ਦੋਸ਼ੀ ਅਤੇ ਵਸਤੂਆਂ ਦੀ ਸ਼ਨਾਖਤ ਪਰੇਡ (Test identification parade)

0
791


ਦੋਸ਼ੀ ਅਤੇ ਵਸਤੂਆਂ ਦੀ ਸ਼ਨਾਖਤ ਪਰੇਡ (Test identification parade)

(Section 3 Evidence Act)

ਮੁਲਜ਼ਮਾਂ ਦੀ ਸ਼ਨਾਖਤ

ਵਾਰਦਾਤ ਕਰਨ ਵਾਲਾ ਵਿਅਕਤੀ ਮੁਦਈ ਜਾਂ ਮੌਕੇ ਤੇ ਹਾਜ਼ਰ ਗਵਾਹਾਂ ਦਾ ਵਾਕਫ ਹੋ ਸਕਦਾ ਹੈ ਅਤੇ ਅਜਨਬੀ ਵੀ। ਜੇ ਦੋਸ਼ੀ ਪਹਿਲਾਂ ਤੋਂ ਗਵਾਹਾਂ ਦਾ ਵਾਕਫ ਨਾ ਹੋਵੇ ਪਰ ਗਵਾਹ ਉਸਦੇ ਹੁਲੀਏ ਆਦਿ ਤੋਂ ਉਸਦੀ ਪਛਾਣ ਕਰਨ ਦਾ ਦਾਅਵਾ ਕਰਦੇ ਹੋਣ ਤਾਂ ਸ਼ੱਕ ਦੂਰ ਕਰਨ ਲਈ ਪੁਲਿਸ ਇੱਕ ਵਿਸ਼ੇਸ਼ ਪ੍ਰਕ੍ਰਿਆ ਰਾਹੀਂ ਗਵਾਹਾਂ ਤੋਂ ਦੋਸ਼ੀ ਦੀ ਸ਼ਨਾਖਤ ਕਰਵਾਉਂਦੀ ਹੈ। ਸ਼ਨਾਖਤ ਦੀ ਇਸ ਪ੍ਰਕ੍ਰਿਆ ਨੂੰ ‘ਪੁਲਿਸ ਵੱਲੋਂ ਕਰਵਾਈ ਗਈ ਸ਼ਨਾਖਤ ਪਰੇਡ’ ਆਖਿਆ ਜਾਂਦਾ ਹੈ। ਅਦਾਲਤ ਵਿੱਚ ਇੱਕ ਵਾਰ ਫਿਰ ਗਵਾਹਾਂ ਵੱਲੋਂ ਦੋਸ਼ੀ ਦੀ ਸ਼ਨਾਖਤ ਕੀਤੀ ਜਾਂਦੀ ਹੈ। ਅਜਿਹੀ ਸ਼ਨਾਖਤ ਨੂੰ ‘ਅਦਾਲਤ ਵਿੱਚ ਹੋਈ ਸ਼ਨਾਖਤ ਪਰੇਡ’ ਆਖਿਆ ਜਾਂਦਾ ਹੈ।

ਸ਼ਨਾਖਤ ਪਰੇਡ ਦਾ ਉਦੇਸ਼ ਅਤੇ ਮਹੱਤਤਾ

ਜੇ ਦੋਸ਼ੀ ਦੀ ਸ਼ਨਾਖਤ ਢੁੱਕਵੀਂ ਅਤੇ ਭਰੋਸੇਯੋਗ ਹੋਵੇ ਤਾਂ ਇਸ ਅਧਾਰ ਤੇ ਦੋਸ਼ੀ ਨੂੰ ਸਜ਼ਾ ਹੋ ਸਕਦੀ ਹੈ।

  1. ਸ਼ਨਾਖਤ ਪਰੇਡ ਦਾ ਮੁੱਖ ਉਦੇਸ਼ ਇਹ ਸੁਨਸ਼ਿਚਿਤ ਕਰਨਾ ਹੈ ਕਿ ਕੀ ਉਸ ਅਣਜਾਣ ਵਿਅਕਤੀ ਵੱਲੋਂ ਸੱਚਮੁੱਚ ਉਹ ਜ਼ੁਰਮ ਕੀਤੇ ਗਏ ਹਨ ਜਿਹਨਾਂ ਦੇ ਕਰਨ ਬਾਰੇ ਉਸ ਉੱਪਰ ਦੋਸ਼ ਲਗਾਏ ਗਏ ਹਨ।

