[General, Footprints, Light, Etc.]
Delays in identification. See delay in identification.
Identification parade Ratio of one accused and 9 or 10 stranger unders' trials have to be mixed, but it is not an inflexible rule when justification exists for it. When the rule is departed from it would be unsafe to rely on such identification. (SC) NLR 1981 Cr. 346 Lal Pasand.
Proportion in parade for identification of innocent persons to be mixed with suspects should be at least 9 or 10 to 1. Lesser proportion does not eliminate chance. PLD 1961 Kar. 728 Kaim etc. 1972 P Cr.LJ 310 (Lah.) Shabbir Ahmad.
Scar marks. Magistrate failing to hide scar marks on the face of the accused, at the parade. Identification by PWs. not relied on. (DB) PLD 1965 Lah. 288 Allah Dad.
Identification parade: Precautions to be taken. Precautions are necessary to conceal the identity of the accused when he is being removed from one place to another and it is the duty of the police to ensure that the accused should not be seen by the witnesses before the identification parade. The police officer who arrests the accused should get his face covered and take him to the police station in that state. In the Police Station lock-up the accused should be kept behind curtain. In jail also no outsider should be allowed to see his face. All these precautions should not only be taken but should be proved to have been taken and these precautions should be recorded in the official record like the general diary of the police station and the jail register and the same should be produced in the Court. In the absence of these precautions and evidence no value can be attached to the identification of the accused by a witness. Appeal allowed in case u/S.302, 307, 353, 365-A, 148, 149 PPC. (D.B) PLD 1996 Kar 246, Kirir.
Identification parade not held. P.Ws. not acquainted with the accused prior to the occurrence. Identification parade not held. Evidence of such witnesses as to the identity of the accused not of much value. (DB) PLD 1965 Kar. 31 Kak.
Identification parade is not a legal requirement. If the eye-witnesses can identify the accused before the trial Court that is enough for conviction. (DB) PLD 1988 Kar. 539 Muhammad Yousaf Zia = PLJ 1989 Cr.C. (Kar.) 64.
Where only nick-name of accused is mentioned but name and other particulars are not mentioned, prosecution is required to show that the accused was generally known by his nick name. In such a case identification parade was necessary. Appeal allowed. PLJ 1998 SC 1293 Khalid Shah.
Identification parade was not necessary when the prosecution witnesses has opportunity of seeing the accused several times or where the abductee remained with the accused abductors during her captivity and had clearly seen their faces. 1998 SCMR 752, Muneer Ahmed and another.
Identification parade not according to rules. Appellants shown to witnesses before holding identification parade. One appellant having a beard and the other a conspicuous mark on his right cheek but no note made about it; parade not held according to rules. Appellants given benefit of doubt. 1975 P.Cr.LJ 38 Nigah Ali Shah etc.
Identification parade of each accused should be held separately. Otherwise confusion would be created. Conviction set aside. PLD 1981 SC 142. Lal Pasand.
Application for identification parade by the accused should not be refused as made only for the purpose of delaying trial. (DB) 46 Cr. LJ 550 Sajjan Singh v. Emp. 219 IC 259.
No substantive evidence. Picking out of accused in identification parade is not a substantive piece of evidence. Such evidence, held, merely corroborative of the fact if same accused is identified at trial. (DB) 1975 P.Cr.LJ 1054 Jamshed Iqbal etc.
Accused refusing to take part in test identification parade, presumption is drawn against the accused. (DB) PLD 1966 Lah. 739 Abdus Sattar.
Identification parade is immaterial if the identification of the accused is proved by other convincing evidence. 1982 SCMR 129. Muhammad Afzal.
Identification parade is not necessary when the kidnapped witness remained with the accused during captivity and had seen their faces. 1995 SCMR 1793, Zakir Khan etc.
Identification parade becomes essential if a witness gets a momentary glimpse of the accused and he claims that he would be able to identify the accused, identification test becomes very essential which is to be conducted strictly according to the guidelines and legal requirements laid down by law. PLD 1995 S.C. 1, State v. Farman Hussain Shah.
