IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Original Jurisdiction) 
 
 
 
PRESENT: 
Mr. Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, CJ 
Mr. Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah 
 
 
Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 183 of 2019 in 
Criminal Appeal No. 259 of 2018 
 
 
Notice in compliance with the order dated 12.02.2019 passed 
in Criminal Appeal No. 259 of 2018 to Mr. Kanwar Anwaar 
Ali, Special Judicial Magistrate on account of dereliction of 
duty and lack of sufficient legal knowledge 
 
 
 
In attendance: 
Mr. Kanwar Anwaar Ali, Special 
Judicial Magistrate, in person. 
 
Mr. Ahmed Raza Gillani, Additional 
Prosecutor-General, Punjab  
 
Date of hearing: 
 
 
22.02.2019 
 
ORDER 
 
Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, CJ.: While disposing of Criminal 
Appeal No. 259 of 2018 (Asfand Yar Khan v The State, etc.) this 
Court had passed the following judgment on 12.02.2019: 
 
“Asfand Yar Khan appellant and some others had allegedly 
abducted one Adil Butt on 01.09.2009 for the purpose of 
extracting ransom and had later on done him to death and for 
commission of the said offences they were booked in case FIR No. 
370 registered at Police Station Model Town, Lahore on 
02.09.2009 for an offence under section 365-A, PPC. After a 
regular trial the appellant’s co-accused were acquitted of the 
charge by the trial court whereas the appellant was convicted and 
sentenced for offences under section 302(b), PPC read with 
section 34, PPC, section 347, PPC read with section 34, PPC and 
section 7(a) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The appellant was, 
however, acquitted of the charge as far as the offences under 
sections 365-A and 201, PPC were concerned. For the offences of 
murder and terrorism the appellant was sentenced by the trial 
court to death on each such count. The appellant challenged his 
convictions and sentences before the High Court through an 
appeal which was partly allowed, the convictions and sentences of 
the appellant for the offences under section 347, PPC and section 
7(a) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 were set aside, his conviction 
for the offence under section 302(b), PPC was upheld and his 
Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 183 of 2019  
in Criminal Appeal No. 259 of 2018 
 
 
2
sentence of death for the offence of murder was reduced by the 
High Court to imprisonment for life. Hence, the present appeal by 
leave of this Court granted on 12.04.2018.  
 
2. 
Leave to appeal had been granted in this case in order to 
reappraise the evidence and with the assistance of the learned 
counsel for the parties we have undertaken that exercise.  
 
3. 
The case in hand is a case of an alleged abduction for 
ransom and murder and admittedly the case hinges upon some 
pieces of circumstantial evidence. It is not denied that nobody 
had seen the appellant forcibly or deceitfully abducting Adil Butt 
deceased, no demand of ransom was attributed to the appellant 
or any connection of the appellant with such demand was 
established, no ransom was paid to the appellant or to anybody 
else for release of Adil Butt and the murder of Adil Butt had not 
been seen by anybody. The prosecution had produced Tabassum 
Saeed (PW6) and Mian Muhammad Yasin (PW7) so as to establish 
that they had seen the appellant and his co-accused in the 
company of Adil Butt deceased late in the evening on 01.09.2009 
but we have found that the said piece of evidence produced by the 
above mentioned witnesses suffered from lack of proximity 
between death and last-seen. The said witnesses had claimed to 
have seen the deceased in the company of the appellant and his 
co-accused on 01.09.2009 but the medical evidence brought on 
the record showed that Adil Butt had died some time between 
02.09.2009 and 05.09.2009 and, thus, the all-important 
consideration of proximity was not available in this case so as to 
make the last-seen evidence worth any serious consideration. 
Apart from that the above mentioned witnesses were chance 
witnesses and the stated reason for their availability at the 
relevant spot at the relevant time had not been established 
through 
any 
independent 
evidence. 
The 
next 
piece 
of 
circumstantial evidence relied upon by the prosecution was the 
statement of Sanaullah (PW15) who had allegedly seen the 
appellant and another throwing a sack in a canal on 07.09.2009 
but the medical evidence did not support that stance of PW15 
inasmuch as according to the medical evidence Adil Butt 
deceased lost his life latest by 05.09.2009 and, thus, throwing 
away of a sack by an appellant and another in a canal on 
07.09.2009 could not positively establish that it were the 
appellant and another who had done the deceased to death 
themselves and all that it could show was that some effort was 
made by the appellant and another to make the deadbody 
disappear. Such action attributed to the appellant and another 
attracted an offence under section 201, PPC but admittedly the 
appellant had been acquitted of the said charge framed against 
him. The prosecution had claimed that the deadbody of the 
deceased had been recovered from a canal and admittedly such 
recovery of the deadbody had not been brought about at the 
instance of the appellant. It was maintained by the prosecution 
that two days prior to recovery of the deadbody the appellant had 
pointed out the place where he had thrown the deadbody in a 
canal. Such pointing out of the place of throwing of the deadbody 
attributed to the appellant could not qualify as evidence or 
confession because during such pointing out no recovery of any 
incriminating article had taken place. The last-seen evidence 
provided by Tabassum Saeed (PW6) and Mian Muhammad Yasin 
(PW7) and the Waj-takkar evidence provided by Sana Ullah 
(PW15) showed that at the relevant time the said witnesses had 
not identified the persons who were seen last in the company of 
the deceased and even the persons throwing a sack in a canal 
had not been identified by the Waj-takkar witness. These pieces of 
evidence could have some relevance to this case against the 
Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 183 of 2019  
in Criminal Appeal No. 259 of 2018 
 
