Evidence Law

Budhsen v. State of Uttar Pradesh

AIR 1970 SC 1321; (1970) 2 SCC 128

Citation: AIR 1970 SC 1321; (1970) 2 SCC 128
Court: Supreme Court of India
Date: 6 May 1970
Bench: I.D. Dua and A.N. Ray JJ.

Facts

Hazarilal was attacked and killed by a group of assailants.
The offenders were not previously known to some of the prosecution witnesses.
The witnesses claimed to have seen the assailants:
during the occurrence;
while they were fleeing; or
for only a brief period under stressful conditions.
The police arrested Budhsen and another accused.
Test identification parades were conducted.
The prosecution relied heavily upon the witnesses selecting the accused during those parades.
Serious doubts arose regarding the manner in which the parades were conducted:
the records were prepared casually;
several entries merely repeated “ditto”;
details of objections and precautions were not fully recorded;
there was a mistake regarding the date;
there was a possibility that one accused had been seen by witnesses outside the jail before the parade.
The witnesses had not given clear and detailed descriptions in the earliest reports.
Their opportunity to observe the assailants was limited.
The courts below nevertheless relied substantially upon the identification evidence to convict the accused.

Issue

Whether evidence of a test identification parade is substantive evidence.
What safeguards are necessary for a fair and reliable parade.
Whether the identification evidence in this case was safe enough to sustain conviction.

Rule

Identity-related facts are relevant under Section 9 of the Indian Evidence Act, corresponding to Section 7 BSA.
Identification of an accused in court is substantive evidence.
A test identification parade is not substantive evidence.
It serves to:
test the memory and observation of a witness;
assist investigation;
corroborate later identification in court.
Identification for the first time in court by a witness who previously saw a stranger only briefly is inherently weak.
A reliable parade should ordinarily ensure:
prompt conduct after arrest;
absence of prior exposure of the suspect;
sufficient similar-looking dummies;
separation of witnesses;
independent supervision;
careful recording of positions, objections, mistakes and precautions.
The court must examine both:
how the witness originally observed the offender; and
how the parade was conducted.

Application

The Court found that the courts below had assigned excessive importance to the parade results.
The identifying witnesses did not have a long or close interaction with the offenders.
Some had only seen persons running away after the incident.
Such a fleeting view made accurate later identification difficult.
The early reports did not contain sufficiently particular descriptions explaining:
the physical appearance of the accused;
distinguishing features;
the precise role played by each person.
The Court was especially concerned with the casual preparation of the identification memoranda.
A Magistrate supervising a parade performs an important evidentiary safeguard.
Repeated use of “ditto,” failure to record essential details and mistakes regarding dates suggested insufficient care.
There was also a reasonable possibility that Budhsen had been visible to witnesses before the parade.
Prior exposure would transform the exercise from independent identification into recognition of the person already shown by police.
The prosecution did not satisfactorily eliminate that possibility.
The Court explained that a parade result cannot be treated as independent proof of guilt.
It can only strengthen reliable substantive identification in court.
Where:
the original opportunity to observe was weak;
the parade procedure was doubtful;
prior exposure was possible; and
other corroboration was inadequate, the identification could not safely establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The High Court had therefore reversed the proper evidentiary order by treating the parade almost as the primary evidence.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court held that the identification evidence was unsafe and unreliable.
The test identification parade had not been conducted or documented with the degree of care required.
The witnesses’ limited opportunity to see the assailants and the possibility of prior exposure further weakened the evidence.
The Court set aside the convictions.
The judgment became a leading authority for the rule that a TIP is only corroborative and must be assessed through the fairness of its procedure and the witness’s original power of observation.