Identification parade when necessary. Identification parade is necessary only when the accused are seen for the first time. Accused already known by face but not by name. Such accused need not be put to identification test. (SC) 1974 SCMR 175 Ismail and another.
When accused not named in FIR ÿidentification parade becomes necessary. 1997 SCMR 971, Farman Ali.
Identification parade. Merely because a witness is able to pick out an accused person from amongst a crowd does not prove that he has identified that accused person as having taken part in the crime which is being investigated. The principal evidence of identification is the evidence of a witness given in Court as to how and under what circumstances he came to pick out a particular accused person and the details of the part which that accused took in the crime in question. Also held that the Magistrate who carried out the identification parade must make his full statement in Court. Transferring his recorded statement is not according to law. (DB) ILR 5 Lah. 396 Lal Singh v. Crown.
Role of accused not described by witnesses at the identification parade. Held, inherent defect; such identification parade lost its value and not relied upon. 1988 SCMR 557. Ghulam Rasul etc.
Witness not stating role played by the accused at identification parade, held, the witness is not precluded from giving evidence in Court about the role of the accused. PLJ 1996 S.C. 471, Yaqub Khan.
When no role is attributed to the persons in the occurrence by a witness in the identification parade, held such identification parade suffers from illegality and infirmity rendering it completely unreliable, having no evidentiary value. PLJ 1995 s.C. 1, Mehmood Ahmed etc. = 1995 SCMR 127.
Role attributed to each accused should be pointed out when witness is put to identification parade. 1995 SCMR 127 relied upon. (D.B) PLJ 1996 Cr.C (Kar) 1364, Mushtaq Ali Kalhoro etc.
Identifying part played by each accused person while identifying them in identification parade by a witness is of some importance but is not an inviolable rule. 1992 SCMR 338, Murid Abbas etc.
Identification and role of the accused. The mere fact that a witness is able to pick out an accused from a crowd does not prove that he has identified that accused as having taken part in the crime under investigation. The statement made by a witness at an identification parade might be used to corroborate his statement in the Court, but otherwise the evidence of identification furnished by an identification parade can only be hearsay except as to simple fact that a witness was in a position to show that he knew a certain accused by sight. When it is not clear from entire evidence relating to identification parade whether persons named were identified by their role in the crime or as individuals as friends or foes. Held, if it was identification of their role then it should have been specific so as to complete the picture of the crime and reinforce the case against the identified accused. 1985 SCMR 721. Khadim Hussain.
At identification parade witness must disclose the context for which he identified the accused. (1924) V ILR 396, Lal Singh relied upon. 1992 SCMR 2088, Asghar Ali etc.
Objection at parade. Accused objecting before holding of identification parade that they had already been shown to the witnesses. Witnesses also failing to identify all accused persons with perfect accuracy. Identification of accused persons by holding of parade in such a circumstance becomes doubtful and cannot be relied on, (DB) PLJ 1974 Cr. C. (Lah.) 208 Sohni etc.
Feature. Witness giving no description hulia of the culprit previous to identification. Identification held unreliable. AIR 1925 Lah. 426 Maula Dad v. Emperor.
Dead body not identified satisfactorily. A conviction for murder cannot be sustained where the only circumstantial evidence against the accused was that the deceased was seized by the accused and the husband of the deceased, on a road, placed on a camel, carried towards a canal in which her body was afterwards found completely dismembered 8 days afterwards specially when the evidence of identification of the body is unsatisfactory and there is no evidence connecting the accused with the crime. (DB) 26 IC 1001 = 16 PLR 1915 No. 221. Chuhar Singh v. Crown.
Dead bodies being unidentifiable, it was not certain that the dead bodies were of the deceased in the case. Accused acquitted on benefit of doubt. 1999 SCMR 729, Muhammad Anwar.
