The value of sworn testimony in Court should not be lightly discarded based on the absence of a test identification parade or its improper conduct. The Court has the discretion to evaluate the evidence of identification based on its intrinsic value and corroborative factors.

SARJOO PROSAD, C. J.

( 1 ) A Division Bench of this Court has referred the following points for decision by the Full Bench :

"whether the authorities of this Court in (i) Dhokalsingh v. State, ILR (1953) 3 Raj 762 and (ii) Ranjita v. State, in Appeal No. 152 of 1957, d/- 14-2-1958 (Raj), lay down the correct law on the following matters : (1) Whether it is necessary that entries should be made in the various police records of the pre cautions that were to be taken for keeping the accused person ba-parda while under police custody; (2) Whether it should be specified in the warrant of commitment of the accused, when he is sent to the judicial custody that he is to be kept ba-parda till the identification parade takes place, and what precautions should the jail authorities take for keeping the accused ba-parda. (3) Whether necessarily-entries should be made in the jail records for keeping the accused ba-parda while he is in the judicial lock up. " In making the reference, the Bench was of the opinion that the above questions were of vital importance and arose for consideration in a large number of cases; and since from time to time the observations made in those cases had led to misunderstanding on the part of the subordinate courts as if they contained a rigid and inflexible rule of law and not a rule for the appreciation of evidence, the Bench thought that the points raised required examination by a larger Bench. It is significant that one of the Honble Judges, who is a party to this reference, was himself a party to the decision in the later case of Ranjita v. State, in Appeal No. 152 of 1957.

( 2 ) FOR the purpose of deciding the points under reference, it is but necessary to quote the relevant observation made in Dhokalsinghs case ILR (1953) 3 Raj 762, (supra), which has been quoted also in the order of reference itself which has presented a source of doubt and difficulty. The passage runs as follows :-

"it is incumbent oh the prosecution in every case, where an accused person is not known from before, to put him up for identification. If therefore, it is desirable that an identification should take place it is the duty of the police in every such case, when an accused person is arrested, to warn him to keep his face hidden as he is to be put up for identification. It is also the duty of the police to take steps themselves to see that such an accused is conveyed Ba-parda (under proper cover)from the place of his arrest to the thana or wherever else he is taken and from there to the lockup or the jail. It is also necessary for the police to see that, while such an accused is kept at the thana, there are proper arrangements so that no one is able to see him. Further, if the accused is kept in a lock-up or a jail from which he has to be taken out for purposes of easing himself or for his bath or for any other purpose, it is again the duty of the police to see that proper arrangements are made to keep him Ba-parda when he is so taken out, till the identification is over. These precautions become all the more necessary in a case like the present where the appellants started saying from the moment they were put up for identification that they had been shown to the witnesses. It is also necessary that proper entries in the various police records should be made of the precautions that have been taken to keep the accused persons Ba-parda, and evidence of police constables or other police officers who having made those entries and who kept the accused Baparda is produced in court. This evidence, in our opinion, should be produced in every case, and it is absolutely essential to produce it where the police knows that the accused is contending that he was shown to the witnesses before the identification. "

A perusal of the passage indicates that it is based upon a strong suspicion of the conduct of the police and that of the identifying witnesses. But is it reasonable or fair to start with any such assumption? No one doubts the