 
3
appellant if the appellant had been lawfully or properly identified 
during a test identification parade. In the case in hand the test 
identification parade conducted for identification of the appellant 
and his co-accused by the relevant prosecution witnesses suffered 
from a serious legal defect inasmuch as in one and the same 
parade three accused persons including the appellant had 
statedly been identified by three separate prosecution witnesses. 
Such identification of three accused persons in one go amounted 
to a joint identification and an identification parade which is joint 
has consistently been disapproved by this Court through many a 
judgment and a reference in this respect may be made to the 
cases of Kamal Din alias Kamala v The State (2018 SCMR 577), 
Gulfam and another v. The State (2017 SCMR 1189), Hakeem and 
others v The State (2017 SCMR 1546), Shafqat Mehmood and 
others v The State (2011 SCMR 537), Bacha Zeb v The State (2010 
SCMR 1189), Ziaullah alias Jajj v The State (2008 SCMR 1210), 
Imran Ashraf and 7 others v The State (2001 SCMR 424) and Lal 
Pasand v The State (PLD 1981 SC 142). It is unfortunate that the 
Magistrate conducting the test identification parade in this case 
was completely oblivious of such judgments holding the field. The 
only piece of evidence remaining in the field was in the shape of 
some recoveries affected in this case which included a Danda¸ a 
rope, a wallet, a copy of the Computerized National Identity Card, 
some cheques, visiting card, receipts and a copy of the 
Matriculation Result Card of the deceased which had statedly 
been recovered from the house of the appellant during the 
investigation. Some reservations have already been expressed by 
the High Court in the impugned judgment passed by it regarding 
veracity of the alleged recoveries and upon our own independent 
evaluation we have found such recoveries to be nothing but 
fabricated. It was unthinkable that the culprits who had taken 
every precaution to conceal their crimes would keep such articles 
at their home so as to furnish evidence of their crimes later on.  
 
4. 
For what has been discussed above a conclusion is 
inescapable and irresistible that the prosecution had failed to 
prove its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. 
This appeal is, therefore, allowed, the conviction and sentence of 
the appellant are set aside and he is acquitted of the charge by 
extending the benefit of doubt to him. He shall be released from 
the jail forthwith if not required to be detained in connection with 
any other case. 
 
5. 
Before parting with this judgment we may observe that 
competence and capability of Mr. Kanwar Anwaar Ali, Special 
Judicial Magistrate appearing before the trial court as PW8 have 
been found by us to be quite doubtful and deficient inasmuch as 
while conducting a test identification parade on 19.09.2009 in 
connection with this criminal case in Central Jail, Kot Lakhpat, 
Lahore he had paid no heed or regard whatsoever to the law 
declared by this Court in the precedent cases holding the field 
wherein it had clearly been laid down that a test identification 
parade qua many accused persons cannot be conducted in one 
go. Through his disregard of the law declared by this Court he 
had made a very important piece of evidence reduced in worth or 
eliminated as an admissible piece of evidence and the prosecution 
had to suffer on that score irretrievably. Let Mr. Kanwar Anwaar 
Ali appear before this Court on 22.02.2019 in person so as to 
show as to why appropriate proceedings may not be initiated 
against him on account of dereliction of duty and lack of 
sufficient legal knowledge and also to show as to why some 
adverse recommendations may not be made to the concerned 
authorities regarding his suitability to hold a judicial or executive 
office. The Registrar of the Lahore High Court, Lahore is directed 
Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 183 of 2019  
in Criminal Appeal No. 259 of 2018 
 
