— Identification parade — Scope — The identification parade is one of the methods of proof contemplated under section 22 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 — It must be carefully conducted in order to achieve its main object i.e. to enable a witness to properly identify a person involved in a crime and to exclude the possibility of a witness simply confirming a faint recollection and impression — The process has to be carried out having regard to the exigencies of each case in a manner that is fair and does not indicate any collusiveness — It is merely a corroborative piece of evidence and holding of test identification parade is not mandatory — If the testimony of the witness qua the identity of the accused inspires confidence and the witnesses are consistent in all material particulars and there is nothing in the evidence to suggest that the latter had deposed falsely then in such an eventuality not conducting a test identification parade is not fatal to the prosecution’s case — The omission of salient features in a crime report is not necessarily a ground to discard a test identification parade — The test identification parade is, therefore, not required when the victim had identified the accused and his statement has been found reliable. [2025 SCLR 7 = 2025 SCMR 50 = 2024 SCP 369]

— Identification parade — Scope — Supreme Court highlighted the necessary guidelines set out in the form of executive instructions and judicial pronouncements and they are as follows;

• Memories fade and visions get blurred with passage of time. Thus, an identification test, where an unexplained and unreasonably long period has intervened between the occurrence and the identification proceedings, should be viewed with suspicion. Therefore, an identification parade, to inspire confidence, must be held at the earliest possible opportunity after the occurrence;

• a test identification, where the possibility of the witness having seen the accused persons after their arrest cannot be ruled out, is worth nothing at all. It is, therefore, imperative to eliminate all such possibilities. It should be ensured that, after their arrest, the suspects are put to identification tests as early as possible. Such suspects should preferably, not be remanded to police custody in the first instance and should be kept in judicial custody till the identification proceedings are held. This is to avoid the possibility of overzealous I.Os. showing the suspects to the witnesses while they are in police custody. Even when these accused persons are, of necessity, to be taken to Courts for remand etc. they must be warned to cover their faces if they so choose so that no witness could see them;

• identification parades should never be held at police stations;

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

• in order to guard against the possibility of a witness identifying an accused person by chance, the number of persons (dummies) to be intermingled with the accused persons should be as much as possible. But then there is also the need to ensure that the number of such persons is not increased to an extent which could have the effect of confusing the identifying witness. The superior Courts have, through their wisdom and long experience, prescribed that ordinarily the ratio between the accused persons and the 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;

• if there are more accused persons than one who have to be subjected to test identification, then the rule of prudence laid down by the superior Courts is that separate identification parades should ordinarily be held in respect of each accused person;

• it must be ensured that before a witness has participated in the identification proceedings, he is stationed at a place from where he cannot observe the 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. It also has to be ensured that no one who is witnessing the proceedings, such as the members of the jail staff etc., is able to communicate with the identifying witnesses;

• the Magistrate conducting the proceedings must take an intelligent interest in the proceedings and not be just a silent spectator of the same bearing in mind at all times that the life and liberty of some one depends only upon his vigilance and caution;

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

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

• where a witness correctly identifies an accused person, the Magistrate must ask the witness about the connection in which the witness has identified that person i.e. as a friend, as a foe or as a culprit of an offence etc. and then incorporate this statement in his report;

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

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

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

The above measures are not exhaustive and, though these requirements are undoubtedly mandatory, at same time they are only illustrative of the precautions which a court of law must demand before the evidence offered through the test identification proceedings can be relied upon. [2025 SCLR 7 = 2025 SCMR 50 = 2024 SCP 369]

— Identification parade — Scope — Supreme Court highlighted the importance of assessing the ability and capacity of the eye witnesses, separately, to identify the accused in the circumstances of each case — It observed that this assessment also forms part of the identification evidence along with the test identification parade — It stressed that for the safe administration of justice, after the test identification parade the court must verify the credibility of the eye witness by assessing the evidence on the basis of the factors or ‘estimator variables’ eloquently described and highlighted by Supreme Court in Mian Sohail Ahmed v. The State (2019 SCMR 956) — Supreme Court (in the referred case) had drawn a distinction between the ‘system variables’ and ‘estimator variables’ — The former includes the test identification parade while the latter refers to factors attributed to the witness e.g. the distance from which the crime was witnessed, the level of stress likely to have suffered, the nature of weapon used, duration of the incident and characteristics of the witness etc — The process of identification of an accused has been held to involve two steps i.e the test identification parade and assessing the creditability of the eyewitness on the basis of the ‘estimator variables’. [2025 SCLR 7 = 2025 SCMR 50 = 2024 SCP 369] 

— Non-production of magistrate as a witness — Effect — Where the magistrate who carried out the identification parade did not give evidence and as such the accused was denied his right to cross-examine him and thus it was not proved that all the legally required procedural safeguards/protections which the accused was entitled to before the identification parade were in place — Such identification parade was of no evidentiary value. [2024 CCJ 28 = 2024 PCrLJ 284]

— Identification parade — Scope — Where no identification parade was conducted for determining the involvement of the accused persons in such circumstances Supreme Court observed that evidentiary value of identification at a belated stage has little value in the eyes of the law, more particularly when the lineaments and physiognomy of the accused are not mentioned anywhere by the complainant or the eye-witnesses. [2024 SCLR 9 = 2023 SCP 373 = 2024 SCMR 51]