Opportunity of seeing the accused. Complainant having had several opportunities of seeing the accused at the police station. Identification test of no value. PLD 1964 Kar. 303 Niazoo etc.
Test by police. Evidence of pointing out of accused by witness in an identification test held by police is admissible. (SC) PLD 1955 FC 113 Ibrahim Bhak v. Crown.
Accused not named in evidence at trial, but identifying in Court as one of the rioters. Witness also not naming the accused in statement under section 164 statement of witness against the accused at the trial is of no value. (FC) 46 Cr. LJ 317 Sahdeo v. Emperor. 213 I.C. 47.
Identification in Court. Witness correctly picked out accused in identification parade but did not identify him in Court. Court identification to be preferred to outside identification. (DB) PLD 1971 Kar. 721 Shafi Muhammad (DB) 43 Cr.LJ 428 (Lah.) Muhammad Ishaq v. Emperor.
Accused identified in Court, of committing magistrate and at trial. Accused not known before the occurrence. No prior identification parade held, identification in Court of no value. (DB) PLD 1976 BJ 10 Sultan etc.
Witness not taking part in identification parade but pointing out the accused in the Court is not to be relied upon. 1995 SCMR 412, Tayyab.
Real test of identification is the identification of the accused in the Court at the time of recording of evidence of the witness in the Court. 1994 P.Cr.LJ 150, Qurban.
Probability of accused and their foot-prints having been shown to the witnesses, identification parade of no value. (DB) 1972 P.Cr.LJ 433. Muhammad etc.
Accused known to witnesses by name and face and coming so close that their identity could not be mistaken. Plea that occurrence took place at night and accused could not be identified of no force. PLD 1971 Lah. 776 Khadim.
Section 302 PPC enforced by ordinances stands repealed as it has not been approved by the National Assembly as an ordinance cannot be repeated. All identical Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinances repeated from time to time with mere cosmetic changes were ultra vires of the Constitution. In absence of any valid criminal law to govern the case Islamic Common Law should have been applied, but same was not even invoked or referred. Leave to appeal granted to consider the matter. PLJ 1996 S.C. 1229, Riaz Ahmed.
If the accused and witnesses knew each other well, then there is no need of identification test. PLD 1995 S.C.-1, State v. Farman Hussain Shah etc.
Accused not known to witnesses before the incident, held, identification parade is necessary. If such parade is not held it would be fatal for prosecution. PLJ 1990 Cr. C. (Lah.) 147. Muhammad Ashiq.
Sketch description of culprits not giving features of face or other distinguishing features of culprits which could show that the witness must have actually identified culprits on account of those features cannot be treated as truthful and natural statement so far as identification of the culprits is concerned. (D.B) PLJ 1996 Cr.C. (Kar) 1364 Mushtaq Ali Kalhoro etc.
Identification test is of no value when description of accused is not given in FIR 1993 SCMR 585 (SAC) State v. Sobharo.
No identification parade of accused previously not known to the complainant. Held, no judicial guarantee that the appellant had committed dacoity. Accused acquitted. (DB) PLJ 1991 Cr.C. (Lah.) 414, Binyamin etc.
When culprits are not known by name or face, identification parade through a magistrate is a must. PLD 1992 FSC 390, Nadir Khan.
Corroboration of identification. Dacoity with murder. Conviction of accused cannot be upheld on test identification alone and without corroborative evidence. (DB) 1969 P.Cr.LJ 655 Hafeezullah.
Identification by voice not relied upon. PLJ 1995 FSC 109, Ahmed Sher.
Voice identification. Identification of accused by voice is always doubtful. (DB) 1972 P.Cr.LJ 537 Sher Muhammad.1970 P.Cr.LJ 633 State v. Fazal Ahmad; 1972 P.Cr.LJ 478 Hamzo etc. 1973 P.Cr.LJ 428 Abdul Rashid.
Identification by voice cannot be relied upon. PLJ 1984 Cr.C. (Kar.) 327. Misri.