 
4
to trace the said Mr. Kanwar Anwaar Ali and to make sure that he 
appears before the Court in person on the appointed date. ” 
 
2. 
In compliance with the direction issued by this Court on 
12.02.2019 Mr. Kanwar Anwaar Ali, the then Special Judicial 
Magistrate appearing before the trial court as PW8 has appeared 
before this Court in person along with his written statement which 
reads as follows: 
 
“I most humbly submit that I was inducted as a Provincial 
Management Service (PMS) Officer (BS-17) on 15.05.2006 and my 
academic qualification at the time of induction was simple 
graduation 
(B.A). 
I 
received 
training 
at 
Management 
& 
Professional Development Department (MPDD), Government of 
the Punjab in a 32 weeks course on Administration & 
Development from 15.05.2006 to 23.12.2006. Except for few 
orientation lectures on CPC, PPC, Cr.PC and Constitutional Law, 
no extensive  legal education or training was being imparted by 
the MPDD after abolition of Executive Magistracy and main focus 
was  and still is on planning & Development, Public 
Administration, Public Policy, Management and Revenue.  
 
2. 
It is further submitted that after 03-years of government 
service while I was working as Tehsil Municipal Officer, Okara, I 
was transferred by S&GAD on 18.08.2009, after concurrence of 
Hon’ble Lahore High Court, Lahore and posted as Special Judicial 
Magistrate, at Model Town Courts, Lahore against one of the 
vacant posts where erstwhile Executive Magistrates of PCS cadre 
would serve and decide petty offences pertaining to local & special 
laws. I was not a law graduate yet I served there as Special 
Judicial Magistrate in District Judiciary w.e.f. 01.09.2009 to 
11.10.2012. in absence of any institutional setup  and formal 
legal training arrangement or practical demonstrations pertaining 
to assignments like test identification parades, raids, inquests 
and exhumations, the only opportunity available to me was day to 
day on-job  learning or study of case laws of Superior Courts and 
commentaries. For a non-law-graduate like me, there was no 
institutional arrangement for capacity building and throughout I 
had to be self taught. 
  
3. 
I beg to state that it was the 10th day of my duty as Special 
Judicial 
Magistrate 
when 
I 
conducted 
my 
maiden 
test 
identification parade in the subject case. I had given bare reading 
of instructions on the subject contained in volume-III of High 
Court Rules & Orders and Police Rules 1934. During the conduct 
of my ever first identification Parade, I used commonsensical 
learning that I had gathered from reading of bare instructions, 
pattern and guidance of my colleagues in judiciary. In my humble 
understanding, a joint identification parade meant a parade in 
which more than one accused had been made to stand in a single 
row with many other dummies for identification by a witness, 
therefore I took care not to mix more than one accused person 
with 09 almost identical dummies in a separate row. Each row 
was separately presented before a witness for identification. The 
witness was told that he would be presented three rows; one after 
the other and in each row of 10 inmates, one person could be a 
suspect. A row would appear on site, the witness could identify or 
otherwise, the identified person would be separated and then the 
Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 183 of 2019  
in Criminal Appeal No. 259 of 2018 
 
 
5
left over row of the dummies would depart. The second important 
learning was identification of accused with description of role in 
front of the identified suspects.  
 
4. 
It is my most humble submission that I have conducted 
said identification proceedings in good faith as a judicial officer to 
the best of my ability and knowledge without any malafide 
intention. It is my humble understanding that the crux of the 
statements made by witnesses while describing respective roles of 
accused person in the occurrence could hardly substantiate the 
offence under sections 365-A or 302, PPC. It was responsibility of 
the prosecution to collect corroborating circumstantial evidence 
for proving charges against the accused person. I most humbly 
submit that my role as a judicial officer was restricted only to the 
extent of recording witnesses and their description of respective 
roles of the accused persons in the occurrence.  
 
