Paragraph numbers below are the court’s original numbering, recovered from the source text.
11. In Harbhajan Singh v. State of Jammu and Kashmir (1975) 4 sec 480), though a test identification parade was not E held, this Court upheld the conviction on the basis of the identification in Court corroborated by other circumstantial evidence. In that case it was found that the appellant and one Gurmukh Singh were absent at the time of roll call and when they were arrested on the night of 16th December, 1971 their rifles smelt of fresh gunpowder and that the empty cartridge case which was found at the scene of offence bore distinctive markings showing that the bullet which killed the deceased was fired from the rifle of the appellant. Noticing these circumstances this Court held:- "ln view of this corroborative evidence we find no substance in the argument urged on behalf of the appellant that the Investigating Officer ought to have held an identification parade and that the failure of Munshi Ram to mention the names of the two accused to the neighbours who came to the scene immediately after the occurrence shows that MD. KALAM @ABDUL KALAM v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.] his story cannot be true. As observed by this Court in Jadunath Singh v. State of UP (AIR 1971 SC 3~) absence of test identification is not necessarily fatal. The fact that Munshi Ram did not disclose the names of the two accused to the villages only shows that the accused were not previously known to him and the story that the accused referred to each other by their respective names during the course of the incident contains an element of exaggeration. The case does not rest on the evidence of Munshi Ram alone and the corroborative circumstances to which we have referred to above lend enough assurance c to the implication of the appellant."
12. It is no doubt true that much evidentiary value cannot be attached to the identification of the accused in Court where identifying witness is a total stranger who had just a fleeting glimpse of the person identified or who had no particular reason to rememberthe person concerned, ifthe identification is made for the first time in Court.
13. In Ram Nath Mahto v. State of Bihar (1996) 8 SCC 630) this Court upheld the conviction of the appellant even when the witness while deposing in Court did not identify the accused out of fear, though he had identified him in the test identification parade. This Court noticed the observations of the trial Judge who had recorded his remarks about the demeanor that the witness perhaps was afraid of the accused as he was trembling at the stare of Ram Nath -accused. This Court also relied upon the evidence of the Magistrate, PW-7 who had conducted the test identification parade in which the witness had identified the appellant. This Court found, that in the circumstances if the Courts below had convicted the appellant, there was no reason to interfere. t
14. In Suresh Chandra Bahri v. State of Bihar (1995 Supp (1) sec 80), this Court held that it is well settled that substantive evidence of the witness is his evidence in the Court but when the accused person is not previously known to the witness SUPREME COUHT REPORTS [2008) 5 S.C.R. A concerned then identification of the accused by the witness soon after his arrest is of great importance because it furnishes an assurance that the investig1ation is proceeding on right lines in addition to furnishing corroboration of the evidence to be given by the witness later in Count at the trial. From this point of view it B is a matter of great importance, both for the investigating agency and for the accused and a fortiori for the proper administration of justice that such identific:ation is held without avoidable and unreasonable delay after the arrest of the accused. It is in adopting this course alonE~ that justice and fair play can be c assured both to the accused as well as to the prosecution. Thereafter this Court observed:- "But the position may be different when the accused or a culprit who stands trial had been seen not once but for quite a number of times at different point of time and places which fact may do away with the necessity of a Tl parade."
15. In State of Uttar Pradesh v. Boota Singh and others (1979 (1) SCC 31), this Court observed that the evidence of identification becomes stronger if the witness has an opportunity E of seeing the accused not for a few minutes but for some length of time, in broad daylight, when he would be able to note the features of the accused more carefully than on seeing the accused in a dark night for a few minutes.
16. In Ramanbhai Naranbhai Patel and others v. State of ,…. F Gujarat (2000 (1) SCC 358) after considering the earlier decisions this Court observed:- "It becomes at once clear that the aforesaid observations were made in the light of the peculiar facts and circumstances wherein the police is said to have given the names of the accused to the witnesses. Under these circumstances, identification of such a named accused only in the Court when the accused was not known earlier to the witness had to be treated as valueless. The said decision, in turn, relied upon an earlier decision of this i – Court in the case of State (Delhi Admn.) v. V C. Shukla MD. KALAM @ ABDUL KALAM v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.] (AIR 1980 SC 1382) wherein also Fazal Ali, J. speaking for a three-Judge Bench made similar observations in this regard. In that case the evidence of the witness in the Court and his identifying the accused only in the Court without previous identification parade was found to be a valueless exercise. The observations made therein were confined to the nature of the evidence deposed to by the said eye-witnesses. It, therefore, cannot be held, as tried to be submitted by learned Counsel for the appellants, that in the absence of a test identification parade, the evidence of an eye-witness identifying the accused would c become inadmissible or totally useless; whether the evidence deserves any credence or not would always depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. It is, of course, true as submitted by learned Counsel for the appellants that the later decisions of this Court in the case D of Rajesh Govind Jagesha v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 2000 SC 160) and State of H.P v. Lekh Raj (AIR 1999 SC 3916), had not considered the aforesaid three-Judge Bench decisions of this Court. However, in our view, the ratio of the aforesaid later decisions of this Court cannot be said to be running counter to what is decided by the E earlier three-Judge Bench judgments on the facts and circumstances examined by the Court while rendering these decisions. But even assuming as submitted by learned Counsel for the appellants that the evidence of, these two injured witnesses i.e. Bhogilal Ranchhodbhai and Karsanbhai Vallabhbhai identifying the accused in the Court may be treated to be of no assistance to the prosecution, the fact remains that these eye-witnesses were seriously injured and they could have easily seen the faces of the persons assaulting them and their appearance G and identity would well within imprinted in their minds especially when they were assaulted in broad daylight. They could not be said to be interested in roping in innocent persons by shielding the real accused who had assaulted them."
17. These aspects were also highlighted in Malkhansingh and Others v. State of M.P (2003 (5) SCC 746) and Munshi Singh Gautam (dead) and Ors. v. State of M.P (2005 (9) SCC 631).
18. In view of thE3 evidence which the trial Court and the B High Court have analysed and the identification by PW-3 in the Tl Parade, there is no infirmity in the conclusions of guilt of the accused. The appellant's conviction is accordingly maintained. The sentence also doies not warrant interference. c
19. The appeal is without merit and is dismissed. N.J. Appeal dismissed. )L