IMPORTANCE AND EVIDENTIAL IMPORTANCE OF IDENTIFICATION PARADE IN CRIMINAL CASE

Synopsis:
 Introduction
 Meaning
 Relevant provisions
 Relevant judgments
 Purpose, scope and object
 Importance
 Evidential status
 Identification parade- safeguards:
 When Identification Parade should be conducted
 Modes of conducting Identification Parade
 Guide line of Supreme Court
 Procedure of Identification Parade in criminal case
 Conclusion

INTRODUCTION

In criminal trials, the two most intrinsic points for determination are infra;

 whether the alleged offence was committed

 who committed the offence?

One of the ways employed to establish the identity of a culprit and his role during
commission of alleged offence is by way of identification parades.

The test of Identification Parade is, firstly, to satisfy the Investigating Agency, before
forwarding the case to the court for commencement of trial, that the person arrested, was not
previously known to the witness, was in fact one of those who committed the crime; and
secondly, to satisfy the court that the accused arrested is in fact the culprit. 

The whole idea behind Test of Identification Parade is to test whether or not the witness
who claims to have seen the culprits at the time of occurrence/commission of the offence is
thoroughly reliable and can identify the culprits amongst the individuals without any aid and/or
other source. This will avoid the possibility of overzealous investigating officers (IOs) showing
the suspects to the witnesses while they are in police custody. Even when these accused
persons are to be taken to courts for remand they must be warned to cover their faces so that
1
no witness could see them, the guidelines say.

The general rule is that, the evidence of identification of the accused before the court of
law should not, ordinarily form the basis of conviction until and unless it is corroborated by
previous identification or some other evidence.

MEANING

Identification parade is identification of stranger offender, who is no previously known

to the witness. Whose name and parentage are not known to the complainant/eye witness but
seen by him at the time of occurrence.

RELEVANT PROVISIONS

 Article 22 of Qanoon e Shahadat Ordinance 1984

 Rule 26.23 of Police Rules 1934
 Vol. III 11. G part C of High Court Rules 2016

PURPOSE, SCOPE AND OBJECT

Objects of identification parade are to enable witness to identify a person who is

involved in commission of offence and is not known to the witness before commission of
offence. Identification parade is related to those facts which are declared as relevant facts
about place, name, person or date. The conduct of an identification parade is the part of the
investigation and is held not as a rule of law but as a rule of prudence to eliminate possibility of
any mistake and to take test of eye sight of witness.

Usually, there is a stretched time gap between the commission of an offence and the
trial of the offence, and quite naturally if the accused is not known to the eyewitness, then,
how can it be expected of the eyewitness to remember minute details such as: general
appearance, physical structure, stature and complexion of the accused, and as a necessary
corollary, how can it be expected of the eyewitness to identify the accused with exactitude in
the court of law; thus, to resolve this anomaly, soon after the commission of crime, if any
eyewitness is available then identification Parade should be conducted as a matter of priority,
prudence and propriety and not just procedure, so that the eyewitness is able to depose about
the accused and the crime scene when his memory is fresh and unsullied.

The identification Parade is conducted to test the veracity of the witnesses who claim to
have seen the culprits committing the offence. This practice of Test of Identification Parade is
not borne out of procedure, but out of prudence.

The object is to place the suspect of crime in a line with other individuals for
identification is to find out whether or not the accused is the perpetrator of the crime. This is
2
all the more essential where the name and details of the accused, although, are not known to
the eyewitnesses of the incident, but, still by recalling the scene of crime and the physical
features (face, eyes, complexion, height and/or physique) of the accused/suspect the
eyewitnesses are able to identify the accused/suspect.

The idea of identification parade is to test the veracity of the witness in the question of
his capacity to identify, from among several persons made to stand in a queue, an unknown
person whom the witness had seen at the time of occurrence.
In cases where the identity of the accused is not known to the eye-witness, it is essential
for the investigating officer to get such suspect identified from eye-witness in a test
identification parade, which has mainly two works - a) Ensures that investigation is proceeding
on a right track, b) Ensures that the eye-witness's memory regarding the identity of the
appellant.

EVIDENTIAL STATUS

Identification parade is not a substantive piece of evidence. it is corroborative evidence

and it only assures that the investigation process is progressing on right lines. The evidence
given by a witness in the court of law is substantive testimony while the identification made by
the witness in identification Parade is only confirmatory of the testimony made before the
court of law.

Identification parade is a procedure to identify the accused by the witnesses under the
custody of magistrate. It is admissible evidence in the court. Identification parade should be
conducted at the earliest possible time because the witness to identify the accused easily, as by
the lapse of time of memory may fade.