Prayer: 
 
 
It is most humbly prayed that I am a career civil 
servant and father of three school going kids and a sole bread-
winner of a large family consisting of elderly parents and un-
married sisters. In good faith, I tried to perform my duty where-
ever I was posted by the Government. I place myself at the mercy 
of the Hon’ble Court and invoke its compassion of taking a lenient 
view and humbly request that I may not be punished in any 
manner which may jeopardize my career as a civil servant and 
future lives of my innocent kids and dependents.” 
 
The explanation put forward by Mr. Kanwar Anwaar Ali who is 
presently 
posted 
as 
Deputy 
Secretary 
(P&D 
Department) 
Government of the Punjab, Lahore and the peculiar circumstances 
mentioned therein have been found by us to be plausible and, 
thus, no occasion has been found by us for proceeding against him 
in any manner or for passing any adverse remark against his 
conduct. The notice issued to him is, therefore, discharged.  
 
3. 
Before parting with this order we would like to point out that 
the matter of taking of different steps in holding of a proper test 
identification parade in connection with a criminal case has 
developed over many decades and the requirements of such a 
parade as well as the safeguards to be ensured during such a 
parade so as to make it a meaningful exercise and providing 
material in a criminal case to be considered in a trial have 
elaborately been detailed in the landmark judgment passed by a 
learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in the 
case of Muhammd Yaqoob and another v The State (1989 P.Cr.L.J. 
2227)  and in the said judgment Mr. Justice Khalil-ur-Rehman 
Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 183 of 2019  
in Criminal Appeal No. 259 of 2018 
 
 
6
Ramday (as his lordship then was a Judge of the Lahore High 
Court, Lahore) had observed as follows: 
 
“16.  
But before we undertake a deeper analysis of the 
evidentiary value of the test identification proceedings held in the 
present case, it would be of advantage to first appreciate the 
object and the value of such an evidence as also to recapitulate 
the standards required to be met before such like identification 
parades could be credited with reliance. 
 
17.  
The evidence offered through identification proceedings is 
not a substantive piece of evidence but is only corroborative of the 
evidence given by the witnesses at the trial Muhammad Bashir v. 
The State PLD 1958 SC (Pak.) 1. It has no independent value of 
its own Muhammad Afzal and another v. The State 1982 SCMR 
129 and cannot as a rule, form a sufficient basis for conviction 
though the same may add some weight to the other evidence 
available on record Sudhindranath v. The State AIR 1952 Cal. 
423. 
 
18.  
The identification parades (as they are normally called) are 
necessary only where the offender was a complete stranger to the 
witnesses Ismail and another v. The State 1974 SCMR 175. And 
the whole object of the identification proceedings is to find out 
whether the suspect was or was not the real offender Satya 
Narain v. The State AIR 1953 All. 385 and Kind v. Christle 1914 
AC 545. 
 
19.  
Such-like identification proceedings are not the testimony 
of a witness but the testimony of the senses of the witness. It is 
essentially a test of his power of observation and perception, a 
test of his power to recognize strangers and a test of his memory. 
These gifts of God may vary from man to man. A witness may be 
honest, independent and truthful but then his memory may be 
faulty. And then the tricks of memory and its conscious and 
unconscious activity could also wrap the vision of a man. When 
mistakes are possible in the recognition of a man known from 
before, then the possibility of such mistakes in identifying 
strangers is definitely greater. And more so when the witnesses 
have seen the offender for the first time during the occurrence 
and that also briefly and not with a calm but in an excited, 
confused and terrorised state of mind. 
 
20.  
It was primarily for these reasons that Dorab Patel, J. (as 
his Lordship then was) cautioned the Courts to beware of the 
dangers inherent in the identification of strangers and quoting 
from the Criminal Law Revision Committee Report (1972), 
observed in Lal Pasand's case PLD 1981 SC 142 that mistaken 
identifications were:- 
 
"……..by far the greatest cause of actual or possible wrong 
convictions…." 
 
A similar note of caution was given by Monir in his Evidence Act 
Pak. Edition, Vol. 1 where the advice is that:-  
 
" .... the evidence as to identification ought in each case, 
to be subjected to a close and careful scrutiny." 
 
21.  
What then are the standards required to be satisfied by 
such an evidence before the same could be accepted by a Court of 
law? 
Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 183 of 2019  
in Criminal Appeal No. 259 of 2018 
 
 
7
 
22.  
The answer is that the vital factor determinative of the 
worth and value of identification proceedings is the effectiveness 
of the precautions taken, before and during the course of such 
proceedings which are designed to eliminate the possibility of 
unjustified convictions. 
 
