SATYA DEO PRASAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD.

(2.) NO one appears on behalf of the appellant, namely, Rabindra Choudhary in Cr. Appeal (SJ) NO. 235 of 1996. Sri Ran Bir Singh, Advocate, is appointed as amicus curiae to assist this Court in this appeal and hence the Legal Services Committee of the High Court may proceed for the remuneration in this regard.

(3.) HOWEVER, in the Test Identification Parade of the three suspects each suspect was mixed with the nine prisoners but the suspect of the case was not identified by the witness and instead of the suspect one of the prisoners, namely, Mr. Arunjay Kumar who was mixed with the suspect was identified by the informant, Md. Mojam Khan and after his identification in Test Identification Parade was made an accused in the case and hence contended that Test Identification Parade has got no value as the appellant Arunjay Kumar was not the suspect in the case and the Test Identification Parade was not conducted for the identification of the suspect Arunjay Kumar and hence the Test Identification Parade loses its significance. It was further contended that even the identification of the accused in Test Identification Parade is not a substantial evidence and is not required to be relied upon when there is no substantive evidence as the evidence of Test Identification Parade is only corroborative and cannot be treated as substantial evidence to the fact that the conviction of the Test Identification Parade chart having been proved by the Judicial Magistrate.