Pre-trial identification evidence plays a critical role in criminal prosecutions, particularly in establishing the connection between the accused and the alleged crime. This evidence, although not mandatory, serves to guide investigations and support testimony during trials.
Two types of pre-trial identification evidence are possible and they have been succinctly expressed in Marcouix v. The Queen[1] by the Supreme Court of Canada in the following words:
“An important pre-trial step in many criminal prosecutions is the identification of the accused by the alleged victim. Apart from identification with the aid of a photograph or photographs, the identification procedure adopted by the police officers will normally be one of two types:
(i) the showup—of a single suspect;
(ii) the line-up-presentation of the suspect as part of a group.”
With reference to the first type of identification evidence, the Court quotes Professor Glanville Williams from an eminently readable and instructive article in which he says:
“… if the suspect objects [to an identification parade] the police will merely have him “identified” by showing him to the witness and asking the witness whether he is the man. Since this is obviously far more dangerous to the accused than taking part in a parade, the choice of a parade is almost always accepted.”
With reference to the second type of identification evidence, Professor Glanville Williams says:
“Since identification in the dock is patently unsatisfactory, the police have developed the practice of holding identification parades before the trial as a means of fortifying a positive identification…… The main purpose of such a parade from the point of view of the police is to provide them with fairly strong evidence of identity on which to proceed with their investigations and to base an eventual prosecution.
The advantage of identification parades from the point of view of the trial is that, by giving the witness a number of persons from among whom to choose, the prosecution seems to dispose once and for all the question whether the defendant in the dock is in fact the man seen and referred to by the witness.”
A similar view was expressed by the Canadian Supreme Court in Mezzo v. The Queen.[2] An identification parade is not mandatory nor can it be claimed by the suspect as matter of right. The purpose of pre-trial identification evidence is to assure the investigating agency that the investigation is going on in the right direction and to provide corroboration of the evidence to be given by the witness or victim later in court at the trial.
If the suspect is a complete stranger to the witness or victim, then an identification parade is desirable unless the suspect has been seen by the witness or victim for some length of time.
In Malkhan Singh v. State of M.P. it was held:
“The identification parades belong to the stage of investigation, and there is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure which obliges the investigating agency to hold, or confers a right upon the accused to claim a test identification parade. They do not constitute substantive evidence and these parades are essentially governed by Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Failure to hold a test identification parade would not make inadmissible the evidence of identification in court. The weight to be attached to such identification should be a matter for the courts of fact.”
However, if the suspect is known to the witness or victim or they have been shown a photograph of the suspect or the suspect has been exposed to the public by the media no identification evidence is necessary. Even so, the failure of a victim or a witness to identify a suspect is not always fatal to the case of the prosecution.
In Visveswaran v. State it was held:
“The identification of the accused either in test identification parade or in Court is not a sine qua non in every case if from the circumstances the guilt is otherwise established. Many a time, crimes are committed under the cover of darkness when none is able to identify the accused. The commission of a crime can be proved also by circumstantial evidence.”
Reference
Prakash v. State of Karnataka (2014)
[1] The case was referred by Indian Supreme court in Prakash v. State of Karnataka (2014)
[2] The case was referred by Indian Supreme court in Prakash v. State of Karnataka (2014)