Accused complete strangers to prosecution witness, conspicuous absence of description of accused in FIR as also in Police statement of witnesses. Accused given benefit of doubt and acquitted. (DB) 1974 P.Cr.LJ 74 Gulab.
Fleeting look. In murder case, witnesses had only a fleeting look at the assailant. The identification of such accused is unsafe to rely open. (SC) PLD 1967 SC 307 Alim.
Accused had muffled their faces, yet at the time of occurrence there was sufficient light, the description of the accused had been given in the FIR. The stolen articles mentioned in the FIR recovered from the accused. Held conviction rightly based. 1995 SCMR 830, Abdul Jabbar etc.
Identification by "VOICE" without any other corroboration not relied on 1977. P.Cr.LJ 136 Ali.
Accused with muffled faces at about sun-set committing offence. Identification of accused by child and stature not possible. (DB) 1973 P.Cr.LJ 887 Abdul Qadir.
Under shade of trees in moonlit night, a murder was committed, held, identification doubtful. (DB) 1973 P. Cr.LJ 904 Muhammad Rahim.
Identification of the accused at night in moonlight or in electric bulb light; chances of error in identification become greatly increased when the identification is based on glimpse in the confusion and pandimonium of the moment, testimony of sense cannot be implicitly relied upon even when the veracity of the witness cannot be challenged. 1995 SCMR 276 Bashir etc. v. The State.
Identification in moonlit night even by best known persons is not possible beyond 17 yards. (DB) NLR 1988 Cr. 501. Anara.
Moon light. Defining features of a person by moon light even at shorter distance is practically impossible. 1968 P.Cr.LJ 1077 Mali etc.
Moon light identification established when the accused were already known to the witnesses and it was bright moon light, 1977 SCMR 347 Allah Rakhio.
On 5th of moon visual identification is not possible, therefore it is "suspect" evidence. (DB) PLJ 1998 Cr.C. (Pesh.) 1502 Ilyas.
18 of lunar month moon had arisen only with the line of the shoulder. Witness suddenly awakened from sleep likely to give only momentary glimpse of assailant from a distance of 52 to 70 feet. Unsafe to rely on such identification. (DB) PLD 1978 Kar. 792 Aman Ullah.
From 70 feet in moon light the identification of a person is not possible. 1975 P.Cr.LJ 1336 Muzaffar PLJ 1975 Cr.C. (Lah.) 244.
Identification from a distance of 220 yards at midnight after moon had set and outside in the fields of a village is not possible PLJ 1996 Cr.C. (Lah.) Muhammad Khan.
Identification from 52/70 feet in moon light. (18th of moon) not relied. (DB) PLJ 1978 Cr.C. (Kar.) 470 Amanullah etc.
At night in hand to hand fight, a person previously known, in electric light at some distance from the spot and stars in the sky can be identified. PLD 1976 Pesh. 148 Abdul Karim.
Torch light identification not relied upon as possibility of mistaken identity cannot be ruled out. NLR 1990 Cr. 482 Shabir Hussain Shah.
" Identification of accused in torch light is not a sufficient piece of evidence. (DB) 1970 P.Cr.LJ 633 State v. Fazal Ahmad.
" Identification of accused in torch light. Occurrence taking place at 2 a.m. when accused and his brother was asleep. Identification of accused by eye-witness in torch light, held, difficult to believe. (DB) PLJ 1973 Lah. 467 Muhammad.
" Identification of accused is not considered sufficient piece of evidence. (DB) 1994 P.Cr.LJ 1057, Ayub.
Torch light. Murder occurrence on dark night. Identification by torch light by P.W. seriously injured at the time. Injury proving fatal. Possibility of mistaken identification cannot be satisfactory excluded. (DB) 1968 P. Cr.LJ 590 Muhammad Bux etc.
Night time identification. The person or persons who select dark hours of the night, to commit crime would take all possible precautions to conceal their identity and in such cases suspicion also falls on a person who had a reason to do so. PLJ 1990 Cr.C. (Kar.) 340 Gullan.
