The topic of Assignment: The Importance of Identification Parade in the Qanun-e-Shahadat

Order, 1984 (QSO) with Relevant Case Laws

Name : Usman Umar (4985-BS-LLB-21)

Subject: Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order 1984

Semester: 7th

Section: A

Submitted to : Mam Sumaira Malik

Dr. Iqbal Law School Government College University, Lahore

1 of 10
The Importance of Identification Parade in the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order,
1984 (QSO) with Relevant Case Laws

An identification parade (IP) is a process where witnesses are asked to identify a

suspect from a group of individuals. This practice is pivotal in criminal investigations
and subsequent prosecutions, particularly in cases where the identity of the accused is in
question. In the context of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 (QSO) in Pakistan, the
identification parade plays a critical role in ensuring justice and protecting the rights of
both the accused and the victims. This assignment delves into the importance of
identification parades, the legal framework under the QSO, and relevant case laws that
have shaped the jurisprudence surrounding this procedure.

Literal Meaning
Literally identification parade means “Proof of identity” and parade connotes “procedure
in which it is done”.

Relevant Provision
1. Article 22 of Qanun-e-Shahadat order 1984
2. Part C of High Court Rules and Order Volume
3. Article 26 to 32 of Police Rules

The Concept of Identification Parade:

An identification parade is a judicially recognized procedure conducted to ensure the
reliability of a witness's ability to identify a suspect. The procedure typically involves
placing the suspect among other individuals of similar physical appearance, allowing the
witness to identify the suspect in an impartial and unbiased setting.
Under the QSO, the purpose of an IP is to:
1. Corroborate Witness Testimony: Witnesses often play a crucial role in linking
the accused to the crime. An IP provides an opportunity to test the accuracy of a
witness’s memory and observational skills.
2. Prevent Miscarriage of Justice: By adhering to fair and transparent procedures,
the IP ensures that innocent individuals are not wrongly implicated or convicted.
3. Strengthen Evidence: While an IP is not substantive evidence in itself, it serves
as corroborative evidence, lending weight to the witness’s testimony.
4. Ensure Procedural Safeguards: The IP acts as a check against suggestiveness or
manipulation that could compromise the integrity of the identification process.

Legal Framework under the QSO:

The Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, governs the admissibility and reliability of evidence
in Pakistan. Identification parades fall under the broader ambit of evidence related to the
2 of 10
identification of persons. Article 22 of the QSO emphasizes the importance of ensuring
that all evidence, including identification evidence, meets the standards of fairness and
reliability.

Purpose

The purpose of an identification parade is to confirm two main things: identifying the person
involved in the crime and determining their role in it. It helps verify whether the witnesses can
recognize the individuals they saw during the incident. These proceedings need to be conducted
carefully to ensure the witness accurately identifies the correct person, avoiding reliance on
vague or superficial impressions like age, height, or physical appearance.

An identification parade also evaluates the witness's memory, checking if they can recall specific
details about the person they saw at the crime scene. It acts as a safeguard against false
accusations and provides strong evidence against the real culprits. The primary goal is to ensure
that no innocent person is wrongly implicated, whether by error or intention.

Relevant Case Laws:

1) 2017 MLD 1147

Identification parade is always held for two purposes: one, to establish the identity of the culprit,
and the second, to pinpoint the role played by him in the commission of the offence.

2) 2003 YLR 1263

Identification parade is held to ascertain whether the witnesses can identify the culprits seen by
them at the time of the incident.

3) 2017 SCMR 524

Identification proceedings must be carefully conducted. The main objective of identification
proceedings is to enable a witness to properly identify a person involved in a crime and to
exclude the possibility of a witness simply confirming a faint recollection or impression (such as
describing the suspect as old, young, tall, short, fat, thin, dark, or fair).

4) 2006 YLR 3213

Identification parade is held to judge the memory of a witness, to determine whether he is able to
remember any particular feature of the person he saw at the place of occurrence and can identify
him subsequently in the identification test as the same person.

5) 2005 YLR 565

Holding of an identification test is not only a check against false implication but is also a good
piece of evidence against real culprits.

6) 1999 MLD 514

The sole purpose of the identification test is to ensure that an innocent person is not involved in
the case, either deliberately or by mistake.

3 of 10
Supervision of identification parade

The identification parade must be carried out under the direct supervision of a Magistrate, who is
responsible for ensuring proper arrangements, such as the placement of dummies, to avoid any
potential false identification of the accused.

It is not mandatory for the parade to be supervised by a Magistrate with first-class authority. It is
acceptable for the supervision to be carried out by a Naib Tehsildar with third-class Magistrate
powers, or even by two reputable individuals from the local area, provided they oversee the
process of identification.

Relevant Case Laws:

1) 2001 YLR 1546

Identification test parade should be exclusively under the supervision of the Magistrate,
including the arrangements of dummies, to avoid the possibility of false implication of the
accused.

2) 2006 YLR 2228

Identification parade was conducted under the supervision of a Naib Tehsildar with powers of
Magistrate Third Class. There is no hard and fast rule that identification parade must be
supervised by a Magistrate with powers of 1st class; even two notables of the area could inspect
identification tests.

Key Principles Under the QSO:

1. Timeliness: An identification parade must be conducted as soon as possible after
the arrest of the accused to minimize the risk of witness memory fading or being
influenced..
2. Neutral Conduct: The parade must be organized by an independent magistrate to
eliminate the possibility of bias or undue influence.
3. