IN RE: SANGIAH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application by the first accused in R.C. No. 8 of 1947 pending enquiry before the Special Second Class Magistrate, Madura, to revise the order of the Magistrate rejecting the application made by him and other accused in the case requesting the Magistrate to hold an identification parade in respect of the identity and names of the accused. The petitioner and others were accused of the offence of murder.

(2.) THE enquiry had not commenced and no witness had been examined when the application was made by a memorandum filed on behalf of the accused by their advocate. It was stated in the memorandum that neither the first information report nor the inquest report mentioned the names of any of the accused in the case and that none of the witnesses knew them either by name or by identity and that in the interest of justice it was necessary that an identification parade should be held in respect of both the identity and names of the fifteen accused mentioned therein by the eight witnesses also mentioned therein. The Magistrate rejected the application on the ground that there was no provision for holding a parade at that stage of the case and under similar circumstances.

(3.) I am unable to find any provision in the Code which entitles an accused to demand that an identification parade should be held at or before the enquiry or the trial. An identification parade belongs to the stage of investigation by the police. The question whether a witness has or has not identified the accused during the investigation is not one which is in itself relevant at the trial. The actual evidence regarding identification is that which is given by the witnesses in Court. The fact that a particular witness has been able to identify the accused at an identification parade is only a circumstance corroborative of the identification in Court. If a witness has not identified the accused at a parade or otherwise during the investigation the fact may be relied on by the accused, but I find nothing in the provisions of the Code which confers a right on the accused to demand that the investigation should be conducted in a particular way. As the learned Judges point out in Public Prosecutor v. Sankarapandia Nadar, (1032) M.W.N. 427 " identification parades are held not for the purpose of giving defence advocates material to work on, but in order to satisfy investigating officers of the bona fides of the prosecution witnesses."