Absence of identification parade in all cases is not fatal, for example, where X was raped
by A, and, X was able to see A due to the proximity involved in the commission of crime, then
identification parade is necessary to test the veracity, reliability and memory of X, will be
incongruous and farcical because in offences such as that of rape, the victim herself is a
“natural witness”.

 The rationale of identification Parade is to confirm the identity of the accused and to
help the police in their investigation.

Identification Parade was not necessary as the F.I.R. was lodged within one (1) hour of
the commission of the crime and the culprits were named in the F.I.R., that is, the culprits were
known to the complainant.

3
The purpose of Identification Parade is to enable the witness who claims to have seen the
commission of the crime, to identify the accused out of the several persons lined up by the
Investigation Officer. in the presence magistrate. The Identification Parade takes place in the
presence of magistrate and it is the magistrate who prepares the report of the Identification
Parade proceedings. It is for the witness to point out the accused out of the several persons
and it is for the magistrate to corroborate the identification by the witness of the accused.

In short Identification parade is a standard procedure to enhance the precision of

identification, by avoiding the errors that could result in a single suspect viewing. This exercise
is not only a real investigative practice, but also serves as an important evidential tool.

4
MODES OF CONDUCTING IDENTIFICATION PARADE
Identification parade is conducted or carried by modern devices, tape recorders,
cameras, videos, audios, and maps or sometime the help of animals like dogs etc.
Where a person has been declared a proclaimed offender in a terrorist case, the
evidence regarding his identification by witnesses on the basis of his photograph shall have the
same value as the evidence of the test identification parade.

The trial pertained to an offence concerning conspiracy for murder; here, the witness
heard the accused while the accused was demanding money from the victim, and subsequently
the witness identified the accused by the voice of the accused. Even prior to the happening of
the incident, the witness had some acquaintance with the accused even then evidence
tendered by the witness, identifying the accused by his voice was reliable.

ORDER AND PROCEDURE OF IDENTIFICATION PARADE

On arrest of unknown accused he may straightaway send to judicial lock up with specific
request of conducting identification parade to magistrate and after Identification Parade he
may be nominated through complainant with source of satisfaction. After nomination as
accused in the case his custody may be sought and then recovery or discovery may be made. At
last the accused may be remanded to judicial lock after completion of his interrogation.

 Accused unknown

 Judicial Lockup

 Identification Parade

 Nomination

 Custody

 Recovery

 Confession/ further custody

 Judicial

TEST IDENTIFICATION PARADE- SAFEGUARDS:

a. Identification Parade must ideally be conducted as soon as possible to avoid any mistake
on the part of the witnesses. The Magistrate who is to conduct the Identification Parade
must first acquaint himself with the facts of the case, and thereafter he must take note
of the suspects who are to be identified and the witnesses who shall be identifying the
suspects;
5
b. Where the prosecution-witness is well-acquainted with the accused/suspect, holding of
Identification Parade is a complete waste of public time and money;
c. All police officers and constables must be asked to completely withdraw themselves
from the room where the Identification Parade is to be conducted;
d. When the accused/suspect is brought before the magistrate, then, it is incumbent upon
the magistrate to allow the accused/suspect to take any place he likes in the parade.
The place the accused/suspect selects to stand at must be mentioned in the
identification report by the magistrate;
e. An accused/suspect has no right to cover his face while the Identification Parade is going
on; thus, it is necessary that adequate number of dummies are made to stand with
accused/suspect in the Identification Parade, and ideally, each accused must be put to
identification disjointedly;
f. The magistrate must mention in the identification report, whether the identifying-
witnesses identified the accused/suspect straightway, or, after some hesitation, or, after
pointing at the wrong person and then later correcting themselves;
g. Police authorities must ensure that delay in conducting Identification Parade should not
result into exposure of identity of the accused to the witnesses as this will be fatal to the
very premise of Identification Parade
h. Witnesses should be prevented from seeing the suspect before he is paraded; if there is
only one suspect who is to be identified, then, at least a dozen of other individuals must
be placed in the parade.
i. The suspect must be placed among persons of similar height, weight, age, physical
structure and complexion as far as possible;
j. If there are more witnesses than one, then, witnesses should be introduced one by one
and should be asked to identify the suspect; witnesses must be allowed to touch any of
the persons paraded before them;
k. The identification report prepared by the magistrate must contain the details as regards
the time, place and date of the parade; details of the witnesses  names of the persons
standing in the parade; and statements made by the identifying witnesses
l. it is the duty of magistrate to take note of every objection which is made by an
accused/suspect at the time of Test Identification Parade so that the court which has to
appreciate the evidentiary value of the Identification Parade can take into consideration
those objections and in the light of those objections can understand the contents of the
identification memo;
m. After the Identification Parade is complete then, the magistrate must read over the
contents of the identification memo to the witnesses  and they must sign the memo,
stating that they agree with the details of the Identification Parade contained in the
memo;

6
 n. Identification memo must be written in the language of the court;
o. There is no statutorily prescribed time limit within which Identification Parade must be
conducted. Prudence demands that Identification Parade must be conducted as soon as
possible.