Case : Suraj Pal v/s State of Haryana, 1995 (2) SCC 64 (SC – FB)

Para “14. ….. The object, purpose and importance of the test identification parade. It may be pointed out that the holding of identification parades has been in vogue since long in the past with a view to determine whether an unknown person accused of an offence is really the culprit or not, to be identified as such by those who claimed to be the eyewitnesses of the occurrence so that they would be able to identify the culprit if produced before them by recalling the impressions of his features left on their mind. That being so, in the very nature of things, the identification parade in such cases serves a dual purpose.

It enables the investigating agency to ascertain the correctness or otherwise of the claim of those witnesses who claimed to have seen the offender of the crime as well as their capacity to identify him and on the other hand it saves the suspect from the sudden risk of being identified in the dock by such witnesses during the course of the trial. This practice of test identification as a mode of identifying an unknown person charged of an offence is an age-old method and it has worked well for the past several decades as a satisfactory mode and a well-founded method of criminal jurisprudence. It may also be noted that the substantive evidence of identifying witness is his evidence made in the Court but in cases where the accused person is not known to the witnesses from before who claimed to have seen the incident, in that event identification of the accused at the earliest possible opportunity after the occurrence by such witnesses is of vital importance with a view to avoid the chance of his memory fading away by the time he is examined in the court after some lapse of time”.

 ਸ਼ਨਾਖਤ ਪਰੇਡ ਦੀਆਂ ਕਿਸਮਾਂ

() ਪੁਲਿਸ ਵੱਲੋਂ ਕਰਵਾਈ ਗਈ ਸ਼ਨਾਖਤ ਪਰੇਡ: ਤਫਤੀਸ਼ ਦੌਰਾਨ ਪੁਲਿਸ ਵੱਲੋਂ ਦੋਸ਼ੀ ਦੀ ਸ਼ਨਾਖਤ ਕਰਾਉਣ ਲਈ ਇੱਕ ਪ੍ਰਕ੍ਰਿਆ ਅਪਣਾਈ ਜਾਂਦੀ ਹੈ ਜਿਸਨੂੰ ਪੁਲਿਸ ਵੱਲੋਂ ਕਰਵਾਈ ਗਈ ਸ਼ਨਾਖਤ ਪਰੇਡ ਆਖਿਆ ਜਾਂਦਾ ਹੈ

() ਅਦਾਲਤ ਵਿਚ ਹੋਈ ਸ਼ਨਾਖਤ ਪਰੇਡ: ਗਵਾਹਾਂ ਵੱਲੋਂ ਦੋਸ਼ੀ ਦੀ ਸ਼ਨਾਖਤ ਇੱਕ ਵਾਰ ਫਿਰ ਅਦਾਲਤ ਵਿਚ ਕੀਤੀ ਜਾਂਦੀ ਹੈ ਇਸ ਸ਼ਨਾਖਤ ਨੂੰ ਅਦਾਲਤ ਵਿਚ ਹੋਈ ਸ਼ਨਾਖਤ ਪਰੇਡ ਆਖਿਆ ਜਾਂਦਾ ਹੈ

 ਜਦੋਂ ਸ਼ਨਾਖਤ ਪਰੇਡ ਦੀ ਜ਼ਰੂਰਤ ਨਹੀਂ ਹੁੰਦੀ

(ੳ)     ਜੇ ਚਸ਼ਮਦੀਦ ਗਵਾਹ ਦੋਸ਼ੀਆਂ ਨੂੰ ਜਾਣਦੇ ਹੋਣ ਅਤੇ ਉਹਨਾਂ ਦੇ ਨਾਂ ਐਫ.ਆਈ.ਆਰ. ਵਿੱਚ ਦਰਜ ਹੋਣ ਤਾਂ ਦੋਸ਼ੀ ਦੀ ਸ਼ਨਾਖਤ ਪਰੇਡ ਕਰਾਏ ਜਾਣ ਦੀ ਕੋਈ ਜ਼ਰੂਰਤ ਨਹੀਂ ਹੈ।

Case (i) : Dhananjay Shankar Sheety v/s State of Maharashtra, 2002 Cri. L.J. 3729 (SC)

Para “8. Moreover, as the appellant was named accused persons, his so-called identification in the test identification parade could not be of any avail to the prosecution as it was meaningless”.

