Appreciation of Evidence in Sessions Cases - Justice D.Murugesan

(g) Witness already seen the accused :-
If the witness already seen the accused after the arrest and before identification parade, no value
could be attached to such evidence – Budhsen vs. State of U.P. – AIR SC 1321.
(h) Test Identification Parade not a Decisive Factor:-
Section 9 of The Evidence Act, 1872 – Test Identifiction Parade cannot be the decisive factor for
recording conviction – Identification do not constitute substantive evidence – Mahabir vs. The State of
Delhi – 2008 (3) Supreme 111.
(i) Identification of accused/articles:-
A person can be identified even in darkness from manner of speech, style of walking and other
peculiar features – State of M.P. vs. Makhan – (2008) 10 SCC 615-B.
Delay in holding : it is desirable that attest identification parade should be conducted as
soon as after the arrest of the accused. This becomes necessary to eliminate the possibility of the
accused being shown to the witnesses prior to the test identification parade. This is very common
plea of the accused and therefore the prosecution has to be cautious to ensure that there is no
scope for making such allegation. If, however the circumstances are beyond the control and there
is some delay it cannot be said to be fatal to the prosecution. Md Kalam vs State of Rajasthan.
2008 Cri.L.J 2602.
Test Identification Parade – object and evidentiary value Identification parades belong to Stage of
investigation –code does not contain any provision obliging investigating agency to hold or to confers a
right upon a accused to claim, a test identification parade – hence they do not constitute substantive
evidence and these parades are essentially governed by section 162 of Code. Mahabir vs State of Delhi
2008 Cri.L.J 3036.
1) AMITSINGH BHIKAMSING THAKUR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [AIR 2007 SUPREME
COURT 676] : [(2007) 2 SUPREME COURT CASES 310]
Evidence – Test Identification Parade – Evidentiary value – Section 9 of Evidence Act –
Does not constitute substantive evidence but can be used as corroborative of statement of court –
Failure to hold a test identification parade would not make inadmissible the evidence of
identification in Court.
Para 10. As was observed by this Court in Matru v. State of Uttar Pradesh [MANU/SC/0141/1971]
identification tests do not constitute substantive evidence. They are primarily meant for the purpose of
helping the investigating agency with an assurance that their progress with the investigation into the
offence is proceeding on the right lines. The identification can only be used as corroborative of the
statement in court. [See Santokh Singh v. Izhar Hussain [MANU/SC/0165/1973] . The necessity for
holding an identification parade can arise only when the accused are not previously known to the
witnesses. The whole idea of a test identification parade is that witnesses who claim to have seen the
33