BUDHSEN versus STATE OF U.P.

Citation: [1971] 1 S.C.R. 564 · Decided: 06-05-1970 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.N. RAY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

564 
BUDHSEN 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. 
May 6, 1970 
[A. N. RAY AND I. D .. DuA, JJ.] 
Evidence Act 
(1 oif 1872),s.9-Idemification parades-Manner 
of 
holding-Weight to be 
atlac/ied-Constitutlon of India 1950 
Art. 
136-Evidentiary value attached to identificnUon parades:._&ro~eous-­
lnterference by Supreme Court. 
The two appellants B and N, along with two others who were acquitted 
by the High Court, were charged with the offence of murder by shooting 
the deceased, committed on September 12, 1967. 
The evidence against 
them mainly consisted of six witnesses who had identified them at test 
parades. 
The High Court rejected the eyidence of three of them and 
relied upon the evidence of the remaining three. Two of them claimed 
to be present at ~he time of the occurrence and the third came on the 
scene after hearing pistol shots and the alarm raised b·; others. 
The 
appellants were strangers to oll the witnesses. 
One of the eye witnesses (P.W. I) gave the first information to the 
police, but there was no description of the assailants in it. The P.S.l. re-
cording the report also did• not question the informant for the purpose 
of securing more information about the description of the assailants in 
order to be able to take measures to discover and arrest them. P.W. I 
identified the appellants at two identification parades conducted by a 
Magistrate. The identification parade in respect of N was held on Octo-
ber 21, 1967 and in respect of B on October 28, 1967. In the form re-
lating to the identification parade, there is a footnote stating that it is very 
useful to note whether the witness knew the name of the person he had 
come to identify or only cfoscribed him and that the witness should not 
be asked in a 2eneral way to identify whomsoever he knew. The Ma2is-
trate ~ave evidence that .he had asked witnesses who had come to identify 
the accused (named) as to what he had seen the accused doing and re-
corded whatever the witness told him. 
Whatever the first witness had 
told him was reco"rded word for word and since the other witness had 
repeated the same thin~ he nciled down against their names the words as 
above. The identification memorandum as ·reeard.s the other accused. 
prepared by the Magistrate at the time of his identification parade, was 
similar. There was also unexplained error as to the date on which apnel-
Jant B was admitted into the jail. 
In both idcn@cation memos there 
were no remarks by the Magistrate i11 1·espect of the steps taken by the 
jail authoriti~s to ensure proper conduct of_ proceedings. 'lhc eye wit-
nesses also d"id not specify in C'Clurt the accused '"'ho h~d actually fired 
the pistol. 
The second cyl.! ,,·itncss -ad1nitlc<l in cross-exan1inatio11 1hat he had 
gone to the j3il for identification on tl1ree occasions and that on two 
occasions he had identified the accused but on the th;rd occasion 
he 
did not identifv any. 
He was unable to state as to which accused 
he 
identified in the first and which in the second parade. 
The third witness deposed tho! he had identified the.accusecl who had 
a jlrola in his hand (he was alleged hji\ hy the three witnesses to have 
A 
ll 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
BUDHSEN v. U.P, STATE' (Dua, /.) 
565 
A 
taken a pistol from the Jhola) at one identification parade and the other 
accused at the second identification parade. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
Appellant 'N' had stated during the identification parade that he had 
been shown to the witnesses and had also been pbotc-graphed. 
On the question whether the conviction could be sustained on this 
evidence :-
-
HELD : Facts which establish the identity of an accused per.on are 
relevant under s. 9 of the E~dencc Act. The substantive evidence of iden· 
tification is the statement of the witness in court. But the evidence of 
identification at the trial for the first time is from its very nature weak. 
A prior test identification, therefore serves to corroborate the evidence 
in court. 
The purpose of identfication parades which belong to the in-
vestigation stage is to enable the witnesses to identify persons concerned 
in the offence, who are not pre\iously known to them, and thereby to 
satisfy the investigating officers of their bo11a fidts by pointing out the 
persons they recognise as having taken part in the crime. These parades 
thus furnish evidence which corroborates the testimony of the identifying 
witnesses in court. These parades do not constitute substantive evidence. 
Keeping in view 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.