Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Identification of Material Objects in Courts - Main points and insights
The identification of material objects by witnesses is crucial for establishing the facts of a case. Proper identification and marking are essential to link objects to the crime and to ensure evidence integrity ["Irfan Pasha, S/o Late Abdul Majeed VS National Investigating Agency Represented by SPP High Court of Karnataka Bangalore - Karnataka"] ["PERIYASAMY vs STATE BY - Madras"].
Conducting test identification parades (TIP) for material objects helps verify whether witnesses can reliably recognize items associated with the crime. These parades are part of investigative procedures aimed at testing a witness's capability to identify specific articles or persons ["QUEEN THE v. JULIS"] ["R. Vinay VS Inspector of Police, Krishnagiri - Madras"] ["KRANTHI KIRAN RATHOD vs THE STATE OF A.P. - Telangana"] ["GNANAMANI vs THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE - Madras"].
The courts emphasize that similar objects are often available in the open market, which necessitates careful identification and chain of custody to avoid doubts about authenticity. Proper procedures, including showing objects to witnesses and conducting identification parades, are vital to prevent manipulation or wrongful identification ["R. Vinay VS Inspector of Police, Krishnagiri - Madras"] ["KRANTHI KIRAN RATHOD vs THE STATE OF A.P. - Telangana"].
When objects are not properly shown or identified to witnesses, or when identification parades are delayed or improperly conducted, the reliability of such evidence is compromised. For instance, failure to show material objects to witnesses or conduct timely identification parades raises doubts about the evidence's credibility ["QUEEN THE v. JULIS"] ["PERIYASAMY vs STATE BY - Madras"] ["Kaleel Rahman @ Rahman @ Ragu vs Inspector of Police, Orleanpet Police Station, Puducherry - Madras"].
The necessity of marking and labeling material objects during recovery and ensuring their proper presentation in court is stressed. Lack of proper identification or failure to produce objects before the court can undermine the case ["Mahesha VS State - Karnataka"] ["K.M.RIJESH Vs THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KANNUR TOWN POLICE STATION - Kerala"].
Analysis and Conclusion
The consistent theme across the sources indicates that the identification of material objects in courts must follow strict procedural safeguards, including proper marking, labeling, and conducting identification parades. These steps are essential to establish the chain of custody and authenticate evidence.
Similar objects, especially in cases involving stolen or contraband items, should be shown to witnesses for identification to prevent doubts about provenance or authenticity. When objects are not properly identified or paraded, the evidence becomes unreliable, risking wrongful convictions or acquittals.
The courts recognize the importance of timely and properly conducted identification procedures to uphold the integrity of evidence. Delays, lack of independent witnesses, or improper procedures can weaken the prosecution's case.
Overall, the placement of similar objects before witnesses and the proper conduct of identification procedures are indispensable for ensuring fair trials and reliable evidence in criminal proceedings.
References:
In criminal trials, the identification of material objects—such as seized property, weapons, or victim belongings—plays a pivotal role in establishing links to the crime. But a common question arises: In the identification of material objects in courts, whether similar objects are to be placed before the witness? The answer is generally yes, particularly during test identification parades, to ensure reliability and prevent fabrication. This practice is rooted in Rule 35 of the Criminal Rules of Practice, which mandates mixing disputed items with similar objects. Failure to do so can render the evidence unworthy of credence. This post delves into the procedure, judicial scrutiny, consequences, and practical tips, drawing from key case laws.
Material objects serve as real evidence, corroborating witness testimonies and recoveries. However, their probative value hinges on fair identification processes. Courts emphasize that mere recovery or exhibition without witness verification creates doubt. For instance, in cases involving child victims' clothes or seized vehicles, not showing items to family members or owners during trial has led to skepticism about authenticity. Putai VS State of Uttar Pradesh - 2025 6 Supreme 705Rajesh VS State of Kerala - 2014 0 Supreme(Ker) 91
The Supreme Court and High Courts have stressed that identification tests the witness's memory, akin to accused parades. Without safeguards like mixing similar items, evidence risks being dismissed as coached or unreliable. This aligns with broader principles under Section 9 of the Evidence Act, where identification is a relevant fact but requires procedural integrity. Ramcharan VS State of M. P. - 2021 Supreme(MP) 517
Rule 35 of the Criminal Rules of Practice outlines a strict protocol for property identification parades:- Venue: Held in the court of the Magistrate where properties are lodged.- Mixing Protocol: Each item must be presented separately, mixed with four or five similar objects to avoid easy picking. Bashamoni Saidulu VS State of A. P. - 2017 0 Supreme(AP) 849Gubbala Srinu At Srinivasa Rao, West Godavari VS State Of A. P. ,Rep. By Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyd - 2024 0 Supreme(AP) 985- Witness Preparation: Before viewing, witnesses must state identifying marks of their property.- Sequencing: Witnesses are called one by one, with no communication allowed between them.
