The law as it stands today is set out in the following
decisions of this Court which are reproduced as herein under in Munshi Singh Gautam vs. State of M.P. (2005) 9 SCC 631, at
page 643:
" As was observed by
this Court in Matru
vs. State of U.P. 1971 2 SCC 75 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. ( Santokh Singh vs. Izhar Hussain
1973 2 SCC 406.) 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 culprits at the time of occurrence are to identify
them from the midst of other persons without any aid or any other source.
The test is done to check upon their veracity. In other words, the
main object of holding an identification parade, during the investigation stage,
is to test the memory of the witnesses based upon first impression and also to
enable the prosecution to decide whether all or any of them could be cited as
eyewitnesses of the crime.
The identification proceedings are in the nature of tests and It is desirable that a test 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 a very common plea of the accused and,
therefore, the prosecution has to be cautious to ensure that there is no scope
for making such an allegation. If, however, circumstances are beyond control
and there is some delay, it cannot be said to be fatal to the prosecution.
No comments:
Post a Comment