Case (ii) : Pammi @ Brijindra Singh v/s Govt. of M.P., 1998 Cri.L.J. 1617 (SC)

Para “13. ….. According to us, the Division Bench of the High Court has correctly found that evidence of the eye-witnesses in this case is not to be jettisoned merely due to the failure of the investigating officer to conduct Test Identification Parade. This is not a case where the witnesses were seeing the appellant for the first time. Nobody has a case that PW-1 Rajendra Prasad Palia had not seen the appellant prior to the occurrence. In fact, he mentioned the names of some of the assailants including this appellant even in the First Information Statement which he lodged soon after the occurrence. PW-2 Vinod Kumar and PW-4 Ashok Kumar Sharma have also said that they knew the appellant earlier. If their evidence is found believable, then there is no warrant for the reasoning that failure to hold Test Identification Parade had vitiated the evidence of those three eye-witnesses.”

 Case (iii) : Asha @ Asha Nand v/s State of Rajashan, 1997 Cri. L.J. 3508 (SC)

Para “8.  It is true that no T.I. Parade was held. The evidence of Suresh Kumar (P.W.5) is that he was knowing all the three accused persons since before the incident and the names were disclosed by him to other eye-witnesses. Ashok Kumar (P.W.9) who lodged the First Informat-ion Report has mentioned the names of all the three accused persons as assailants and with all necessary details testified that it was Farid (P.W.7) who told him the names. However Farid had stated that he came to know the names of these accused persons from Suresh Kumar (P.W.5). If this chain is viewed in proper perspective it leaves no manner of doubt that the names of the assailants of Cheturam were told by Suresh Kumar (P.W.5) to Ashok Kumar (P.W.9) who lodged the First Information Report. The incident in question took place dueing day time at 5.00 p.m. and, therefore, there was no question of erroneous identity. What is relevant to mention is that the First Information Report came to be lodged on the very same evening at about 6.30 p.m. There was hardly any time to concoct a false story.”

(ਅ)     ਜੇ ਦੋਸ਼ੀ ਨੂੰ ਵਾਰਦਾਤ ਕਰਦੇ ਸਮੇਂ ਹੀ ਫੜ੍ਹ ਲਿਆ ਜਾਵੇ ਤਾਂ ਉਸਦੀ ਸ਼ਨਾਖਤ ਪਰੇਡ ਕਰਾਉਣ ਦੀ ਕੋਈ ਜ਼ਰੂਰਤ ਨਹੀਂ ਹੁੰਦੀ।

Case : Virendra Singh v/s State of U.P. 1999 Cri.  L.J.4645 (Allahabad – HC)

Para “14. ….. This argument cannot be sustained for a moment. In a case, like the present where a culprit is arrested on the spot while committing the offence and taken in custody to the police station and lodged there, once these facts are established there is no occasion or need for holding the test identification parade.”

 ਅਦਾਲਤ ਵਿਚ ਹੋਈ ਸ਼ਨਾਖਤ ਪਰੇਡ

(ੳ)     ਦੋਸ਼ੀ ਦੀ ਅਦਾਲਤ ਵਿੱਚ ਹੋਈ (dock identification) ਸ਼ਨਾਖਤ ਪਰੇਡ ਹੀ ਅਸਲੀ ਸ਼ਨਾਖਤ ਪਰੇਡ ਹੁੰਦੀ ਹੈ।

Case : Daya Singh v/s State of Haryana, 2001 Cri. L.J.1268 (SC)

Para “12. ….. It is to be borne in mind that the purpose of test identification is to have corroboration to the evidence of the eye witnesses in the form of earlier evidence and that substantive evidence of a witness is the evidence in the Court. If that evidence is found to be reliable then absence of corroboration by test identification would not be in any way immaterial. ….”

(ਅ)     ਕੇਵਲ ਅਦਾਲਤ ਵਿੱਚ ਹੋਈ ਸ਼ਨਾਖਤ ਪਰੇਡ ਹੀ ਅਸਲੀ ਗਵਾਹੀ ਹੁੰਦੀ ਹੈ।

Case : Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma v/s State (NCT of Delhi) 2010 (2) RCR (Cri.) 692 (SC)

Para “114. A close scrutiny of these judgments will reveal that they infact support the case of the Prosecution. These judgments make it abundantly clear that even where there is no previous TIP, the Court may appreciate the dock identification as being above-board and more than conclusive.”

