PLD 2019 SC 488.
Test identification parade and correct pointing out of an accused person by an eye-witness therein was not a substantive piece of evidence. Evidence offered through identification proceedings was not a substantive piece of evidence but was only corroborative of the evidence given by the witnesses at the trial. It had no independent value of its own and could not as a rule, form a sufficient basis for conviction though the same may add some weight to the other evidence available on record.
Identification parade was necessary only where the offender was a complete stranger to the witnesses. Whole object of the identification proceedings was to find out whether the suspect was or was not the real offender. [p. 498] B
Failure to hold a test identification parade was not always fatal to the prosecution's case.
Guidelines, requirements and safeguards necessary for holding a test identification parade:
.......................
(i) Vital factor determinative of the worth and value of test identification proceedings was the effectiveness of the precautions taken, before and during the course of such proceedings which were designed to eliminate the possibility of unjustified convictions.
(ii) Test identification proceedings were not the testimony of a witness but the testimony of the senses of the witness. It was essentially a test of his power of observation and perception, a test of his power to recognize strangers and a test of his memory. Such gifts of God may vary from man to man. A witness may be honest, independent and truthful but then his memory may be faulty. Tricks of memory and its conscious and unconscious activity could also wrap the vision of a man. When mistakes were possible in the recognition of a man known from before, then the possibility of such mistakes in identifying strangers was definitely greater. And more so when the witnesses had seen the offender for the first time during the occurrence and that also briefly and not with a calm but in an excited, confused and terrorised state of mind.
(iii) Memories faded and visions got blurred with passage of time. Thus, an identification test, where an unexplained and unreasonably long period had intervened between the occurrence and the identification proceedings, should be viewed with suspicion. Therefore, an identification parade, to inspire confidence, must be held at the earliest possible opportunity after the occurrence.
(iv) Test identification, where the possibility of the witness having seen the accused persons after their arrest could not be ruled out, was worth nothing at all. It was, therefore, imperative to eliminate all such possibilities. It should be ensured that, after their arrest, the suspects were put to identification tests as early as possible. Such suspects should preferably, not be remanded to police custody in the first instance and should be kept in judicial custody till the identification proceedings were held. This was to avoid the possibility of overzealous investigating officers showing the suspects to the witnesses while they were in police custody. Even when these accused persons were, of necessity, to be taken to Courts for remand etc. they must be warned to cover their faces if they so choose so that no witness could see them.
(v) Identification of an accused person by eye-witnesses before the trial court during a trial was generally considered to be quite unsafe because before such identification during the trial the eye-witnesses got many opportunities to see the accused persons appearing before the court in connection with their remand, distribution of copies of statement of prosecution witnesses, framing of the charge and recording of statements of other prosecution witnesses.
(vi) Identification parades should never be held at police stations.
(vii) Magistrate, supervising the identification proceedings, must verify the period, if any, for which the accused persons had remained in police custody after their arrest and before the test identification and must incorporate such fact in his report about the proceedings.
(viii) In order to guard against the possibility of a witness identifying an accused person by chance, the number of persons (dummies) to be intermingled with the accused persons should be as much as possible. But then there was also the need to ensure that the number of such persons was not increased to an extent which could have the effect of confusing the identifying witness. Superior Courts had, through their wisdom and long experience, prescribed that ordinarily the ratio between the accused persons and the dummies should be 1 to 9 or 10. Such ratio must be followed unless there were some special justifiable circumstances warranting a deviation from it.
(ix) If there were more accused persons than one who had to be subjected to test identification, then the rule of prudence laid down by the superior Courts was that separate identification parades should ordinarily be held in respect of each accused person. Identification of many accused persons in one line in one go during a test identification parade was improper. Every accused person was to be put to a separate test identification parade.
(x) It must be ensured that before a witness had participated in the identification proceedings, he was stationed at a place from where he could not observe the proceedings and that after his participation he was lodged at a place from where it was not possible for him to communicate with those who had yet to take their turn. It also had to be ensured that no one who was witnessing the proceedings, such as the members of the jail staff etc., was able to communicate with the identifying witnesses.
(xi) During a test identification parade the witness had to specify the role allegedly played by an accused person in commission of the offence. [pp. 502, 503] T & W
(xii) Magistrate conducting the proceedings must take an intelligent interest in the proceedings and not be just a silent spectator of the same bearing in mind at all times that the life and liberty of someone depended only upon his vigilance and caution.
(xiii) Magistrate was obliged to prepare a list of all the persons (dummies) who formed part of the line-up at the parade along with their parentage, occupation and addresses.
(xiv) Magistrate must faithfully record all the objections and statements, if any, made either by the accused persons or by the identifying witnesses before, during or after the proceedings.
(xv) Where a witness correctly identified an accused person, the Magistrate must ask the witness about the connection in which the witness had identified that person i.e. as a friend, as a foe or as a culprit of an offence etc. and then incorporate such statement in his report.
(xvi) Where a witness identified a person wrongly, the Magistrate must so record in his report and should also state the number of persons wrongly picked by the witness.
(xvii) Magistrate was required to record in his report all the precautions taken by him for a fair conduct of the proceedings.
(xviii) Magistrate had to give a certificate at the end of his report in the form prescribed by C.H.II.C. of Vol. III of Lahore High Court Rules and Orders. [p. 501] R
(xix) Said measures listed should, however, not be taken as exhaustive of the steps which were required to be taken before, during and after the identification proceedings. All said requirements were no doubt mandatory but at the same time they were only illustrative of the precautions which the Courts of law demanded before some respect could be shown to the evidence offered through the test identification proceedings.
0 Comments