23.  
Although there is no law, which prescribes any such 
precautions yet the necessary guidelines are available in the form 
of executive instructions and judicial pronouncements. Some of 
them are summarised as under:- 
 
(a) 
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; 
 
(b)  
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; 
 
(c)  
identification parades should never be held at police 
stations; 
 
(d)  
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; 
 
(e)  
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; 
 
(f)  
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; 
 
Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 183 of 2019  
in Criminal Appeal No. 259 of 2018 
 
 
8
(g)  
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; 
 
(h)  
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; 
 
(i)  
the Magistrate is obliged to prepare a list of all the persons 
(dummies) who form part of the line-up at the parade 
alongwith their parentage, occupation and addresses; 
 
(j)  
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; 
 
(k)  
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; 
 
(l)  
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; 
 
(m)  
the Magistrate is required to record in his report all the 
precautions taken by him for a fair conduct of the 
proceedings and 
 
(n)  
the Magistrate has to give a certificate at the end of his 
report in the form prescribed by C.H.II.C. of Vol. III of 
Lahore High Court Rules and Orders. 
 
24. 
The measures above listed should, however, not be taken 
as exhaustive of the steps which are required to be taken before, 
during and after the identification proceedings. All these 
requirements are no doubt mandatory but at the same time they 
are only illustrative of the precautions which the Courts of law 
demand before some respect can be shown to the evidence offered 
through the test identification proceedings. 
 
25.  
In enunciating the above principles governing the 
proceedings in question and in enumerating the above measures 
and requirements, we have sought guidance from the following:- 
 
(i) Rules and Orders of the Lahore High Court, Chapter 
11-C of Vol. III; (ii) Punjab Government Circular Letter No. 6091-
J-36/39829 (H-Judl.) dated 19-12-1936; (iii) Punjab Government 
Circular Letter No. 6546-J-43/83844 (H-Judl.), dated 17-12-
1943; (iv) Punjab Government Circular Letter No. Judl.I-(13)/61, 
dated 26-7-1961, (v) Monir's Evidence Act (Pak. Edition) Vol. I, (vi) 
Lal Pasand v. The State PLD 1981 SC 142, (vii) Muhammad Afzal 
v. The State 1982 SCMR 129, (viii) Ismail v. The State 1974 SCMR 
Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 183 of 2019  
in Criminal Appeal No. 259 of 2018 
 
 
9
175, (ix) Khadim Hussain v. The State 1985 SCMR 721, (x) 
Muhammad Bashir Aslam v. The State PLD 1958 SC (Pak.), (xi) 
Gul Baig v. The State PLD 1964 Kar. 275, (xii) Musharrif Hussain 
v. The State PLD 1970 Dacca 686, (xiii) Sadu v. The State 1972 
PCr.LJ 10, (xiv) Qabil Shah v. The State PLD 1960 Kar. 697, (xv) 
Wahid Bakhsh v. The State 1969 PCr.LJ 137, (xvi) Karim v. The 
State PLD 1961 Kar. 728, (xvii) Kameshwar Singh v. The State 
AIR 1972 SC 102 (xviii) Parbhu v. Emp. AIR 1943 Lah. 946, (xix) 
Emp. v. Debi Charan AIR 1942 All. 339, (xx) Sataya Naryan v. The 
State AIR 1953 All. 385, (xxi) Gajadher v. Emp. AIR 1932 Oudh. 
99 and (xxii) Ramzan v. Emp. AIR 1929 Sindh 149.” 
 
We have failed to find a more elaborate illustration of the 
requirements and the safeguards necessary for holding a test 
identification parade than found in the above mentioned portion of 
the 
judgment 
passed 
in 
the 
said 
precedent 
case. 
We 
wholeheartedly approve the said requirements and safeguards 
which are to be meticulously followed and observed in all the test 
identification parades held in connection with criminal cases.  
 
