Facts necessary to explain or introduce relevant facts:

Facts necessary to explain or introduce a fact in issue or relevant fact, or which support or rebut an inference suggested by a fact in issue or relevant fact, or which establish the identity of anything or person whose identity is relevant, or fix the time or place at which any fact in issue, or  relevant fact happened, or Which show the relation of parties by whom any such fact was transacted, are relevant in so far as they are necessary for that purpose.  
Illustrations:

(a) The question is, whether a given document is the will of A.  
The state of A's property and of his family at the date of the alleged with may be relevant facts.  
(b) A sues B for a libel imputing disgraceful conduct to A, B affirms that the matter alleged to be libellous is true.  
The position and relations of the parties at the time when the libel was published may be relevant facts as introductory to the facts in issue.  
The particulars of a dispute between A and B about a matter unconnected with the alleged libel are irrelevant, though the fact that there was a dispute may be relevant if it affected the relations between A and B.  
(c) A is accused of a crime.  
The fact that soon after the commission of the crime, A absconded from his house. Is relevant under Article 21, as conduct subsequent to and affected by facts in issue.  
The fact that at the time when he left home he had sudden and urgent business at the place to which he went is relevant, as tending to explain the fact that he left home suddenly.  
The details of the business on which he left are not relevant, except in so far as they are necessary to show that the business was sudden and urgent.  
(d) A sues B for inducing C to break a contract of service made by him with A. C, on leaving A's service, says to A "I am leaving you because B has made me a better offer.". This statement is e relevant fact as explanatory of C's conduct, which is relevant as a fact in issue.  
(e) A, accused of theft, is seen to give the stolen property to A, who is seen to give it to A's wife. B says, as he delivers it": "A says you are to hide this." B's statement Is relevant as explanatory of a fact which is part of the transaction.  
(f) A is tried for a riot and is proved to have marched at the head of a mob. The cries of the mob are relevant as explanatory of the nature of the transaction.

Identification Parade

1. Introduction

Objects of identification parade are to enable witness to identify these persons or things, which are involved in commission of offence and which are not previously authority on involvement of such person or things in commission of offence. Identification Parade is related to those facts which are declared as relevant facts about place, name, person or date. The conduct of an identification parade is part of the investigation and is held not as a rule of law but as a rule of prudence to eliminate possibility of any mistake.

2. Relevant Provision

Article 22 of Qanun-e-Shahadat order 1984

3. Meaning

Identification Parade is identification of stranger offender, who is not previously known to the witness.

4. Importance of Identification Parade

Identification parade is a procedure to identify the accused by the witnesses under the custody of magistrate. It is admissible evidence in the court.

5. When identification parade should be conducted

Identification parade should be conducted at the earliest possible time because the witness to indentify the accused easily, as by the lapse of time of memory may fade. Identification parade held after 12 to 15 days loses its evidentiary value.

6. Who conducts identification Parade?

Identification Parade is conducted only by a magistrate having jurisdiction to do so.

7. Modes of conducting identification Parade

Identification Parade is conducted or carried out by modern devices of tape recorders, cameras, videos, audios and maps or sometime the help animals like dog etc is taken.

8. Scope of Identification Parade

Identification parade is relevant both are civil as well as criminal cases.

9. Rules relating to identification Parade

Follow are the rules

(i) Time

Identification parade should be conducted at the earliest possible time.

(ii) Supervision

It is always supervised by a magistrate having jurisdiction to do so.

(iii) Place

It is conducted, generally, in jail or some other secured place.

(iv) Investigating officer

After beginning of identification parade, investigating officer or any police officer, who helps investigating office, should not have any access to identifying witnesses.

(v) Complainant a witness

If the complainant is himself a witness, only then he can participate in the Parade.

(vi) Separation of witnesses from each other

For holding of identification parade, it is necessary that witnesses should be kept separated from each other so that cannot share any information about accused.

(vii) Separation of witness from accused

It is most important for holding of identification parade that witness should be kept separated from accused at some distance from place of deification parade that they cannot see accused or other concerned person until they are called for identification parade.

(viii) Bringing of witnesses for identification

It is necessary that witnesses should be brought separately for identification parade.

(ix) Dummies

For one accused there should be a serial of 1-9 Dummies.

