Any other particulars regarding the conduct of the parade and about the identification, etc. They should approach the quality of the evidence of an officer in the same way as any other member of the public. It means that the Magistrate need not come to the Court to prove the memo unless the accused points out ambiguity or defects or lacuna in the T. The main contention is whether the parade was conducted in a fair manner and whether the witnesses in fact saw the accused before the commission of offence and the identification parade A. State of Maharashtra, the explanation tendered by the I. Appellant Versus State of U.
Test identification has been held to be part of investigation. The dacoits broke open the room and almirah and looted the ornaments, silver utensils, cash and other articles like clocks, clothes, etc. In the case of, Ahmed Bin Salam v. As regards the admissibility of such evidence of test identification, it is pertinent to point out that facts which establish the identity of any person or thing whose identity is relevant are, by virtue of Sec. Supreme Court: A Bench comprising of N. Thereafter, the learned counsel for the appellant has drawn my attention to paragraph 21 which forms part of the cross-examination of P. The police has seized 6,50,000 from the witness's house.
The author of the book has quoted several true cases wherein innocent persons were convicted due to erroneous identification. Any deficiency or irregularity in investigation need not necessarily lead to rejection of the case of prosecution when it is otherwise proved. As regards the seizure of the money in this, the learned counsel for the appellant has drawn my attention to the statement of D. However, in R v Slater, 1995 Crim. The guidance takes account of the changes brought about by the revised Code D of Practice, which is effective for identification procedures taking place after midnight on 31 December 2005. The purpose of such prior test identification is to test and strengthen the trustworthiness of the evidence of the witnesses.
But in castes where the accused demands identification parade during investigation, the police are put in a delicate position. This was held to be a breach despite the otherwise strong evidence. The evidence against the accused must be the evidence given by the identifying witnesses in the witness box. Statements made by witnesses in course of T. The appellant was absconding in January when incident occurred and was apprehended only in September. However, see R v Bath 1990 Crim.
It is advisable to hold the parade if the accused holds out a challenge that he could not be identified. Similarly the prosecution too have a right to be represented by the counsel if they wish to do so. Ronny Ronald James Alwaris v. The witness whoever, that they have seen the accused or his articles or weapons during the commission of the offence, are asked to identify such accused or suspect by picking them out from among a number of persons or such articles or animals, or a bunch of articles or animals of the same kind. The nature of the offence, the state of mind of the witness at the particular time when the offence was committed terror, excitement , and the duration in which the witness had the opportunity to see the accused are tacts to be particularly taken into account. The identity of person can be established by the evidence of persons, who know him.
Almost invariably, the evidence available to the prosecutor will be the statements of the witnesses. It is not the case of the defence that there was no light. It was alleged that the appellant came on a motorcycle from behind along with the co-accused and fired gunshot at the petitioner thereby injuring him. Therefore, it is not substantive evidence. But in such an event, the express or implied statement made by the identifier before them would be a statement which would immediately be hit by Sec. Experience on the continent of Europe is precisely similar.
The contents are intended, but not guaranteed, to be correct, complete, or up to date. As to ordinary citizens, there is no legal objection to their holding identification proceedings even though these are arranged for by the Police. In the present case, there are clinching circumstances unerringly pointing out the accusing finger towards the appellant beyond any reasonable doubt. It is not a substantive piece of evidence and is accordingly considered a safeguard of prudence to generally look for corroboration of testimony of witness in court of law to identify the accused person. Please inform us if we missed any or if you are aggrieved on any post, we will remove or re-post it with your permission.
It would no doubt have been prudent to hold a test identification parade with respect to witnesses who did not know the accused before the occurrence, but failure to hold such a parade would not make inadmissible the evidence of identification in court. My attention has also been drawn to the statement of P. In short, the proceedings must contain a complete record of all that takes place in the identification parade. Ordinarily, identification of an accused for the first time in court by a witness should not be relied upon, the same being from its very nature, inherently of a weak character, unless it is corroborated by his previous identification in the test identification parade or any other evidence. Identification evidence is not to be rejected simply because the accused was on bail.