📢 Too many exams? Don’t know which one suits you best? Book Your Free Expert 👉 call Now!


    Question

    The Supreme Court judgment in Yakub Abdul Razak Memon

    v. State of Maharashtra (2013)addressed multiple critical evidentiary principles, including the reliability of test identification parades as evidence under what is now Section 7 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam. The Court established that: Which principle regarding test identification parade evidence was established in this landmark case?
    A Test identification parades are conclusive proof of identity and cannot be disputed by the accused. Correct Answer Incorrect Answer
    B Test identification parades conducted by police are admissible only when conducted in the presence of a Magistrate and recorded in writing with independent witnesses. Correct Answer Incorrect Answer
    C An in-court identification after a test identification parade, when documented with the presence of independent witnesses, is more reliable than prior identification made at the parade itself. Correct Answer Incorrect Answer
    D Test identification parades are inadmissible as "hearsay" evidence and cannot be used to establish identity under any circumstances. Correct Answer Incorrect Answer
    E The admissibility and weight of test identification evidence depends solely on the testimony of the investigating officer. Correct Answer Incorrect Answer

    Solution

    Yakub Abdul Razak Memon v. State of Maharashtra established important principles for the admissibility and reliability of test identification parades. The Court held that test identification parades are admissible as facts "necessary to establish identity" under Section 7 of BSA, but their admissibility and evidentiary weight depend critically on procedural safeguards. The identification parade must be conducted by police in compliance with prescribed procedures: presence of a Magistrate, documentation in writing, presence of independent witnesses, and absence of any leading suggestions by police. The judgment emphasized that without such safeguards, the identification parade evidence loses credibility and may be tainted. The Court also clarified that identification by a witness at a properly conducted parade, followed by in-court identification, carries greater probative value than identification claims without such procedural compliance. This principle applies Section 7 (facts establishing identity are relevant when necessary) and Section 140 (examining witnesses on identification) of BSA to ensure that identity evidence meets the "proved" threshold under Section 2(j) through reliable procedures.

    Practice Next

    Relevant for Exams:

    ask-question