ਦੋਸ਼ੀ ਵੱਲੋਂ ਪੁਲਿਸ ਵੱਲੋਂ ਕਰਵਾਈ ਜਾਣ ਵਾਲੀ ਸ਼ਨਾਖਤ ਪਰੇਡ ਵਿਚ ਸ਼ਾਮਲ ਹੋਣ ਤੋਂ ਇਨਕਾਰ ਕਰਨ ਦੇ ਪ੍ਰਭਾਵ

ਪੁਲਿਸ ਵੱਲੋਂ ਸ਼ਨਾਖਤ ਪਰੇਡ ਦੀ ਕਾਰਵਾਈ ਕਰਵਾਉਣ ਤੋਂ ਪਹਿਲਾਂ ਅਦਾਲਤ ਦੋਸ਼ੀ ਕੋਲੋਂ ਇਹ ਪੁੱਛਦੀ ਹੈ ਕਿ ਕੀ ਉਸਨੇ ਸ਼ਨਾਖਤ ਪਰੇਡ ਵਿਚ ਹਿੱਸਾ ਲੈਣਾ ਹੈ? ਦੋਸ਼ੀ ਨੂੰ ਸ਼ਨਾਖਤ ਪਰੇਡ ਵਿਚ ਸ਼ਾਮਲ ਹੋਣ ਤੋਂ ਇਨਕਾਰ ਕਰਨ ਦਾ ਅਧਿਕਾਰ ਹੈ। ਦੋਸ਼ੀ ਇਹ ਕਹਿ ਕੇ ਸ਼ਨਾਖਤ ਪਰਿਡ ਵਿਚ ਹਿੱਸਾ ਲੈਣ ਤੋਂ ਨਾਂਹ ਕਰ ਦਿੰਦੇ ਹਨ ਕਿ ਪੁਲਿਸ ਨੇ ਉਨ੍ਹਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਪਹਿਲਾਂ ਹੀ ਗਵਾਹਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਦਿਖਾ ਦਿੱਤਾ ਹੈ। ਅਜਿਹੇ ਇਨਕਾਰ ਦੇ ਹੇਠ ਲਿਖੇ ਪ੍ਰਭਾਵ ਪੈਂਦੇ ਹਨ।

 (ੳ)     ਬਿਨ੍ਹਾਂ ਕਿਸੇ ਠੋਸ ਕਾਰਨ ਦੇ, ਦੋਸ਼ੀ ਵੱਲੋਂ ਸ਼ਨਾਖਤ ਪਰੇਡ ਵਿੱਚ ਸ਼ਾਮਿਲ ਹੋਣ ਤੋਂ ਨਾਂਹ ਕਰਨ ਤੇ, ਦੋਸ਼ੀ ਨੂੰ ਅਦਾਲਤ ਵਿੱਚ ਹੋਈ ਸ਼ਨਾਖਤ ਨੂੰ ਚੁਨੌਤੀ ਦੇਣ ਦਾ ਅਧਿਕਾਰ ਨਹੀਂ ਰਹਿੰਦਾ।

Case (i) : Suraj Pal v/s State of Haryana, 1995 (2) SCC 64 (SC – FB)

Para “15. ….. If the appellants in exercise of their own volition had chosen not to stand the test of identification without any reasonable cause, they did so on their own risk for which they cannot be heard to say that in the absence of test parade, dock identification was not proper and should not be accepted, if it was otherwise found to be reliable.”

 Case (i) : Daya Singh v/s State of Haryana 2001, Cri. L.J. 1268 (SC)

Para “13. In the present case, there is no lapse on the part of the Investigating Officer in holding the test identification parade. The appellant was arrested on 28th May, 1988 and the identification parade was to be held on 2nd June, but on that day accused refused to take part in the parade.