This Magistrate-led process ensures impartiality. Deviations, like conducting parades by a Revenue Inspector or Panchayat Secretary, invalidate the evidence. Bashamoni Saidulu VS State of A. P. - 2017 0 Supreme(AP) 849
Exact Quote from Rule 35: (1) Identification parades of properties shall be held in the Court of the Magistrate where the properties are lodged; (2) Each item of property shall be put up separately for the parade. It shall be mixed up with four or five similar objects. (3) Before calling upon the witnesses to identify the property, he shall be asked to state the identification marks of his property. Witnesses shall be called in one after the other and on leaving shall not be allowed to communicate with the witness not yet called in. Bashamoni Saidulu VS State of A. P. - 2017 0 Supreme(AP) 849Gubbala Srinu At Srinivasa Rao, West Godavari VS State Of A. P. ,Rep. By Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyd - 2024 0 Supreme(AP) 985JOGI VENKATESWARAMMA VS STATE OF AP REP BY ITS PP HYD. - 2022 0 Supreme(AP) 98
Beyond formal parades, material objects (marked as MO-1, MO-2, etc.) must be shown to relevant witnesses during trial. Witnesses identifying accused or objects in court, like naming persons or picking items, strengthens the case—but only if procedurally sound. IN RE: TO ISSUE CERTAIN GUIDELINES REGARDING INADEQUACIES AND DEFICIENCIES IN CRIMINAL TRIALS VS STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH - 2021 4 Supreme 555Asharaf & Others VS State Rep. by the AD. S. P. SIT, CBCID & Others - 2009 Supreme(Mad) 5650
Courts rigorously scrutinize compliance, rejecting flawed identifications.
In one case, the parade at a Grampanchayat office failed to mix each item separately with similar objects: ...each item of property was not put up separately in the parade after mixing with 4 or 5 similar objects as required under Rule 35 (2)... Thus, it is clear that the test identification in respect of the properties are not conducted in accordance with the procedure prescribed... Therefore, much credence cannot be given. Bashamoni Saidulu VS State of A. P. - 2017 0 Supreme(AP) 849
Another highlighted dissimilarity: mixed items were not similar items to the identified items... the primary ingredient of mixing articles to be identified with articles of similar nature, has been complied with... the identification of property... cannot be accepted. JOGI VENKATESWARAMMA VS STATE OF AP REP BY ITS PP HYD. - 2022 0 Supreme(AP) 98
Even outside court (e.g., under police manuals), mixing similar articles is essential, though Magistrate oversight is preferred for lodged properties. Recovery from the accused without proper parades does not sustain conviction alone. Jalakandeswaran @ Eswaran & Others VS State rep. By Inspector of Police - 2008 0 Supreme(Mad) 4353Navaneethakrishnan VS State by Inspector of Police - 2018 4 Supreme 652
Relatedly, in accused identification contexts, courts warn against dock identifications without prior tests, as witnesses may be overawed by courtroom dynamics. Professor Glanville Williams noted: Since this is obviously far more dangerous to the accused than taking part in a parade, the choice of a parade is almost always accepted. Ramcharan VS State of M. P. - 2021 Supreme(MP) 517Aftab Khan VS State of Madhya Pradesh - 2018 Supreme(MP) 193MANIKYA S/O LACHMYA PAWAR Vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Failure to secure independent witnesses or explain lapses, like unsealed seizures, further dents prosecution cases. MAHESHA S/O LINGU vs STATE BY R F O B W LState represented by The Inspector of Police VS G. Janardhanan - 2017 Supreme(Mad) 1914
In corruption or rape cases, courts demand corroboration via independent witnesses and proper handling of material objects, echoing property identification standards. Mere in-court picks without prior verification weaken cases. State represented by The Inspector of Police VS G. Janardhanan - 2017 Supreme(Mad) 1914
To bolster prosecutions:- Adhere Strictly: Conduct Magistrate-led parades in court with 4-5 similar objects per item; have witnesses state marks first.- Trial Verification: Always exhibit objects to owners/victims for in-court ID to dispel doubts.- Documentation: Meticulously record compliance; train officers on accused vs. property parades.- Avoid Tutoring: Prevent witness communication to ensure genuine memory-based identification.
Non-compliance risks acquittal, as suspicion cannot replace proof. Ramcharan VS State of M. P. - 2021 Supreme(MP) 517
This post provides general insights based on reported cases and is not legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for case-specific guidance.
