Sonu Kumar vs State Of H.P on 22 October, 2008
29. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the accused was not known to the witnesses and, therefore, it was incumbent upon the prosecution to have carried out the test identification parade and in the absence of the same the mere identification of the accused appellant Mohsin in court cannot be held to be sufficient. He has further submitted that this assumes importance more so when the name of the accused is said to have been disclosed as Mohsin whereas in fact even as per the prosecution evidence the name of the accused appellant is Munna @ Mushtar @ Mushtaq and, therefore, mere disclosure of the name Mohsin by the prosecution witnesses is fatal to the prosecution. Learned counsel relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sonu Kumar Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh reported in 2009(1) Rajasthan Judicial Times 620. In the aforesaid judgment in para 6, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the aforesaid question has held as follows:-