…. It is to be stated that in such a situation, this Court in Suraj Pal v. State of Haryana, (1995) 2 SCC 64, held that substantive evidence identifying the witness is his evidence made in the Court and if the accused in exercise of his own volition declined to submit for test parade without any reasonable cause, he did so on his own risk for which he cannot be heard to say that in the absence of test parade, dock identification was not proper and should not be accepted, if it was otherwise found to be reliable. The Court observed “it is true that they could not have been compelled to line up for test parade but they did so on their own risk for which the prosecution could not be blamed for not holding the test parade”. In that case also, the Court disbelieved the justification given by the accused for not participating in the identification parade on the ground that accused were shown by the police to the witnesses. Same is the position in the present case.”

(ਅ)     ਦੋਸ਼ੀ ਵੱਲੋਂ ਸ਼ਨਾਖਤ ਪਰੇਡ ਵਿੱਚ ਨਾਂਹ ਕਰ ਦੇਣ ਤੇ ਅਦਾਲਤ ਉਸਦੇ ਵਿਰੁੱਧ ਵਿਪਰੀਤ ਸਿੱਟਾ (adverse inference) ਕੱਢ ਸਕਦੀ ਹੈ।

Case : Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma v/s State (NCT of Delhi) 2010 (2) RCR (Cri.) 692 (SC)

Para “117. Learned Solicitor General submitted that, even otherwise, an adverse inference ought to be drawn against the appellants for their refusal to join the TIP. This view has found favor time and again by this Court. It is pertinent to note that it is dock identification which is a substantive piece of evidence. Therefore even where no TIP is conducted no prejudice can be caused to the case of the Prosecution…..”

 ਦੋਸ਼ੀ ਦੀ ਸ਼ਨਾਖਤ ਦੇ ਢੰਗ

 (ੳ)     ਫੋਟੋ ਸ਼ਨਾਖਤ ਪਰੇਡ ਵੀ ਗਵਾਹੀ ਦੇ ਤੌਰ ਤੇ ਮੰਨਣਯੋਗ ਹੈ।

Case : Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma v/s State (NCT of Delhi) 2010 (2) RCR (Cri.) 692

Para “112. ….. Even a TIP before a Magistrate is otherwise hit by Section 162 of the Code. Therefore to say that a photo identification is hit by section 162 is wrong. It is not a substantive piece of evidence. It is only by virtue of section 9 of the Evidence Act that the same i.e. the act of identification becomes admissible in Court. The logic behind TIP, which will include photo identification, lies in the fact that it is only an aid to investigation, where an accused is not known to the witnesses, the IO conducts a TIP to ensure that he has got the right person as an accused. The practice is not born out of procedure, but out of prudence. At best it can be brought under Section 8 of the Evidence Act, as evidence of conduct of a witness in photo identifying the accused in the presence of an IO or the Magistrate, during the course of an investigation.”

 (ਅ)     ਦੋਸ਼ੀ ਦੀ ਸ਼ਨਾਖਤ ਦੋਸ਼ੀ ਦੀ ਸਰੀਰਿਕ ਬਣਤਰ ਦੇ ਅਧਾਰ ਤੇ ਹੋ ਸਕਦੀ ਹੈ।

Case: Daya Singh v/s State of Haryana 2001, Cri. L.J. 1268

Para “14. ….. Further in the present case, identification in the Court was out of 14 persons. That itself would lend credence to identification by the witnesses. For this purpose, learned Judge has rightly observed to the effect that physical features of accused must have been embedded in the memory of Jaswant Kaur. From the evidence and the cross-examination of these two witnesses, it is apparent that they gained enduring impression of the identity of the accused during the incident.”

 (ੲ)     ਦੋਸ਼ੀ ਦੀ ਸ਼ਨਾਖਤ ਉਸਦੇ ਸਰੀਰ ਦੀ ਬਣਤਰ, ਚਾਲ-ਢਾਲ ਅਤੇ ਅਵਾਜ਼ ਤੋਂ ਵੀ ਹੋ ਸਕਦੀ ਹੈ।

Case : Kedar Singh and others v/s State of Bihar 1999, Cri. L.J. 601 (SC)

Para  “3. ….. It has also to be observed that even on a full dark night there is never total darkness. There can be other means to identify another through the shape of his body, clothes, gait, manner of walking etc. etc. Identification possible by voice too.”

