The accused has no right to demand identification, but if he claims it and the prosecution refuses, it runs the risk of the veracity of the witnesses being challenged. However, this risk can be nullified if the prosecution can prove that the witnesses knew the accused from before.

V. P. MATHUR, J.

( 1 ) THE case is under Ss. 302 and 307 I. P. C. According to the first information report the main role is assigned to the present applicant, about whom it is said that Ashok Kumar Yadav and Kanak Singh alias Chhedi Singh took out his katta (country made pistol) and fired at the complainant and his associates with intention to kill. The result was that Vishun Deo Mishra, Baijnath, Pramod Tewari and Ramakant were injured. Vishun Deo Mishra fell down on the spot. Then the complainant and the witnesses challenged this accused, ran after him and Vijai Kumar tried to catch hold of him from his side, but the accused Chhedi Singh refilled his Katta and fired at Vijai Kumar who fell down injured. These two persons ultimately died.

( 2 ) BAIL is claimed on three grounds: Firstly it is contended that the accused-applicant moved the Court that he should be put up for identification, as the witnesses did not know him from before and his request has not been conceded and therefore he is entitled to bail because an element of suspicion against the prosecution case arises. 2a. The second point is that so far as the oral evidence of the witnesses is concerned, it is not in consonance with the medical evidence and so the prosecution case appears to be false. The third plea is that the accused has already suffered long detention in jail, since he is under arrest with effect from 25-11-1984 and except for a short parole that was granted to him, he is continuing in jail custody and it is almost one year that he is under detention and there has been no committal of the case as yet.

( 3 ) TAKING the first point a number of rulings have been cited in support of the contention that if the accused claims identification and the prosecution does not oblige him, an element of doubt will attach to the testimony of the witnesses and therefore the accused will be entitled to bail. In the case of Lajjaram v. State, AIR 1955 All 671 after considering the entire evidence of the case and the law laid down, the Court came to the following conclusions : (i) That it could not be said with respect to any of the three witnesses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . whose testimony the Sessions Judge relied for the conviction of the appellant, that they certainly knew the appellant from before; (ii) that the element of doubt attached to the testimony of these witnesses by reason of the omission of identification test subsisted and benefit of it went to the appellant.

( 4 ) IF we go through the facts of this case and law laid down, it will appear that the Court was of the opinion that the accused has no right to claim identification but if he claims it and the prosecution turns down his request for identification it runs the risk of the veracity of the eye-witnesses being challenged on that ground and exposes the claim of such witnesses to the criticism that the test identification was shirked because the witnesses would not have been able to stand that test. Unless, therefore the prosecution can nullify that criticism, there would be an element of doubt attaching to the testimony of these witnesses and its benefit will go to the accused.

( 5 ) IT may be clear from this that the accused can claim identification although he has no right to do so and if the prosecution refuses his request, it runs the risk of the veracity of witnesses being challenged on that ground. But this can be nullified. However, if it is not nullified, an element of doubt will attach to the testimony of the witnesses. This law nowhere lays down that if an accused demands holding of identification proceedings, his request must always be allowed and unless it is allowed, the prosecution case becomes unbelievable and should be discarded. Doubt will arise only if the prosecution evidence is unable to prove that the witnesses knew this accused from before by name or by face.

( 6 ) IN the case of Shri Ram v. State of U. P. , 1975 SC Cri R 3, the facts were that Shri Ram and Ram Chandra had