Excursus

1. Where the accused is not named in the F.I.R. and was not previously known to the
witnesses, Identification Parade must be held
2. Identification of the accused through a photograph can take the place of a formal
Identification Parade
3. Failure to hold Test Identification Parade would not make inadmissible the evidence of
identification of the accused in the court of law if such court identification of accused
is found to be reliable, trustworthy and dependable
4. the sole purpose of Identification Parade is to lend corroboration to the court
identification of the accused, and, identification before court should not normally be
relied upon if the name of the accused is neither mentioned in the First Information
Report, nor, is stated before the police;
5. Holding Identification Parade is not obligatory and accused has no right to insist upon
the holding of Identification Parade. Delay in holding Identification Parade although is
not fatal, but, efforts must be made to hold it as soon as possible to avoid the mischief
of accused being shown to the witnesses
6. Court identification of the accused by the witness is useless, when the witness has
already failed to identify the accused at the Identification Parade
7. Incorrect identification of the accused by a witness in the court of law has no bearing
if the case of the prosecution stands proved by virtue of other evidences.
8. If the accused is caught red-handed from the scene of crime then no question of
Identification Parade arises;
9. If the contents of the Identification Parade are contrary to the contents of the F.I.R.
and the statement of the accused under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code,
then Test of Identification Parade will be held to be unreliable
10. If the accused refuses to appear for Identification Parade then an adverse inference of
guilt can be drawn against him.

7
SUPREME COURT GUIDE LINES

Although there is no law, which prescribes any such precautions yet the
necessary guidelines are available in the form of executive instructions and judicial
pronouncements. Some of them are summarized as under: -

(a) Memories fade and visions get blurred with passage of time. Thus, an identification test,
where an unexplained and unreasonably long period has 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
(b) a test identification, where the possibility of the witness having seen the accused
persons after their arrest cannot be ruled out, is worth nothing at all. It is, therefore,
imperative to eliminate all such possibilities. It should be ensured that, after their arrest,
the suspects are 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 are held. This is to avoid the possibility of
overzealous Investigation Officers. showing the suspects to the witnesses while they are in
police custody. Even when these accused persons are, 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
(c) identification parades should never be held at police stations
(d) the Magistrate, supervising the identification proceedings, must verify the period, if any,
for which the accused persons have remained in police custody after their arrest and before
the test identification and must incorporate this fact in his report about the proceedings
(e) 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 is also the need to ensure that the number of
such persons is not increased to an extent which could have the effect of confusing the
identifying witness. The superior Courts have, 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. This ratio must be followed unless there are some special justifiable
circumstances warranting a deviation from it
(f) if there are more accused persons than one who have to be subjected to test
identification, then the rule of prudence laid down by the superior Courts is that separate
identification parades should ordinarily be held in respect of each accused person
(g) it must be ensured that before a witness has participated in the identification
proceedings, he is stationed at a place from where he cannot observe the proceedings and

8
that after his participation he is lodged at a place from where it is not possible for him to
communicate with those who have yet to take their turn. It also has to be ensured that no
one who is witnessing the proceedings, such as the members of the jail staff etc., is able to
communicate with the identifying witnesses
(h) the 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 depends only upon his vigilance and caution
(i) the Magistrate is obliged to prepare a list of all the persons (dummies) who form part of
the line-up at the parade along with their parentage, occupation and addresses
(j) the 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
(k) where a witness correctly identifies an accused person, the Magistrate must ask the
witness about the connection in which the witness has identified that person i.e. as a friend,
as a foe or as a culprit of an offence etc. and then incorporate this statement in his report;
(L) and where a witness identifies a person wrongly, the Magistrate must so record in his
report and should also state the number of persons wrongly picked by the witness
(m) the Magistrate is required to record in his report all the precautions taken by him for a
fair conduct of the proceedings and
(n) the Magistrate has 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.

 The measures above listed should, however, not be taken as exhaustive of the steps
which are required to be taken before, during and after the identification proceedings.
All these requirements are no doubt mandatory but at the same time they are only
illustrative of the precautions which the Courts of law demand before some respect can
be shown to the evidence offered through the test identification proceedings.
 In enunciating the above principles governing the proceedings in question and in
enumerating the above measures and requirements, guidance is sought from the
following:-

(i) Rules and Orders of the Lahore High Court, Chapter 11-C of Vol. III; (ii) Punjab
Government Circular Letter No. 6091-J-36/39829 (H-Judl.) dated 19-12-1936; (iii)
Punjab Government Circular Letter No. 6546-J-43/83844 (H-Judl.), dated 17-12-
1943; (iv) Punjab Government Circular Letter No. Judl.I-(13)/61, dated 26-7-1961,
(v) Monir’s Evidence Act (Pak. Edition) Vol. I, (vi) Lal Pasand vs The State PLD
1981 SC 142, (vii) Muhammad Afzal vs The State 1982 SCMR 129, (viii) Ismail vs