ਸ਼ਨਾਖਤ ਦੀ ਪਰੇਡ ਦੀ ਕਾਰਵਾਈ ਅਤੇ ਗਵਾਹੀ ਵਿਚ ਹੋਈ ਦੇਰ ਦਾ ਪ੍ਰਭਾਵ

 (ੳ)     ਲੰਬੇ ਸਮੇਂ ਬਾਅਦ ਵੀ ਗਵਾਹ ਦੇ ਦਿਮਾਗ ਉੱਪਰ ਘਟਨਾ ਦੇ ਪਏ ਚਿਰਜੀਵੀ (lasting) ਪ੍ਰਭਾਵਾਂ (impression) ਕਾਰਨ ਦੋਸ਼ੀ ਦੀ ਸ਼ਨਾਖਤ ਸੰਭਵ ਹੈ।

Case (i) : Suraj Pal v/s State of Haryana, 1995 (2) SCC 64 (SC – FB)

Para “16. ….. Gian Chand, PW 22, had seen the miscreants in electric light when three of them were assaulting his father. Therefore he himself was assaulted by other three miscreants.The number of injuries on his person go to show that he was thrashed and battered for quite some time and he had sufficient time and opportunity to look at the dacoits. It was, therefore, not difficult for him to identify the appellants with the lasting impression that was left on his mind.”

 Case (ii) : Daya Singh v/s State of Haryana 2001, Cri. L.J. 1268 (SC)

Para “14. ….. Power of perception and memorising differs from man to man and also depends upon situation. It also depends upon capacity to recapitulate what has been seen earlier. But that would depend upon the strength or trustworthiness of the witnesses who have identified the accused in the Court earlier. ….Therefore, delay in trial by the Designated Judge for one reason or the other and thereafter identification of the accused in the Court after seven or eight years would not affect the evidence of these two witnesses”.

(ਅ)     ਜੇ ਗਵਾਹ ਦੀ ਗਵਾਹੀ ਢੁੱਕਵੀਂ ਅਤੇ ਇੱਕਸਾਰ ਹੋਵੇ ਤਾਂ ਗਵਾਹ ਦੇ ਅਦਾਲਤ ਵਿੱਚ ਬਿਆਨ ਲਿਖਣ ਵਿੱਚ ਹੋਈ ਦੇਰ ਨਾਲ ਗਵਾਹ ਦੀ ਭਰੋਸੇਯੋਗਤਾ ਉੱਪਰ ਕੋਈ ਅਸਰ ਨਹੀਂ ਪੈਂਦਾ।

Case : Daya Singh v/s State of Haryana 2001, Cri. L.J. 1268

Para “14. ….. Further, there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of Dr. Harnam Singh and his wife Jaswant Kaur when they identified the accused out of 14 persons who were facing the trial. Their evidence is cogent and consistent with regard to the identification of appellant/accused.

….Therefore, delay in trial by the Designated Judge for one reason or the other and thereafter identification of the accused in the Court after seven or eight years would not affect the evidence of these two witnesses”.

ਵਸਤੂਆਂ ਦੀ ਸ਼ਨਾਖਤ ਪਰੇਡ

ਇਸੇ ਤਰ੍ਹਾਂ ਦੀ ਪ੍ਰਕ੍ਰਿਆ ਚੋਰੀ ਹੋਣ ਬਾਅਦ ਦੋਸ਼ੀ ਕੋਲੋਂ ਬਰਾਮਦ ਹੋਈਆਂ ਵਸਤੂਆਂ ਦੀ ਸ਼ਨਾਖਤ ਲਈ ਵੀ ਅਪਣਾਈ ਜਾਂਦੀ ਹੈ।

 ਵਸਤੂਆਂ ਦੀ ਸ਼ਨਾਖਤ ਕਦੋਂ ਜ਼ਰੂਰਤ ਨਹੀਂ ਹੁੰਦੀ

(ੳ)     ਜੇ ਵਸਤੂਆਂ ਹਰ ਰੋਜ਼ ਵਰਤੋਂ ਵਿੱਚ ਆਉਣ ਵਾਲੀਆਂ ਹੋਣ ਉਹਨਾਂ ਦੀ ਸ਼ਨਾਖਤ ਦੀ ਕਾਰਵਾਈ ਕਰਾਉਣ ਦੀ ਜ਼ਰੂਰਤ ਨਹੀਂ ਹੈ।

Case : Ravi Magor v/s State 1997 Cri. L.J. 2886 (Calcutta – HC)

Para  “26. ….. Again, in Earabhadrappa v. State of Karnataka, AIR 1983 SC 446 : (1983 Cri LJ 846), it was held that where the lady witness identified the stolen property, viz., ornaments and silk sarees without prior test identification, the testimony of such witness was not inadmissible in evidence, for want of prior test identification. It is a matter of common knowledge that ladies have an uncanny sense of identifying their own belongings, particularly articles of personal use in the family.

