Test of no value. Delay between the incident and the holding of identification parade makes the test of no value. PLD 1963 Kar. 1010 Raza Mohammad 1978 P.Cr.LJ 176 Mehar.
Identification parade delayed. Both he appellants remained with police after wards. Possibility that they were shown to the PWs cannot be ruled out. At the time of the identification parade both the appellants raised this objection. Identification parade not relied the upon. (DB) PLJ 1998 Cr.C. (Lah.) 887 Muhammad Akram, etc.
Delay in holding identification parade not explained, such identification parade ruled out of consideration. (DB) PLD 1977 Kar. 695 Mohammad Amir etc.
Delay in identification parade and features. Unexplained delay of one week in holding identification parade. Witness identified accused after FOUR MONTHS of occurrence. Distinguishing features of assailant not stated. Witness stated to have seen the culprit for a minute and a half. Such identification disbelieved. Accused acquitted in murder case. PLJ 1981 SC 407 Lal Pasand. PLD 1981 SC 142.
Identification parade not held when ordered. Held inference justified that had the parade been held as ordered the witnesses would not have been able to identify the accused. (DB) 1979 P.Cr.LJ 493 Ghulam Rasul.
Identification parade held many days after arrest of accused not relied upon. (DB) NLR 1983 Cr.402. Miskeen.
Delay in holding identification parade; absence of description of the accused in FIR; non-examination of Magistrate who held the identification parade; non-examination of the I.O. who arrested the accused made the prosecution case doubtful. Accused acquitted. PLD 1994 Kar. 122, Said Ullah.
13 days' delay in holding identification parade robs it of value for reliance, when the accused were in police custody. Description of accused not given in F.I.R. Identification test not relied on. (DB) PLJ 1981 Cr.C. (Kar.) 191 Lashkari etc.
Fortnight after the arrest. Identification parade held about a fortnight after the arrest of the accused. Possibility of showing the accused to the witnesses could not be excluded. Identification parade held unreliable. (DB) 1973 P.Cr. LJ 263 Mohammad Aslam etc.
Delay of 20 days. Identification test held 20 days after the occurrence, based on momentary glimpse of the accused in torch light at the incident, held reliance cannot be placed on such test. (DB) PLD 1965 Kar. 275 Gulbeg etc.
Identification of culprits one month and 17 days after the incident, by persons having momentary glimpse then, disbelieved. (DB) PLD 1960 Kar. 697 Qabil Shah.
Delay of 4 months in holding identification parade not explained. Identification ruled out of consideration. (DB) PLJ 1987 Cr.C. (Pesh.) 481. State v. Mumtaz etc.
Identification after 8 months based on momentary partial glimpse of faces of assailants. Dacoity committed at night, persons terrorised at that moment cannot be expected to memorise faces of large number of dacoits. Evidence of identification rejected. PLD 1966 Lah. 663 Mohammad Anwar etc.
Identification in Court months after the event, of a person produced in Court cannot satisfy the requirement of law for proving identity of a culprit. 1992 SCMR 2088, Asghar Ali etc.
Identification parade after a year of incident cannot be rejected for delay alone. It depends on circumstances. A fleeting look may be deeply impressed on the mind and may be recalled after years. Identification parade evidence relied upon. 1985 SCMR 1834. State v. Ghulam Hussain.
Delay of 13 months. Identification parade held 13 months after the incident not relied upon. PLD 1967 Kar. 232 Qasim.
2 years' delay in identification parade. The possibility is that after a lapse of more than two years the witnesses would not be able to identify a complete stranger, it may not be possible to recall his face or personality. (SC) PLD 1976 SC Machia etc.