“Identification by voice (i.e. where the witnesses had not seen the
face of the accused because the accused had muffled his face or on
account of darkness but had heard the voice of the accused) has been
considered to be a weak piece of evidence. Malik Rab Nawaz Noon,
learned counsel for the Appellants, has relied upon three reported
judgments which support his contention that identification by voice
through an identification test is a weak piece of evidence and should
be supported by other evidence. In the case of Hamzo v. State 1972
PCr.LJ 478, a Division Bench of erstwhile High Court of Sindh and
Balochistan had held that the evidence of the witness who had
claimed identification of the accused by voice, in an occurrence
taking place when the night was cloudy and the moon-light was dim,
was a very weak piece of evidence and required support by other
strong circumstantial evidence and that conviction could not be
based on identification by voice only. In the case of Abdul Rashid v.
State (1973 PCr.LJ Lah. 428) a Division Bench of the Lahore High
Court considered the evidence of a witness relating to identification
of the accused, who had heard them for a very short period when the
incident had taken place on the basis of voices as incredible in view
of the admission of the witness that she had not seen the accused
since her childhood and, therefore, she could not be so familiar with
their voices as to be able to recognize either of them. A Single Judge
of the Sindh High Court also considered identification by voice as
doubtful in the case of Misri v. State reported in 1984 P Cr.LJ 2832.”
PLD 1995 FSC 20
Used in Judgment of:
Lahore High Court
Criminal Appeal
13-09
0 Comments