4. 
It may also be observed that during a test identification 
parade the requirement regarding specifying by a witness the role 
of an individual accused person in commission of an offence had 
also been identified and emphasized by this Court in the cases of 
Ismail and another v The State (1974 SCMR 175), Khadim Hussain 
v The State (1985 SCMR 721), Ghulam Rasul and 3 others v The 
State (1988 SCMR 557), Asghar Ali alias Sabah and others v The 
State and others (1992 SCMR 2088), State/Government of Sindh 
through Advocate-General, Sindh, Karachi v Sobharo (1993 SCMR 
585), Mehmood Ahmad and 3 others v The State and another (1995 
SCMR 127), Siraj-ul-Haq and another v The State (2008 SCMR 302), 
Ghulam Qadir and 2 others v The State (2008 SCMR 1221), 
Muhammad Afzal alias Abdullah and another v State and others 
(PLJ 2009 SC 333), Shafqat Mehmood and others v The State (2011 
SCMR 537), Sabir Ali alias Fauji v The State (2011 SCMR 563), 
Muhammad Fayyaz v The State (2012 SCMR 522), Azhar Mehmood 
and others v The State (2017 SCMR 135), Hakeem and others v The 
State (2017 SCMR 1546) and Kamal Din alias Kamala v The State 
(2018 SCMR 577).  
 
Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 183 of 2019  
in Criminal Appeal No. 259 of 2018 
 
 
10
5. 
Identification of many accused persons in one line in one go 
during a test identification parade has also repeatedly been held by 
this Court to be improper and it has been clarified by this Court on 
a number of occasions that every accused person is to be put to a 
separate test identification parade and a reference in this respect 
may be made to the cases of Lal Pasand v The State (PLD 1981 SC 
142), Imran Ashraf and 7 others v The State (2001 SCMR 424),  
Ziaullah alias Jajj v The State (2008 SCMR 1210), Bacha Zeb v The 
State (2010 SCMR 1189), Shafqat Mehmood and others v The State 
(2011 SCMR 537), Gulfam and another v The State (2017 SCMR 
1189), Hakeem and others v The State (2017 SCMR 1546) and 
Kamal Din alias Kamala v The State (2018 SCMR 577). 
 
6. 
Identification of an accused person by eyewitnesses before 
the trial court during a trial is generally considered to be quite 
unsafe because before such identification before the trial court 
during the trial the eyewitnesses get may opportunities to see the 
accused persons appearing before the court in connection with 
their remand, distribution of copies of statement of prosecution 
witnesses recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C., framing of the 
charge and recording of statements of other prosecution witnesses. 
Even in such identification before the trial court during the trial it 
is imperative that a witness must point towards a particular 
accused person present before the trial court and must also specify 
the role allegedly played by him in the incident in issue. The 
unsafe nature of identification of an accused person before the trial 
court during the trial has already been commented upon by this 
Court in the cases of Asghar Ali alias Sabah and others v The State 
and others (1992 SCMR 2088), Muhammad Afzal alias Abdullah 
and another v The State and others (PLJ 2009 SC 333), Nazir 
Ahmad v Muhammad Iqbal (2011 SCMR 527), Shafqat Mehmood 
and others v The State (2011 SCMR 537), Ghulam Shabbir Ahmed 
and another v The State (2011 SCMR 683) and Azhar Mehmood and 
others v The State (2017 SCMR 135).  
 
Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 183 of 2019  
in Criminal Appeal No. 259 of 2018 
 
 
11
7. 
It may also be mentioned here that a test identification 
parade and correct pointing out of an accused person by an 
eyewitness therein is not a substantive piece of evidence and 
failure to hold a test identification parade is not always fatal to the 
prosecution’s case and a reference in this respect may be made to 
the cases of Muhammad Akram Rahi and others v The State and 
others (2011 SCMR 877) and Ghazanfar Ali alias Pappu and 
another v The State (2012 SCMR 215). 
 
8. 
The above mentioned precedent cases and the best practices 
mentioned therein have been consolidated by us in the present 
order so that any confusion regarding the legal position in respect 
of a test identification parade may be removed and all concerned 
may stand instructed and guided in that regard in future. A 
serious exception may henceforth be taken to any non-compliance 
or disregard of the requirements and safeguards mentioned above.  
 
9. 
The office of this Court is directed to send a copy of this 
order to the Registrars of all the High Courts in the country with a 
direction to send a copy of the same to every Judge and Magistrate 
within the jurisdiction of each High Court handling criminal cases 
at all levels for their information and guidance.     
  
 
Chief Justice 
 
Judge 
Islamabad 
22.02.2019 
Approved for reporting.  
 
Arif