10. Evidentiary value of Identification Parade

Following two views to explanation

(i) Corroborative value

When witness deposes during identification parade that he has seen some of persons, who are present in identification parade, on time, date and place of incident, it is considered that such deposition has corroborative value.

(ii) Admissible Evidence

Another view is that identification parade can be substantive piece of evidence especially when proper procedure is adopted for holding of identification and all legal requirements are fulfilled.

=================================================================================

PLJ 2019 SC (Cr.C.) 153

[Original Jurisdiction]

Present: Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, CJ and Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, J.

NOTICE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE ORDER DATED 12.02.2019 PASSED IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 259 OF 2018 TO MR. KANWAR ANWAAR ALI, SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE ON ACCOUNT OF DERELICTION OF DUTY AND LACK OF SUFFICIENT LEGAL KNOWLEDGE

Crl. Misc. Appln. No. 183 of 2019 in Crl. A. No. 259 of 2018,

decided on 22.2.2019.

Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 (10 of 1984)--

----Art. 22--Pakistan Penal Code, (XLV of 1860), S. 302--Identification Parade--Necessary guidelines in form of executive instructions and judicial pronouncements--While disposing of criminal appeal (Asfand Yar Khan v. The State, etc.) Supreme Court had passed the judgment--The conviction and sentence of appellant are set aside and he is acquitted of charge by extending benefit of doubt--Before parting with judgment, it was observed that competence and capability of Special Judicial Magistrate appearing before trial Court as PW have been found by Court to be quite doubtful and deficient inasmuch as while conducting a test identification parade in connection with this criminal case in Jail, he had paid no heed or regard whatsoever to law declared by Supreme Court--Court wholeheartedly approve said requirements and safeguards which are to be meticulously followed and observed in all test identification parades held in connection with criminal cases--Best practices mentioned therein have been consolidated in order so that any confusion regarding legal position in respect of a test identification parade may be removed and all concerned may stand instructed and guided in that regard in future--A serious exception may henceforth be taken to any non-compliance or disregard of requirements and safeguards mentioned.

[Pp. 160, 161, 165, 166, 167, 168 & 169] A, B, C, D, E, F, G & H

Guidelines in Conducting Identification Parade--

----The necessary guidelines are available in form of executive instructions and judicial pronouncements:-

(a) An identification parade, to inspire confidence, must be held at earliest possible opportunity after occurrence;

(b) A test identification, where possibility of witness having seen accused persons after their arrest cannot be ruled out, is worth nothing at all--It is, therefore, imperative to eliminate all such possibilities.

(c) identification parades should never be held at police stations;

(d) the Magistrate, supervising identification proceedings, must verify period, if any, for which accused persons have remained in police custody after their arrest and before test identification and must incorporate this fact in his report about proceedings;

(e) Ordinarily ratio between accused persons and dummies should be 1 to 9 or 10--This ratio must be followed unless there are some special justifiable circumstances warranting a deviation from it;

(f) If there are more accused persons than one, separate identification parades should ordinarily be held in respect of each accused person;

(g) A witness has participated in identification proceedings, he is stationed at a place from where he cannot observe proceedings and that after his participation he is lodged at a place from where it is not possible for him to communicate with those who have yet to take their turn;

(h) The Magistrate conducting proceedings must take an intelligent interest in proceedings;

(i) The Magistrate is obliged to prepare a list of all persons (dummies) who form part of line-up at parade alongwith their parentage, occupation and addresses;

(j) The Magistrate must faithfully record all objections and statements, if any, made either by accused persons or by identifying witnesses before, during or after proceedings;

(k) Where a witness correctly identifies an accused person, Magistrate must ask witness about connection in which witness has identified that person;

(l) and where a witness identifies a person wrongly, Magistrate must so record in his report and should also state number of persons wrongly picked by witness;

(m) the Magistrate is required to record in his report all precautions taken by him for a fair conduct of proceedings and

the Magistrate has to give a certificate at end of his report in form prescribed by C.H.II.C. of Vol. III of Lahore High Court Rules and Orders.

