HEERA AND ANR. versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Citation: [2007] 7 S.C.R. 1065 · Decided: 20-06-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

HEERA AND ANR. 
A 
ST A TE OF RAJAS THAN 
JUNE 20, 2007 
[DR. ARIJIT PASA YAT AND D.K. JAIN, JJ.] 
B 
Evidence Act,1872: 
Identification/Test identification Parade-Evidentiary value of-The 
main object of holding a Test identification Parade, during the investigation C 
stage, is to test the memory of the witnesses based upon first impression and 
also to enable the prosecution to decide whether all or any of them could 
be cited as eyewitnesses of the crime-The necessity for holding an 
identification parade can arise only when the accused is not previously 
known to the witnesses -However, it does not constitute substantive evidence- D 
it is. des/rable that a test identification parade should be conducted as soon 
as after the arrest of the accused-But failure to hold a test identification 
parade would not make inadmissible the evidence of identification in Court--
In appropriate cases Court may accept the evidence of identification· even 
without insisting on corroboration-Code of Criminal Procedure,1973, 
S. 162-Section 9-Relevant facts. 
E 
According to the prosecution, the appellants-accused persons along with 
others assaulted the complainant with lath is and took away the cash lying in 
the cash box from a petrol pump. The complainant received injuries on his 
face and hands. A case under Section 395 of the Penal Code, 1860 was 
_>. 
registered against the appellants. 
F 
The trial court found the evidence of witnesses to be credible and cogent. 
In the Test identification Parade ITI Parade!, the appellants were identified 
by PWs 1 and 11. Recovery was also made pursuant to the information given 
by the appellants in terms of Section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872. The trial G 
court convicted the appeUants and the said conviction was maintained by the 
High Court. Hence the appeal. 
On behalf of the appellants, it was contended that the evidence of PW· 
22 did not show that all the requisite formalities were adopted before the TI 
Parad~ 
1065 
H 
1066 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007) 7 S.C.R. 
A 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I. The necessity for:.._holding an identification parade can arise 
only when the accused are not previously known to the witnesses. The whole 
idea of a test identification parade is that the witnesses who claim to have 
seen the culprits at the time of occurrence are to identify them from the midst 
B of other persons without any aid or any other source. The test is done to check 
upon their veracity. In other words, the main object of holding an identification 
parade, during the investigation stage, is to test the memory of the witnesses 
based upon first impression and also to enable the prosecution to decide 
whether all or any of them could be cited as eyewitnesses of the crime. The 
C identification proceedings are in the nature of tests and significantly, therefore 
there is no provision for it in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the 
Evidence Act,1872. It is desirable that a test identification parade should be 
conducted as soon as after the arrest of the accused. This becomes necessary 
to eliminate the possibility of the accused being shown to the witnesses prior 
to the test identification parade. This is a very common plea of the accused 
D and, therefore, the prosecution has to be cautions to ensure that there is no 
scope for making such an allegation. If, however, circumstances are beyond 
control and there is some delay, it cannot be said to be fetal for the prosecution. 
-i-" · 
jPara 6111069-E-H; 1070-A) 
Matru v. State of U.P., 11971) 2 SCC 75 and Santosh Singh v. lzhar 
E Hussain, 119731 2 sec 406, relied on. 
F 
2. The facts, which establish the identity of the accused persons, are 
relevant under Section 9 of the Evidence Act As a general rule, the substantive 
evidence of a witness is the statement made in Court. The evidence of mere 
identification of the accused person at the trial for the first time is from its 
very nature inherently of a weak character. The purpose of prior test 
identification, therefore is to test strengthen the trustworthiness of that 
evidence. It is accordingly considered a safe rule of prudence to generally 
look for corroboration of the sworn testimony of witnesses in Court as to the 
identity of the accused who are strangers to them, in the form of earlier 
G identification proceedings. This rule of prudence, however is subject to 
exceptions; when, for example, the Court is impressed by a particular witness 
on w

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