     From the above decision, it can be inferred that for special reasons, identification of articles in court without test identification does not render the identification inadmissible….”

ਵਸਤੂਆਂ ਦੀ ਸ਼ਨਾਖਤ ਦਾ ਢੰਗ

(ਅ)     ਵਸਤੂਆਂ ਨੂੰ ਛੋਹ ਕੇ ਜਾਂ ਮਹਿਸੂਸ ਕਰਕੇ ਵੀ ਪਹਿਚਾਣਿਆ ਜਾ ਸਕਦਾ ਹੈ। ਵਸਤੂਆਂ ਉੱਪਰ ਵਿਸ਼ੇਸ਼ ਸ਼ਨਾਖਤੀ ਨਿਸ਼ਾਨਾਂ ਦਾ ਹੋਣਾ ਜ਼ਰੂਰੀ ਨਹੀਂ ਹੈ।

Case : State of M.P. v/s Mukund, 1997 Cri.L.J.534 (M.P. – HC)

Para “52. ….. it has to be seen that the identification of articles by owners or the persons who have the opportunity to see them very often, cannot be discarded merely on the ground that no special identification marks were there on the said ornaments. It is so because such persons can identify the articles by feel, touch or various points of difference distinguishing one thing from the other of the same kind, though they may not be able to formulate the reasons, as such identification is based on the untranslatable impressions of their minds.”

ਕੁਝ ਹੋਰ ਕਾਨੂੰਨੀ ਨੁਕਤੇ

(ੳ)     ਜੇ ਕਿਸੇ ਗਵਾਹ ਵੱਲੋਂ ਅਦਾਲਤ ਵਿੱਚ ਕੀਤੀ ਗਈ ਦੋਸ਼ੀ ਦੀ ਸ਼ਨਾਖਤ ਢੁੱਕਵੀਂ ਅਤੇ ਭਰੋਸੇਯੋਗ ਹੋਵੇ ਤਾਂ ਇਸਦੀ ਪ੍ਰੋੜਤਾ ਲਈ ਤਫਤੀਸ਼ ਸਮੇਂ ਸ਼ਨਾਖਤ ਪਰੇਡ ਦਾ ਕਰਾਇਆ ਜਾਣਾ ਜ਼ਰੂਰੀ ਨਹੀਂ।

Case : Daya Singh v/s State of Haryana 2001, Cri. L.J. 1268 (SC)

Para “12. ….. If that evidence is found to be reliable then absence of corroboration by test identification would not be in any way material.”

 (ਅ)     ਜੇ ਤਫਤੀਸ਼ੀ ਅਫਸਰ ਜਾਂ ਉਹ ਅਧਿਕਾਰੀ ਜਿਸ ਵੱਲੋਂ ਸ਼ਨਾਖਤ ਪਰੇਡ ਦੀ ਕਾਰਵਾਈ ਅਮਲ ਵਿੱਚ ਲਿਆਂਦੀ ਗਈ ਹੋਵੇ, ਅਦਾਲਤ ਵਿੱਚ ਗਵਾਹੀ ਸਮੇਂ ਗਵਾਹ ਨੂੰ ਪਹਿਚਾਣ ਨਾ ਸਕਣ ਤਾਂ ਵੀ ਇਸਦਾ ਮੁਕੱਦਮੇ ਉੱਪਰ ਉਲਟ ਪ੍ਰਭਾਵ ਨਹੀਂ ਪੈਂਦਾ।

Case : Daya Singh v/s State of Haryana 2001, Cri. L.J. 1268

Para “14. ….. Learned Counsel for the appellant further submitted that Tehsildar PW-43 who had opportunity of recording the statement of the appellant and Resham Singh, DIG PW-45 who had recorded the confessional statement which runs into more than 10 pages have not identified the accused in the Court. In our view, Tehsildar and DIG were discharging their official functions and were not at all affected by the incident so as to memorise the identity of the accused. ….”

SHARE

NO COMMENTS

LEAVE A REPLY