The central legal point established in the judgment is the need for veracity in identification evidence and the recognition of its inherent weaknesses.

BARKAT ALI ZAIDI, J.

The incident of dacoity, out of which this appeal arises, occurred on 24/25-1-1987. The case was decided by the Sessions Court on 26-3-1992 The appeal was filed on 31-3-1992. This will show that the matter comes up, now, for adjudication after nineteen years of the occurrence, and the appeal itself is more than 14 years old. What a shame for the judicial process?. It is high time, we took some radical steps for early disposal of cases, because, steps which have hitherto, been taken, are perfunctory and have not yielded result, nor are going to produce the desired result.

2. Coming to the case in hand, there were originally 6 accused in the case, out of which, accused Ram Autar, Ram Sharan and Kalika, were named in the F. I. R and were known to the complainant. Accused Ram Avtar died before commencement of Trial in the Sessions Court. Accused Ram Saran and Kalika were acquitted by the Trial Court. Against the remaining accused, Indrajit, Chhotey Lal and Tribhuwan, evidence was of identification and the accused Chhotey Lal and Indrajit were convicted under Section 395 I. P. C. while accused Tribhuwan was convicted under Sections 395 and 412 I. P. C. Accused Tribhuwan is reported dead and the present appeal has been filed only by the accused Indrajit and Chhotey Lal.

3. I have heard Sri Abid Ali, learned Counsel for the appellants and Additional Government Advocate for the State.

4. The prosecution version is that in village Garai Chakdiya, which is within the jurisdiction of Police Station Kotwali District Pratapgarh and is 4 Kms. away from the police station, a dacoity took place on the night between 24/25-1-1987 at about 11. 30 and about 10-12 persons barged into the house of Rajit Ram P. W. 1 and looted property. The dacoits gave a beating to one Smt. Pragasi Devi, sister-in-law of

P. W. 1 and on hearing her cries, the other inmates of the house were awakened. A Number of villagers collected, on noise and cries, being raised. The dacoits are also said to have hurled bombs while they were running away. During the course of dacoity P. W. 2 Ram Sukh, the brother of P. W. 1 Rajit Ram was given a beating by the dacoits and he received injuries.

5. A First Information Report about the alleged occurrence was lodged next morning around 8 Oclock at Police Station Kotwali District Pratapgarh. The investigating of the case was conducted by P. W. 4, S. I. Udai Narayan who visited the spot and prepared a site plat (Exk. 5) and recorded the statement of the witnesses under Section 161 Cr. P. C.

6. It is, therefore, the evidence of identification against Indrajit and Chhotey Lal, which is to be examined.

7. In judicial configuration, identification evidence has always been classified as weak evidence. This consistent perspective of Courts is not without good reason. Identification is made in respect of persons who are un-known to the witness and it is not always easy or probable to remember and recapitulate the face of the unknown person unless there was some direct contact with him and there was an opportunity to observe him from close quarters. In cases of dacoity, the witnesses are generally supposed to see the accused in the night and in sparse light and they have usually only a fleeting glance. Unless some body has a very sharp memory, it is not easy to remember his face and that too after a lapse of some time. If a person sought to be identified, as some peculiar features about him, which may have been observed by the witnesses and which he is able to narrate, that may of course lend credibility to the identification, otherwise, chances of the witnesses recapitulating the face of the accused are dim.

8. The other reason is that identification evidence is worth reliance, only, if the accused has not been shown to the witness before identification, and that is why, evidence is led that the accused was kept baparda. What usually, however, happens, is that the accused is shown to the witness before identification and i

Click Here to Read the rest of this document