| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1958 SLG 43 1958 SLD 43 = 1958 PLD 1 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Criminal Appeal No. 3.1 of 1957, decided on 30th October1957. (On appeal from the judgments dated the 26th February,1957 and the 7th March 1957 of the High Court of WestPakistan, Karachi Bench, Karachi, in Criminal Appeal No. 224of 1955).
MUHAMMAD MUNIR, C, J., M. SHAHABUDDIN, A. R. CORNELIUS AND AMIRUDDIN AHMAD, JJ
Hamid-ud-Din Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Amjad Hussain Attorney for Petitioners (in both the appeals). Mushtaq Hussain Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ijaz Ali Attorney (in Cr. Appeal 31 of 1957) for
Respondent. Not represented -
Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 3.1 of 1957, decided on 30th October1957. (On appeal from the judgments dated the 26th February,1957 and the 7th March 1957 of the High Court of WestPakistan, Karachi Bench, Karachi, in Criminal Appeal No. 224of 1955).
MUHAMMAD MUNIR, C, J., M. SHAHABUDDIN, A. R. CORNELIUS AND AMIRUDDIN AHMAD, JJ
Hamid-ud-Din Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Amjad Hussain Attorney for Petitioners (in both the appeals). Mushtaq Hussain Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ijaz Ali Attorney (in Cr. Appeal 31 of 1957) for
Respondent. Not represented -
Respondent
MUHAMMAD BASHIR ALAMvsTHE STATECriminal Appeal No. 3.1 of 1957, decided on 30th October 1957.MUHAMMAD ABBAS HYDERvsTHE STATE
Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
Section: 162
Law: Evidence Act, (1 of 1872)
Section: 9
(a) Identification parade held by police-Statement of identi�fying witness that he had identified accused at parade-Not hearsay-Statement admissible-Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 162-Act of identification not a "statement"-Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S. 9.When on being questioned a witness states that he had identified the prisoner as the offender at a police "show up", the statement is primary evidence of identity and not hearsay. Such .i statement is therefore admissible under section 9, Evidence Act.Queen v. Burke and Kelly (Vol. 2 1846/48) Cox's Criminal Case, 295 and King v. Christie 1914 A C 545 ref.Ibrahim Bhak's case P L D 1955 F C 113 ref.Such evidence is not excluded by section 162, Criminal Procedure Code. The act of identification is an act of the mind and not a statement of the kind contemplated by that section and the implied statement in the act of identification and the accompanying words "that is the man" being merely explanatory of the act. Thus, if the person robbed while giving evidence, after deposing in Court that it was the prisoner who rob�bed him, goes on to state that he recognized the prisoner at a police "line-up", it would be impossible to contend that he is deposing to any statement, and if such an implied statement by him is not hit by section 162, there is no reason why other witnesses who saw the act of identification should not be permitted to depose to the manner in which he expressed his identification of the prisoner. What section 162 excludes is a statement made to a police officer and for the purposes of that section an act is not a statement, even where it contains an implied statement and acquires its significance only by such statement.(b) Identification "line-up" held by police-Practically value�less if no Magistrate is called to supervise proceedings-Evidence Act (I of 1872), S. 9.Ordinarily not much weight can be attached to an identi�fication where the investigating officer gives no explanation of why a Magistrate was not called to supervise the parade, where a Magistrate is available and is not called, the result of the identification parade, unless the circumstances be quite excep�tional, would…