Point of law: It is trite to say that the substantive evidence is the evidence of identification in court. Apart from the clear provisions of section 9 of the Evidence Act, the position in law is well settled by a catena of decisions of this Court. The facts, which establish the identity of the accused persons, are relevant under section 9 of the Evidence Act. As a general rule, the substantive evidence of a witness is the statement made in court. The evidence of mere identification of the accused person at the trial for the first time is from its very nature inherently of a weak character. The purpose of a prior test identification, therefore, is to test and strengthen the trustworthiness of that evidence. It is accordingly considered a safe rule of prudence to generally look for corroboration of the sworn testimony of witnesses in court as to the identity of the accused who are strangers to them, in the form of earlier identification proceedings

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Rahul Misra, learned counsel for the appellants and Smt. Manju Thakur, learned A.G.A. I for the State.

2. This appeal has been preferred by appellants, Chand, Saleem and Guddu (hereinafter referred to as A1, A2 and A3) against the judgment and order dated 13.5.1988 passed by Sessions Judge, Rampur in S.T. No. 123 of 1987 (State Vs. Chand and 2 others) arising out of Case Crime No. 33 of 1987, under Sections 302/34 and 449 IPC, P.S. Civil Lines, District Rampur by which all the appellants have been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life under Section 302/34 and 5 years rigorous imprisonment under Section 449 IPC. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

3. Briefly stated the facts of this case are that P. W. 3 Naeem Khan lodged a written report Ext. Ka1 at P.S. Civil Lines, District Rampur on 29.01.1987 at 14:30 hours in respect of an incident which had taken place on the same day at 2/2:15 P.M. alleging therein that Rashid along with P. W. 3 Naeem Khan came to the quarter of P. W. 1 Abdul Aziz on a courtesy call. The friendship between Rashid and the family of the complainant dated back to the days when family members of P. W. 1 Abdul Aziz used to visit the farm of Rajmata in Jwalanagar where Rashid resided.

4. On the date of incident, at about 2:15 P.M., when the aforesaid two persons after reaching the house of the complainant were conversing with him, Rashid felt an urge to smoke on which P. W. 1 Abdul Aziz got up to bring cigarettes from the market. In the meantime, P. W. 3 Naeem Khan volunteered to procure cigarettes. As soon as P. W. 3 Naeem Khan stepped out of the house, he saw all the three appellants heading towards the house of P. W. 1 Abdul Aziz in a menacing manner armed with pistols. Being frightened, P. W. 3 Naeem Khan at once hid himself inside the lavatory of the house of P. W. 1 Abdul Aziz and locked it from inside. At that very point of time, all the three appellants entered into the house of P. W. 1 Abdul Aziz and A1 Chand exhorted his two other brothers to kill Rashid. Rashid in turn implored them not to kill him. However, A1 Chand and his two brothers fired successive shots at Rashid and in order to save himself he fled into the inner room of the house where he was chased and shot. As a result of the gunshot injuries received by him in the occurrence, he died on the spot. There was stampede in the locality; the residents shutdown the main doors of their houses. In the meantime, all the three appellants fled towards the railway station. The occurrence was witnessed by P. W. 1 Abdul Aziz, his wife-P. W. 2 Shahanshahi and his daughter-P. W. 7 Km. Fahim Jahan.

5. After the accused-appellants had left, P. W. 3 Naeem Khan came out and got the written report Ext. Ka1 of the incident scribed by P. W. 6 Rahat Khan, a distant brother of the deceased which was lodged by him at P.S. Civil Lines, District Rampur on the basis of which P. W. 9 Shanti Swarup, Head Constable prepared the chik report Ext. Ka11 and recorded the contents of the chek FIR in the G.D. at S.No. 39 time 2:30 P.M. dated 29.1.1987.

6. P. W. 10 A.S. Sharma who was posted as Inspector of P.S. Civil Lines was entrusted with the investigation of the case. The inquest on the cadaver of the deceased was conducted by P. W. 8 S.I. Sitaram Gangwar on the instruction of P. W. 10 A.S. Sharma who after holding the inquest on the spot prepared the inquest report Ext. Ka3, diagram of the dead body Ext. Ka4, challan of dead body Ext. Ka5, letter addressed to C.M.O. Ext. Ka6 and the sample of seal Ext. Ka7. Thereafter, he got the dead body of Rashid dispatched to the district hospital for postmortem examination through P. W. 5 Constable Khoob Chand. P. W. 10 A.S. Sharma, I.O. inspected the place of occurrence and prepared the site plan Ext. Ka14. He also collected bloodstained and plain earth from the crime scene and prepared its recovery memo Ext. Ka8. He also found empty cartridges, tikli and pellets and after collecting t