All these requirements are no doubt mandatory but at same time they are only illustrative of precautions which Courts of law demand before some respect can be shown to evidence offered through test identification proceedings. [P. 169] B

Rules and Orders of Lahore High Court, Chapter 11-C of Vol. III; (ii) Punjab Government Circular Letter No. 6091-J-36/39829 (H-Judl.) dated 19-12-1936; (iii) Punjab Government Circular Letter No. 6546-J-43/83844 (H-Judl.), dated 17-12-1943; (iv) Punjab Government Circular Letter No. Judl.I-(13)/61, dated 26-7-1961, (v) Monir’s Evidence Act (Pak. Edition) Vol. I, (vi) Lal Pasand v. The State PLD 1981 SC 142, (vii) Muhammad Afzal v. The State 1982 SCMR 129, (viii) Ismail v. The State 1974 SCMR 175, (ix) Khadim Hussain v. The State 1985 SCMR 721, (x) Muhammad Bashir Aslam v. The State PLD 1958 SC (Pak.), (xi) Gul Baig v. The State PLD 1964 Kar. 275, (xii) Musharrif Hussain v. The State PLD 1970 Dacca 686, (xiii) Sadu v. The State 1972 PCr.LJ 10, (xiv) Qabil Shah v. The State PLD 1960 Kar. 697, (xv) Wahid Bakhsh v. The State 1969 PCr.LJ 137, (xvi) Karim v. The State PLD 1961 Kar. 728, (xvii) Kameshwar Singh v. The State AIR 1972 SC 102 (xviii) Parbhu v. Emp. AIR 1943 Lah. 946, (xix) Emp. v. Debi Charan AIR 1942 All. 339, (xx) Sataya Naryan v. The State AIR 1953 All. 385, (xxi) Gajadher v. Emp. AIR 1932 Oudh. 99 and (xxii) Ramzan v. Emp. AIR 1929 Sindh 149.” Muhammad Yaqoob and another vs The State 1989 PCrLJ 2227 ref.

Identification Parade--

----During a test identification parade requirement regarding specifying by a witness role of an individual accused person in commission of an offence had also been identified and emphasize.

[P. 168] D

Ismail and another v. The State (1974 SCMR 175), Khadim Hussain v. The State (1985 SCMR 721), Ghulam Rasul and 3 others v. The State (1988 SCMR 557), Asghar Ali alias Sabah and others v. The State and others (1992 SCMR 2088), State/Government of Sindh through Advocate-General, Sindh, Karachi v. Sobharo (1993 SCMR 585), Mehmood Ahmad and 3 others v. The State and another (1995 SCMR 127), Siraj-ul-Haq and another v. The State (2008 SCMR 302), Ghulam Qadir and 2 others v. The State (2008 SCMR 1221), Muhammad Afzal alias Abdullah and another v. State and others (PLJ 2009 SC 333), Shafqat Mehmood and others v. The State (2011 SCMR 537), Sabir Ali alias Fauji v. The State (2011 SCMR 563), Muhammad Fayyaz v. The State (2012 SCMR 522), Azhar Mehmood and others v. The State (2017 SCMR 135), Hakeem and others v. The State (2017 SCMR 1546) and Kamal Din alias Kamala v. The State (2018 SCMR 577) ref.

Identification Parade--

----Identification of many accused persons in one line in one go during a test identification parade has also repeatedly been held by this Court to be improper and it has been clarified by this Court on a number of occasions that every accused person is to be put to a separate test identification parade. [P. 168] E

Lal Pasand v. The State (PLD 1981 SC 142), Imran Ashraf and 7 others v. The State (2001 SCMR 424), Ziaullah alias Jajj v. The State (2008 SCMR 1210), Bacha Zeb v. The State (2010 SCMR 1189), Shafqat Mehmood and others v. The State (2011 SCMR 537), Gulfam and another v. The State (2017 SCMR 1189), Hakeem and others v. The State (2017 SCMR 1546) and Kamal Din alias Kamala v. The State (2018 SCMR 577) ref.

