Indian Evidence Act, 1872 | S. 9

* Identification parade – most elementary precaution to be taken – like similarity in appearance, height, age etc.
2003(3) GLH 584

* TI Parade – holding – necessity – murder case – eye witness not knowing ssilants – not holding TI parade to identify assailants – a serious lapse – fatal to prosecution –
2003 Cr.L.J. 3068 SC : AIR 2003 SC 2577 : 2003 AIR SCW 2777 (Lakhwinder Singh v. State of Punjab)

* IPC S. 396 – evidence of identification – credibility – case of dacoity with murder – accused not made baparda after his arrest and was not put-up for identification in identification parade – further presence of gunshot injuries on person of accused showing hs alleged involvement in crime – not proved – in circumstances evidence of indetification of eye witnesses that they had seen accused indacotiy and his identification after about 18 months of occurrence without identifiying him earlier in test indefiication parde – is of no value and odes not establish identity of accused.
2003 Cr.L.J. 3441 All. (Shyam Singh v. State of UP)

* IT Parade – evidentiary value - accused seen by witnesses during transist – evidence of such witness cannot be relied upon.
2003 Cr.L.J. All 2060 (Bachau v. State of UP)
2003 Cr.L.J. Bom 4280 (Dilip Mahendra Thapa v. State of Maharshtra)

* TI Parade – absence of – accused, strangers – identification of them for first time in court has no evidentiary value.
2003 Cr.L.J. Bom 3586 (Fateh Mohamad Gulmohmad v. State of Maharashtra)
1979 Cr.L.J. 919 SC applied

* TI parade – conduct of – procedure – number of dummies per accused should be in ration of 1:4 or 1:6 – six accused put for identification with only four dummies – further dummies placed were not of similar height or features as that of accused – TI parade discarded on account of legal infirmities.
Cr.L.J. 2003 Bom 493 (Thambi Nasir v. State of Maharashtra) [apply carefully]

* Idenfitication evidence – reliability – robbery and dacoity case – IT parade held in a room within premises of Crime Branch of Police – no evidence to show that precaution was taken to see that witnesses had no opportunity to see suspects before IT parade – further, four suspects were put together for identification which was against the spirit of rules made for identification – accuses were stragneer – witness were examined after years – mot sufficitent for conviction.
2003 Cr.L. Bom 303