The fact that the witness has been able to identify the accused at an identification parade is only a circumstance corroborative of the identification at the trial. The jury may act only on the evidence given before them. ... Apart from evidence relating to the identification of an accused by a witness at an identification parade being relevant under section 9 of the Evidence Ordinance, where the witness's identification amounts to a statement that the person ....
Once the identification in the TIP becomes suspect, the identification of the witness in Court becomes meaningless. ... No reliance ought to have been placed by the courts below or the High Court on such delayed TI parade for which there is no explanation by the prosecution.” 19. ... Strangely, we find that none of the Material Objects, which is alleged to have been taken from the house of the deceased, viz., M.O.14 to M.O.28, have been specifically shown to witnesses PW1....
of the material objects. ... Even they have not stated as to whether they tried to secure any independent witness, but have directly No.3, who was also convicted by the Trial Court for the the evidence against these accused are identical and similar ... The letters ‘F’ and ‘G’ are altogether different from the material placed before him p style="position:absolute;white-space
Therefore, accepting the evidence of PWs.1 to 4 and Ex.P.3 is not sustainable in law since there were differences in the identification of the material objects. ... Even they have not stated as to whether they tried to secure any independent witness, but have directly seized the same under the panchanama. Therefore, the evidence of PWs.1 to 4 is not sufficient to prove the guilt of accused Nos.1 and 2. ... Apart from identifying the accused persons by the witnesses, the identification of MOs.1 to 6 were....
It is well-established in criminal jurisprudence that a Test Identification Parade (TIP) for the person or the property is a part of investigative procedure and is primarily conducted to ascertain whether a witness is capable of identifying specific person or article ... While she conceded that similar gold ornaments are available in the open market, such a general statement does not negate the probative value of her specific identification made before the Court. 39. ... The Test Identificat....
Relied upon 24 exhibits and eight meterial objects. ... The identification parade been conducted before the Judicial Magistrate and in the identification parade, the accused has been rightly identified by the victim. ... Her torn blouse and the saree with bloodstains were recovered and marked as material objects. ... It would therefore be adding insult to injury to insist on corroboration drawing inspiration from rules devised by the courts in the western world. ... This Court on takin....
W. 7), who conducted the identification parade, reveals that he had taken precautions to mix persons of similar appearance at the appellant's identification parade. ... Emperor, A.I.R. 1947 P.C. p. 67 The fact that the objects were parts of the looted property is proved by other evidence. The police officer, who did not know what objects could be produced, asked the appellant whether he knew about the loot of the "Pursua dacoity." ... He was put up for identification ....
He further placed reliance on the evidence of finger print expert (P.W.15) and stated that since this witness has spoken about the matching of chance prints, from the scene of occurrence with the sample prints of the accused, an inference requires to be drawn that it was the accused who had committed ... The admissibility of statements made by a witness before the Police, vis-a-vis identification of properties, was dealt with in the case of Ramkishan Mithanlal Sharma Vs. ... It was further held therein that the idea of ....
Identification of material objects by eyewitnesses is crucial and the Trial Court has rightly allowed the instant application moved by the prosecution. ... 10. ... The prosecutor made a specific request to the learned Trial Judge to permit him to show the material objects to prosecution witnesses for identification. The said fact has been rightly recorded by the learned Trial Judge in paragraph No.12 of the impugned order. ... He placed reliance on the following two authorities: ... (i) (2017) 8 SCC 570....
The courts have to meticulously consider this lapse or intention of Police with reference to evidence of such witness, before accepting the testimony. ... The whole object behind the test identification parade is really to find whether or not the suspect is the real offender. In Kanta Prashad v. ... It is quiet possible when a witness such as injured victim though wholly truthful is liable to be over awed by the courts atmosphere and the piercing cross examination made by the....
Glanville Williams from an eminently readable and instructive article in which he says: Since this is obviously far more dangerous to the accused than taking part in a parade, the choice of a parade is almost always accepted.” “… if the suspect objects [to an identification parade] the police will merely have him “identified” by showing him to the witness and asking the witness whether he is the man.
With reference to the first type of identification evidence, the Court quotes Professor Glanville Williams from an eminently readable and instructive article in which he says: Since this is obviously far more dangerous to the accused than taking part in a parade, the choice of a parade is almost always accepted." "... if the suspect objects [to an identification parade] the police will merely have him "identified" by showing him to the witness and asking the witness whether he is the man.
On behalf of the accused/respondent two witnesses were examined and one document was exhibited. 5. To prove the charges, the prosecution has examined 15 witnesses; marked 20 documents and 3 meterial objects .
But he has not identified A4 and A155 who were siting in the Court. The witness has also identified the above said Material Objects in the Court. The witness also identified A2, A151, A156 and when he was called upon to state the names of the persons, he stated A2 as Anwar, A151 as Idayat Alikhan and A156 as Tada.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