Dark night identification in lantern or torch light without describing exact distance from where the witnesses had seen the accused and identified in torch light, it is difficult to rely on such statements as misjudging of identification cannot be ruled out. (DB) PLJ 1988 Cr.C. (Kar.) 545 Ali Nawaz.
Identification of accused in dark night in the light of an electric bulb or lantern relevant considerations are: the availability of sufficient light, opportunity available to witnesses to have a close look or talk with the accused; the intimacy of the accused with the witness; whether the view of the accused by the witness was unobstructed at the time of the commission of the offence. 1997 SCMR 174, Sajjad Hussain.
Night time identification by vision is one of the categories of "suspect Evidence" and ordinarily it is not safe to convict the accused on such evidence. PLD 1995 S.C. 475, Muhammad Arshad. PLJ 1995 SC 532.
Lantern light identification being the weakest light, it would depend on the location of the lantern at the relevant time tor each proper conclusion. PLJ 1990 Cr.C. (Kar.) 340 Gullan.
Lantern and torches. Identification in darkness with only a lantern and a few torches. Memorising of faces of 15 to 25 dacoits doubtful. PLD 1956 FC 402 Dil Muhammad v. Crown.
Non-production of torches would not affect evidentiary value of the complainant when the accused were identified in torch light and were known to the witness before. PLD 1992 S.C. 211, Mst. Shamim Akhtar v. Faiz Akhtar etc.
Flickering lantern light identification not relied on.(DB) 1978 P.Cr.LJ 558 Haji.
Question of mistaken identity would not arise when it is broad day light occurrence. (SC) NLR 1999 Cr. 428, Muhammad Hussain
SHO preparing moulds of foot-prints and comparing them with the shoes of the accused. Held, SHO not an expert on the subject. Such evidence not relied upon. (DB) PLJ 1990 Cr.C. (Lah.) 52. Imdad Ali.
Foot-prints. Identification by foot-prints, the test of no value. (DB) PLD 1964 Kar. 97 Lakhmir.
Identification by foot-prints test is a weak type of evidence being rudimentary science. PLD 1988 Kar. 637 Guloo.
Foot-prints identification not enough. Evidence of foot-prints having been traced and identified by itself is not sufficient to prove case against the accused. (SC) 1969 SCMR 629 Ghulam Nabi Shah v. Crown. 1969 P.Cr.LJ 1217.
Shod foot-prints. Shod foot-prints identification is of no evidentiary value. Evidence of naked foot-prints at the scene of offence tallying with those of the accused is not by itself sufficient to hold that the accused participated in the crime. (DB) 1971 P.Cr.LJ 775 Ghulam Mustafa.
Marked foot-prints. Identification of marked foot-prints is very weak evidence and carries no weight by itself. (DB) PLD 1971 Kar. 721 Shafi Muhammad.
Foot-prints shown to tracker. Tracker's evidence of identification. Existence of probability that the accused appellants or their foot-prints were shown to the trackers. Held, that in the circumstances track identification as well as other identification parade have no evidentiary value. (DB) PLD 1973 Lah. 467 Muhammad PLJ 1974 Cr.C. (Lah.) 168.
Foot-prints seen 20 days before. Identifier stating to have seen accused's foot-prints at place of occurrence 20 days earlier but to have made no moulds thereof. Held, such evidence must be totally disregarded. (SC) 1971 SCMR 200. Shafoo v. Crown.
Shod foot-prints. Identification by foot-prints. Identification by foot-prints, test is of no consequence. The shod foot-prints test is obviously of no consequence and has never been accepted by the Courts of law as a piece of corroboration leading to support a retracted confession. (DB) (PLD 1964 Kar. 197. Lakhmir etc.
Weakest kind of evidence. Track evidence is the weakest kind of evidence. It cannot be safely relied upon for corroborating doubtful testimony of eye-witnesses. (DB) PLJ 1974 Cr.C. (Lah.) 84. Akbar Shah.
