Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

16. Further evidence of P. W. 10 is that the above seized articles were identified by P. W. 1, Murlidhar Jha and P. W. 6 Surnath Jha as Sitaram's property at a Test Identification parade held by P. W. 11. Evidence of P. W. 11 Upendra Sharma the then Anchal Adhikari, Deoghar, is similar. P. Ws. 1 and 6 also claims to have identified the said articles at such a Test Identification parade held on 29-8-1985 in the office premises of P. W. 11.

17. Evidence of P. W. 1, Murlidhar Jha further shows that above silver 'Belpatra' and two silver coins were donated to Sitaram by one of his 'Jajmans' (religious client) 10 to 12 years ago. His evidence also shows some of the seized ornaments were pledged with Sitaram who used to advance money on security of ornaments also. But deceased Kamakhya used to put on the above golden neckless and golden nosepin. In my view, even a leper woman can put on nosepin and also golden neckless at least on some special occasion. Evidence of P. W. 6 shows that even at the time of her murder, Kamakhya was wearing a golden nosepin.

18. Evidence of P. W. 11 further shows that when he arrived in his office for holding Test Identification parade, the Investigating Officer with the articles in question was present. But he removed the Investigating Officer when he held Test Identification parade. His evidence further shows that articles put on the Test Identification parade had some identification marks though articles of similar description which were mixed with the articles seized, had no identification mark. Naturally some marks must have been put on the seized articles before mixing the same with other articles of similar description to facilitate their separation from articles of similarly description mixed, after the Test Identification parade. There is no material on the record to show that such marks of identification were visible to the P. Ws. or were of such nature which rendered the seized articles easily identifiable at the time of Test Identification parade. On the other hand evidence of both P. Ws. 1 and 6 in their cross-examinations shows that no label or slip was affixed on the articles put on the identification parade. There were no (visible) special marks on such articles. The above evidence shows that P. W. 11 a responsible officer of the State Government and an independent witness, is speaking plain truth without trying to conceal any true fact. I find no good reason to reject his convincing testimony.

35. Sri Prasad has also challenged the Test Identification parade of the articles seized on the ground that (i) it was held in presence of the Investigating officer and (ii) the articles seized were marked. He has referred to the following cases.

36. In Nari Santa v. Emperor AIR 1945 Pat 161, the practice of having Test Identification at a police station where the police officers are in a position to advice the officer under whose guidence the Test Identification is to be held, was deprecated. But in the instant case, the Test Identification parade was held not at any police station but in the premises of the Anchal Office and evidence of P. W. 11 shows that it was held not in the presence of any police officer.

38. On the other had, Sri K. P. Gupta, learned Additional Public prosecutor, has argued that Test Identification parade of seized articles is not a requirement of law. He has relied upon the case of Eara-Bhabrappa v. State of Karnataka , where contention that on account of want of a prior Test Identification the testimony of witnesses examined as regards identity of seized articles to be the stolen property, cannot be relied upon, was rejected and it was held that there is no such legal requirement.