Identification is an important process in the administration of justice. Where the Court has to know the identity of anything or any person, any fact, which establishes such identity, is relevant. The identity of person can be established by the evidence of persons, who know him. Identification parades are held for the purpose of identifying the persons concerned in an offense or the properties, which are subject matter of an offense. 

         During the course of investigation test identification parades are arranged by the police either in jail or at some other place. Certain persons are brought to such a place and the accused person mixed with them. In case of Property, the property recovered is mixed with some other properties / articles of similar description. Then the Magistrate or the Panch witnesses will ask the witness to identify the property in question or the accused person.  Under Section 9 the evidence given by such witness is relevant.

   Section 9 Provides for the Identification "parade of persons" The purpose of Identification test is to test the memory and veracity of a witness, who claims to identify an accused person, who is said to have participated in a crime.



Section 9. Facts necessary to explain or introduce relevant facts

          Facts necessary to explain or introduce a fact in issue or relevant fact, or which support or rebut an inference suggested by a fact in issue or relevant fact, or which establish the identity of anything or person whose identity is relevant, or fix the time or place at which any fact in issue or relevant fact happened, or which show the relation of parties by whom any such fact was transacted, are relevant in so far as they are necessary for that purpose.

Illustrations

(a) The question is, whether a given document is the will of A.

The state of A’s property and of his family at the date of the alleged will may be relevant facts.

(b) A sues B for a libel imputing disgraceful conduct to A; B affirms that the matter alleged to be libelous is true.

   The position and relations of the parties at the time when the libel was published may be relevant facts as introductory to the facts in issue.

 The particulars of a dispute between A and B about a matter unconnected with the alleged libel are irrelevant, though the fact that there was a dispute may be relevant if it affected the relations between A and B.

(C) A is accused of a crime.

          The fact that, soon after the commission of the crime, A absconded from his house, is relevant under section 8, as a conduct subsequent to and affected by facts in issue.


     The fact that, at the time when he left home he had sudden and urgent business at the place to which he went is relevant, as tending to explain the fact that he left home suddenly.
The details of the business on which he left are not relevant except in so far as they are necessary to show that the business was sudden and urgent.

(d) A sues B for inducing C to break a contract of service made by him with A.C, on leaving A’s service, says to A – “I am leaving you because B has made me better offer.” The statement is a relevant fact as explanatory of C’s conduct which is relevant as a fact in issue.

(e) A, accused of theft is seen to give the stolen property to B, who is seen to give it to A’s wife. B says as he delivers it “A says you are to hide this.” B’s statement is relevant as explanatory of a fact which is part of the transaction.


(f) A is tried for a riot and is proved to have marched at the head of a mob. The cries of the mob are relevant as explanatory of the nature of the transaction.
  

 Precautions to be taken for carrying identification parade: 
        

Following precautions to be taken for carrying identification parade 

1)  It should be fair and seems to be fair and every precaution must be taken to exclude any suspicion of unfairness or risk of erroneous identification to through the witness. 


2) The investigation officer concerned with the case against the suspect, if present, must not take part in conducting the parade.

3) The parade should be arranged by an officer who is not a police officer.

4) All unauthorized persons should be strictly excluded from the place of identification parade.

5) The witnesses should be prevented from sitting with the suspect before he is paraded with other persons, and witnesses who have previously seen a photograph or description of the suspect should not be led in identifying the suspect by reason of their collection of the photograph or description, as for instance by being shown the photograph or description before the parade. 

6) The suspect should be placed among the persons who are as far as possible of the same age, height, general appearance (including standard or dress and grooming) and position in life. Two suspects of roughly of similar appearance should be paraded with at least twelve other persons. Where, however, the two suspects are not similar in appearance or where there are more than two suspects, separate parades should be held using different persons on each parade.



Relevant Case law: 

1) Vijayan v. State of Kerala. (1999) 3 SCC 54: 1999 SCC (Cri) 378

               In this case where the photograph of the accused was shown to the identifying witness and also the same was published in local newspapers, the identification parade was worthless. When the witness, identifying at a parade, failed to identify in court, the TI Parade identification lost its important.




0 comments:

Post a Comment

See Also..