Identification Parade--

----Identification of an accused person by eye-witnesses before trial Court during a trial is generally considered to be quite unsafe because before such identification before trial Court during trial eye-witnesses get may opportunities to see accused persons appearing before Court in connection with their remand, distribution of copies of statement of prosecution witnesses recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C., framing of charge and recording of statements of other prosecution witnesses. [P. 169] F

Asghar Ali alias Sabah and others v. The State and others (1992 SCMR 2088), Muhammad Afzal alias Abdullah and another v. The State and others (PLJ 2009 SC 333), Nazir Ahmad v. Muhammad Iqbal (2011 SCMR 527), Shafqat Mehmood and others v. The State (2011 SCMR 537), Ghulam Shabbir Ahmed and another v. The State (2011 SCMR 683) and Azhar Mehmood and others v. The State (2017 SCMR 135) ref.

Identification Parade--

----A test identification parade and correct pointing out of an accused person by an eye-witness therein is not a substantive piece of evidence and failure to hold a test identification parade is not always fatal to the prosecution’s case. [P. 169] G

Muhammad Akram Rahi and others v. The State and others (2011 SCMR 877) and Ghazanfar Ali alias Pappu and another v. The State (2012 SCMR 215) ref.

In attendance:

Mr. Kanwar Anwaar Ali, Special Judicial Magistrate, in person.

Mr. Ahmed Raza Gillani, Additional Prosecutor-General, Punjab.

Date of hearing: 22.02.2019.

================================================================================

 

 

2 0 1 1  S C M R  5 6 3

[Supreme Court of Pakistan]

Present: Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday, Nasir-ul-Mulk and Ch. Ijaz Ahmed, JJ

SABIR ALI alias FAUJI---Appellant

Versus

THE STATE---Respondent

Criminal Appeal No. 299 of 2007, decided on 8th October, 2009.

(On appeal from the judgment dated 2-3-2006 passed by Lahore High Court, Lahore, in Criminal

Appeal No. 48-J of 2001, Murder Reference No. 161 of 2001).

(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---

----S. 302(b)---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(3)---Leave to appeal was granted to accused by

Supreme Court to reappraise the entire evidence for safe administration of justice.

(b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---

----S. 302(b)---Appraisal of evidence---Complainant had neither named the accused nor given

his descriptive features in the F.I.R.---Evidence of identification parade was of no value due to

the inherent defect that the witnesses had not described the role of accused in the occurrence

while identifying him---Witnesses according to F.I.R. did not know the accused prior to the

occurrence and the identification parade was not held according to law, therefore identification

of accused in court by the witnesses was also of no value---Witnesses of identification had

various opportunities to see the accused prior to the holding of identification parade? which even

otherwise having been held six months after the occurrence and nine days after the arrest of

accused, had created many doubts about his identity---Confessional statement allegedly made by

accused before the Investigating Officer was not believable in the absence of any corroborating

evidence and no inference in this regard could be drawn against the accused when this

circumstance was not put to him in his statement recorded under S.342, Cr.P.C.---Recovery of

rifle from the accused in violation of S.103, Cr.P.C. was, doubtful---Witnesses had made

improvements in their statements before the Trial Court---Ocular testimony was inconsistent and

the same did not inspire confidence---Accused was acquitted in circumstances.

Muhammad Hussain's case 1993 SCMR 1614; Munir Ahmed's case 1998 SCMR 752; Pasand's

case PLD 1981 SC 142; Farman Hussain's case PLD 1995 SC 1; Ismail's case 1974 SCMR 175;

Farman Ali's case 1997 SCMR 971; Ghulam Rasul's case 1988 SCMR 557; Mahmood Ahtned's

case 1995 SCMR 127; Khadim Hussain's case 1985 SCMR 721; Sohn's case PLD 1974 Cr.

Cases 208; Maula Dad's case AIR 1925 Lah. 426; Sultan's case PLD 1976 B.J. 10 and G.M.

Sikdar's case PLD 1970 SC 158 ref.

(c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---

----S. 302(b)-Identification parade---Evidentiary value---Failure on the part of witnesses to

describe the role of accused at the time of identification parade is an inherent defect, which

renders the identification parade valueless and unreliable.

Ghulam Rasul's case 1988 SCMR 551; Mahmood Ahmed's case 1995 SCMR 127 and Khadim

Hussain's case 1985 SCMR 721 ref.

(d) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---

----S. 302(b)---Identification parade---Identification test is of no value if description of accused

is not given in the F.I. R.

Arshad Ali Chaudhry, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant.

Syed Ali Imam, Deputy Prosecutor-General, Punjab for the State.

Date of hearing: 8th October, 2009.