9
 The State 1974 SCMR 175, (ix) Khadim Hussain v. The State 1985 SCMR 721,
(x) Muhammad Bashir Aslam vs The State PLD 1958 SC (Pak.), (xi) Gul Baig vs The
State PLD 1964 Kar. 275, (xii) Musharrif Hussain v. The State PLD 1970 Dacca 686,
(xiii) Sadu vs The State 1972 PCr.LJ 10, (xiv) Qabil Shah vs The State PLD 1960 Kar.
697, (xv) Wahid Bakhsh v. The State 1969 PCr.LJ 137, (xvi) Karim vs The State PLD
1961 Kar. 728, (xvii) Kameshwar Singh v. The State AIR 1972 SC 102 (xviii) Parbhu
vs Emp. AIR 1943 Lah. 946, (xix) Emp. vs Debi Charan AIR 1942 All. 339, (xx)
Sataya Naryan vs The State AIR 1953 All. 385, (xxi) Gajadher vs Emp. AIR 1932
Oudh. 99 and (xxii) Ramzan vs Emp. AIR 1929 Sindh 149.”

 Identification of many accused persons in one line in one go during a test identification
parade has also repeatedly been held by this Court to be improper and it has been
clarified by this Court on a number of occasions that every accused person is to be put
to a separate test identification parade and a reference in this respect may be made to
the cases of Lal Pasand vs The State (PLD 1981 SC 142), Imran Ashraf and 7 others vs The
State (2001 SCMR 424), Ziaullah alias Jajj vs The State (2008 SCMR 1210), Bacha Zeb vs
The State (2010 SCMR 1189), Shafqat Mehmood and others vs The State (2011 SCMR
537), Gulfam and another vs The State (2017 SCMR 1189), Hakeem and others vs The
State (2017 SCMR 1546) and Kamal Din alias Kamala vs The State (2018 SCMR 577).

 Identification of an accused person by eyewitnesses before the trial Court during a trial
is generally considered to be quite unsafe because before such identification before the
trial Court during the trial the eyewitnesses get may opportunities to see the accused
persons appearing before the Court in connection with their remand, distribution of
copies of statement of prosecution witnesses recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C,
framing of the charge and recording of statements of other prosecution witnesses. Even
in such identification before the trial Court during the trial it is imperative that a witness
must point towards a particular accused person present before the trial Court and must
also specify the role allegedly played by him in the incident in issue. The unsafe nature
of identification of an accused person before the trial Court during the trial has already
been commented upon by this Court in the cases of Asghar Ali alias Sabah and others v.
The State and others (1992 SCMR 2088), Muhammad Afzal alias Abdullah and another
vs The State and others (PLJ 2009 SC 333), Nazir Ahmad v. Muhammad Iqbal (2011
SCMR 527), Shafqat Mehmood and others vs The State (2011 SCMR 537), Ghulam
Shabbir Ahmed and another v. The State (2011 SCMR 683) and Azhar Mehmood and
others vs The State (2017 SCMR 135).

10
  It may also be mentioned here that a test identification parade and correct pointing out
of an accused person by an eyewitness therein is not a substantive piece of evidence
and failure to hold a test identification parade is not always fatal to the prosecution’s
case and a reference in this respect may be made to the cases of Muhammad Akram
Rahi and others vs The State and others (2011 SCMR 877) and Ghazanfar Ali alias Pappu
and another vs The State (2012 SCMR 215).

 The above mentioned precedent cases and the best practices mentioned therein have
been consolidated by us in the present order so that any confusion regarding the legal
position in respect of a test identification parade may be removed and all concerned
may stand instructed and guided in that regard in future. A serious exception may
henceforth be taken to any non-compliance or disregard of the requirements and
safeguards mentioned above.

CONCLUSION

Identification parade is held by the police in course of investigation for the purpose of
enabling the witness to identify the person and his role who is involved in the
commission of offence. The identification parade is held as a rule of prudence and not as
a rule of law in order to eliminate the possibility of any mistake.

The above illustrations so affirmed, suggest that the identification parade, to inspire
confidence, must be held at the earliest possible opportunity after the occurrence, since
memories fade and visions get blurred with the passage of time. Thus, an identification
test, where an unexplained and unreasonably long period has intervened between the
occurrence and identification proceedings, should be viewed with suspicion.

Moreover, it is imperative to ensure that, after their arrest, the suspects should be put
to identification tests as early as possible and 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 are held, the guidelines suggest.

11