Kochi, March 1 The Kerala High Court on Tuesday held that the identification of the accused in court cannot be disregarded only because a test identification parade was not conducted.
The court stated that if the witness gives trustworthy and reliable evidence, the court can accept the testimony of the witness regarding the identity of the accused even in the absence of a test identification parade.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas said that recognising the accused in the court constitutes substantive evidence and that the conduct of a test identification parade is only a rule of prudence to corroborate the identification of the accused by the victim especially when the parties are strangers.
"If the testimony of the eyewitness relating to the identity of the accused inspires confidence in the mind of the court, the absence of a test identification parade by itself will not denigrate the identification of the accused in court. The object of a test identification parade is to test and ascertain the trustworthiness of the evidence regarding the identification of the accused," the court said.
The court made the observation when it was considering an appeal challenging the conviction of a man for the offences of causing hurt in committing a robbery and house trespass in order to commit an offense punishable with life.
The appellant had been accused of breaking into a house with the intention to commit theft in 2015.
During the process, he was stated to have injured three residents in the house by using a deadly weapon.
The three inmates of the house appeared as eyewitnesses in this case, where a sessions court sentenced the appellant-accused to 10 years' imprisonment.
The appellant was also ordered to pay a fine and this order was challenged by the appellant before the High Court.
The counsel for the appellant highlighted no test identification parade was conducted in this case and argued that such a procedure is necessary since the witnesses had no previous acquaintance with the accused and had identified the accused in the court only after a lapse of four years.
However, the Public Prosecutor countered that the evidence submitted by the three eyewitnesses was categorical and that their identification of the accused left no room for any doubt.
The High Court agreed with the prosecution's stance and pointed out that, "if the ocular evidence and the identification of the accused by the witnesses in court are impressive, nothing restricts the court from relying upon the said identification, as recognising the accused in court is the substantive evidence, while test identification parade is not an evidence of that character," said the court.
In this case, the court found that the eyewitness was reliable and could be relied upon even in the absence of a test identification parade.
"This court is of the view that the absence of a test identification parade does not erode the reliability of the identification of the accused by the witnesses in this case," it said and affirmed the conviction of the appellant as well as the imprisonment sentence imposed on him by the trial court.
Disclaimer: This post has been auto-published from an agency feed without any modifications to the text and has not been reviewed by an editor