Evidence of least satisfactory character. Evidence of foot-prints expert of all evidence admitted by Courts may be regarded as evidence of least satisfactory character. It is unsafe to rely on the sole evidence of tracker based on comparison of shod foot-prints found near scene of occurrence with bare-foot prints of alleged accused. (SC) 1968 SCMR 161. Mehr Ali and others.
Not of much value. Tracker's evidence is not of much value but can be taken into consideration alongwith other circumstances. (DB) PLD 1965 Kar. 541. Madad Ali.
Useful evidence. Track evidence is useful if coming from an expert who has taken prosecution to preserve foot-prints by preparing moulds etc. (DB) PLD 1960 Lah. 24. Rahzan etc.
Of considerable value. Evidence of experienced tracker based on reasons and comparisons has considerable value. (DB) PLD 1961 Pesh. 84. Resham Gull etc.
Foot-prints and torch light etc. Identification of accused in torch light at night time appearing improbable. Possibility of accused and their foot-prints having been shown to prosecution witnesses. Track identification and other identification parades being faked, probable. Case against accused not proved. (DB) 1974 P.Cr.LJ 433. Muhammad.
Articles identification. Crime watch not mixed during identification test with similar watches of same make. No evidence led to its purchase by owner, nor any specific mark identification to establish ownership. Held, such identification of no weight. (DB) PLD 1971 Kar. 721. Shafi Muhammad.
Identification of stolen property in the presence of police, during investigation and statement prepared, held hit by section 162, Cr.P.C. (DB) 45 Cr.LJ 258 Kabir-ud-Din v. Emperor 210 IC 409 AIR 1943 Cal. 644 (a).
Identification of recovered articles. No proper identification parade of the shoes or cup was held before a magistrate. As a matter of fact no identification at all was held. Recoveries not relied upon. (SC) 1977 SCMR 251. Allah Ditta.
Mistaken identity. The complainants running away to save themselves after dusk and fired at from behind from a considerable distance. Possibility of mistaken identity could not be ruled out. Accused given benefit of doubt and acquitted. (SC) 1977 SCMR 139. Bagh Ali.
Magistrate who carried out the identification parade must make his full statement in Court. (DB) ILR (1924) V Lah. 396. Lal Singh.
Magistrate conducting identification parade not examined and no reason given for his omission. Memo of identification parade not put to the accused u/S. 342 Cr.P.C. Identification parade delayed by 20 days without any explanation. Possibility cannot be ruled out that the accused were shown to the witnesses before the parade. Held, identification not free from doubt. PLJ 1994 Cr.C. (Kar.) 18, Saeed Ullah.
Identification parade is not a legal requirement. If eye-witnesses can identify the accused before trial Court. No enmity is alleged against abductee and he has no motive to falsely implicate the appellant. Held, evidence of abductee in Court is enough on point of abduction. (DB) PLJ 1994 Cr.C. (Kar.) 268, Ali Dost.
Identification test after 10 days and dummies not in proportion to the number of accused persons involved, evidence of such identification parade is not to be relied upon. PLD 1995 S.C. 1, State v. Farman Hussain Shah etc.
Identification parade held 6 weeks after arrest of the accused. At the parade role of the accused was not stated. Held, such identification cannot be relied upon. PLJ 1995 FSC 68, Manzoor.
Identification parade not to be held later than 15 days. In the absence of unavoidable circumstances identification parade must be held as early as possible after the arrest of the accused. 1985 SCMR 1834 relied upon. (D.B) PLJ 1996 Cr.C. (Q) 1527, Khawand Bux etc.
Long delay in holding identification parade would render the evidence of identification without any weight. (DB) NLR 1999 Cr. 217 Abdullah Shah.
Before identification parade witness must disclose the contest in which he identified the accused. If identity of the accused is proved by other convincing evidence non-identification or absence of identification test would be immaterial. (DB) PLD 1999 Q. 61 Abdul Aziz.