AGL 38.02 Increased By ▲ 0.08 (0.21%)
AIRLINK 197.36 Increased By ▲ 3.45 (1.78%)
BOP 9.54 Increased By ▲ 0.22 (2.36%)
CNERGY 5.91 Increased By ▲ 0.07 (1.2%)
DCL 8.82 Increased By ▲ 0.14 (1.61%)
DFML 35.74 Decreased By ▼ -0.72 (-1.97%)
DGKC 96.86 Increased By ▲ 4.32 (4.67%)
FCCL 35.25 Increased By ▲ 1.28 (3.77%)
FFBL 88.94 Increased By ▲ 6.64 (8.07%)
FFL 13.17 Increased By ▲ 0.42 (3.29%)
HUBC 127.55 Increased By ▲ 6.94 (5.75%)
HUMNL 13.50 Decreased By ▼ -0.10 (-0.74%)
KEL 5.32 Increased By ▲ 0.10 (1.92%)
KOSM 7.00 Increased By ▲ 0.48 (7.36%)
MLCF 44.70 Increased By ▲ 2.59 (6.15%)
NBP 61.42 Increased By ▲ 1.61 (2.69%)
OGDC 214.67 Increased By ▲ 3.50 (1.66%)
PAEL 38.79 Increased By ▲ 1.21 (3.22%)
PIBTL 8.25 Increased By ▲ 0.18 (2.23%)
PPL 193.08 Increased By ▲ 2.76 (1.45%)
PRL 38.66 Increased By ▲ 0.49 (1.28%)
PTC 25.80 Increased By ▲ 2.35 (10.02%)
SEARL 103.60 Increased By ▲ 5.66 (5.78%)
TELE 8.30 Increased By ▲ 0.08 (0.97%)
TOMCL 35.00 Decreased By ▼ -0.03 (-0.09%)
TPLP 13.30 Decreased By ▼ -0.25 (-1.85%)
TREET 22.16 Decreased By ▼ -0.57 (-2.51%)
TRG 55.59 Increased By ▲ 2.72 (5.14%)
UNITY 32.97 Increased By ▲ 0.01 (0.03%)
WTL 1.60 Increased By ▲ 0.08 (5.26%)
BR100 11,727 Increased By 342.7 (3.01%)
BR30 36,377 Increased By 1165.1 (3.31%)
KSE100 109,513 Increased By 3238.2 (3.05%)
KSE30 34,513 Increased By 1160.1 (3.48%)

The Supreme Court has ruled that the requirements and safeguards declared in the Lahore High Court judgement are to be meticulously followed and observed in all the test identification parades held in connection with criminal cases.
"We wholeheartedly approve the said requirements and safeguards which are to be meticulously followed and observed in all the test identification parades held in connection with criminal cases," Chief Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa gave this direction in a criminal case.
A serious exception may henceforth be taken to any non-compliance or disregard of the requirements and safeguards. The office of this court is directed to send a copy of this order to the registrars of all the high courts in the country with a direction to send a copy of the same to every judge and magistrate within the jurisdiction of each high court handling criminal cases at all levels for their information and guidance.
Justice Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday (retd) as a member of Division Bench of Lahore High Court in Muhammad Yaqoob and another Vs the State (1989 PCrLJ 2227) elaborately detailed the requirements for identification parades:
An identification parade, to inspire confidence, must be held at the earliest possible opportunity after the occurrence; 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;
Identification parades should never be held at police stations;
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;
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 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;
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 some one depends only upon his vigilance and caution;
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;
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;
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;
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; the magistrate is required to record in his report all the precautions taken by him for a fair conduct of the proceedings and;
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 court observed that the identification parades are necessary only where the offender was a complete stranger to the witnesses. And the whole object of the identification proceedings is to find out whether the suspect was or was not the real offender.
Such-like identification proceedings are not the testimony of a witness but the testimony of the senses of the witness. It is essentially a test of his power of observation and perception, a test of his power to recognise strangers and a test of his memory. The judgement held that the identification of many accused persons in one line in one go during a test identification parade to be improper and clarified that every accused person is to be put to a separate test identification parade.
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.
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, maintained the judgement.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2019

Comments

Comments are closed.