FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2462/2009 (Abdul Kayyum Vs. State) -------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Court’s or Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Judge’s or directions and Registrar’s orders Orders Mr. R.M.Deshmukh, Adv., for the applicant. Mr. P.M.Shinde, APP, for respondent State. ... CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE: 29/7/2009 P.C.:- 1. In a broad daylight decoity, on 8.6.2008, at 8.30 a.m., when the employee Jitu Sonar, with his employer Dinesh, were carrying gold and silver ornaments in four bags and plying motor cycle and when they reached near the shop at Sri Jewellers, stopped the motor cycle, the employee Jitu Sonar, carrying bag, after alighting, kept it at steps and when the complainant was in the process of parking the motor cycle, at such time a Santro Car, followed with a motor cycle of passion company, with total six persons, armed with deadly weapons, barged the employee and the complainant. A fire was effected in air to scare the public at large, not to intervene and, thereafter, the employee was fired which caused injury at his left side thigh. Employer Nilesh tried to intervene. However, he too was assaulted with knife by other two. The three bags with gold, silver ornaments were snatched and the suspects went away in the Santro Car. 2. The accused is subsequently arrested. The Police papers indicate that, based on statement under Section 27, made by the accused, gold and silver ornaments worth Rs.82,536/- are recovered under discovery statement. The ornaments are belonging to the complainant's shop, the identity thereof is also established. 3. The Counsel for the accused/applicant was harping on the non conducting of test identification parade in terms of Section 9 of the Evidence Act as, according to him, there were two eye witnesses Sangita Shah and Rachana Shah for their identification. At least, according to him, identification parade was mandatory. To stress his point, Counsel took me to the judgment of the Apex Court reported in AIR 1979 SUPREME COURT 1127 ( Kanan and others V. State of Kerala and also to the judgments of the Apex Court in (1999) 8 SCC 428 (Rajesh Govind Jagesha V. State of Maharashtra) and (2003) 5 SCC 746 ( Malkhansingh and others Vs. State of M.P.) and took reference to paragraph 4 thereof. The position of law now is: the identification of any suspect, during trial in Court is sufficient identification in terms of Section 9. This view is expressed by Three Lordships of Apex Court in the matter of (2003) 5 SCC 746 ( Malkhansingh and others Vs. State of M.P.) and Budhsen V. State of U.P. ( 1970 (2) SCC 128). Hon'ble Lordships of the Apex Court have held that the evidence, in order to carry conviction, should ordinarily qualify as to how and under what circumstances the complainant or the witnesses came to pick out the accused person and the details of the part which such person played in the crime in question with reasonable particularity. The test identification is considered as a safe rule of prudence for corroboration. Though the holding of the identification proceedings may not be substantive evidence, yet, such proceedings are used for corroboration of the sworn testimony of witnesses in Court so as to believe or not the involvement of the person brought before the Court for commission of the crime. 4. It is, thus, clear that holding of identification parade is a rule of prudence, required to be followed in the manner indicated. All these aspects cannot be gone into at the stage of bail, to decide merits thereof. The recovery from the accused being a unknown person, the factum of any falsity is also ruled out. Application rejected. The observations made are prima facie in nature. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE