PUTTU Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS reference has been occasioned because of different standards being applied to the testing of the veracity of identifying witnesses by different Judges of the Court. When the appeals came up for hearing before a learned single Judge, it was argued that the identification evidence of a witness who at the test identification parade commits even 33% mistake should be discarded as unreliable. Learned single Judge finding that different Judges had taken different views referred the following question of law for the opinion of the Division Bench :

(2.) IN criminal cases where a miscreant is not identified by name, he may identified by the witnesses on the basis of his appearance or voice. IN such a case he has to be identified by the witness in the court at the time he gives testimony. The authenticity of the evidence of the witness by which he points out a particular accused as the participant in the crime is normally tested by the court from his performance at the test identification parade held during the course of investigation. The courts have always found it prudent to test the witness's testimony in court by his conduct at the test parade. At the investigation stage when a parade is held and the suspect is mixed up with persons who admittedly could not have been present at the time of occurrence the witness gets opportunity of picking out the person whom he alleges to be the offender. He may at such a parade pick out that man and no other, he may pick out that man and also some others, or he may pick out not the suspect but some one who was admittedly not at the scene of occurrence. The courts have taken these parades into consideration in judging the authenticity of the identification evidence of the witness at the trial.

(3.) IN a case where the witness identifies an accused, he gives the evidence of identification along with other evidence. We are here concerned only with that part of his testimony which relates to the identification of the accused. The relevance of the prior identification parade was accepted by the Supreme Court in Budhsen v. State of U. P., AIR 1970 SC 1321, wherein it was observed :