Witnesses had not seen the face of the accused because the accused had muffled his face or on account of darkness

Courts have always held such identification doubtful. In Ahmed Sher and another v. The State (PLD 1995 FSC 20), the Federal Shariat Court held as under: “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.” A learned Division Bench of this Court held the same view in the case reported as Ayyub v. The State (1994 PCr.LJ 1057). 

Part Of Judgment
THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN 
Criminal Appeal
13-09
2018 LHC 3164