against real culprits.

Omission on the part of Magistrate while conducting an identification parade is an irregularity which should neither damage the entire process of identification test nor wash away the direct ocular evidence.

Identification test is a very weak piece of evidence and any doubtful circumstance may wholly damage its evidentiary value.

Delayed identification test both with reference to the date of occurrence and the date when the accused was taken into custody, was always looked upon with the maximum caution by the Courts of law

Evidentiary value of an identification parade where the accused was nominated without attributing to him his role in the crime was also minimal without corroborative evidence.

Possibility of the accused having been shown to the prosecution witness before holding the identification parade could not be ruled out

Witnesses while identifying the accused in the identification parade had not assigned to the accused the respective roles played by them during the commission of the offence and no proper ratio of dummies was mixed up with accused as required under law

Such identification parade was of no help to prosecution

Murder of the deceased had not been proved

Complainant and the kidnapees had not supported the prosecution case with regard to the payment of ransom to the accused

Three co-accused alleged to have received ransom money had been acquitted by to Trial Court

Prosecution evidence was full of material contradiction

Accused were acquitted on benefit of doubt in circumstances.

Identification test parade should be exclusively under the supervision of the Magistrate which would include the arrangements of dummies etc. so as to avoid possibilities of false implication of the accused.

Identifying of the part played by each of the accused persons while identifying them in an identification parade by a witness is of some importance but is not an invoilable rule

Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979), S.20

Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.395,

Identification test taking place after recording of 164, Cr.P.C. statement takes away the entire value of the identification of the accused by the witness and renders the same useless.

The mere fact that a witness is able to pick out an accused person from amongst a crowd does not prove that he has identified that accused person as having taken part in the crime which is being investigated. It merely mean that the witness happens to know that accused person. The principal evidence of identification is the evidence of a witness given in a Court as to how and under what circumstances he came to pick out a particular accused person and the details of the part which that accused took in the crime in question. The statement made by such a witness at an identification parade might be used to corroborate his evidence given in Court, but otherwise the evidence of identification furnished by an identification parade can only be hearsay except as to the simple fact that a witness was in a position to show that he knew a certain accused person by sight.

Failure of eye-witnesses to utter some words at time of pointing out a culprit at a parade, though of some importance, is not of any inviolable right or rule

Depends upon facts of each parade and type of witnesses

Mentioning or naming of actual killer in parade, when all were equally responsible for loss of an innocent life which, to eye-witnesses, could be punishable with death as one of penalties, was not as essential, so as to make it a ground for mitigation, when it is not denied that otherwise penalty is normal and commensurate with crime

Conviction and sentence upheld.

Value of. The question of the identification of an unknown assailant does not depend only on the care with which the authorities may hold an identification parade, but also on other circumstances, such as the veracity of the eye-witnesses who have to identify the assailants, the appellant's counsel pointed out that the identification parade of accused R was held on 22-2-1965 and that of accused Y in July, 1966. Therefore, he submitted that it was not possible for the eye-witnesses to identify the assailants after such a long period of time. Neither the Sessions Court nor the High Court have referred to this aspect of the case and appear to have assumed that the witnesses were in a position to recollect the two assailants whom they had seen only once in their lives, and that in very unusual circumstances.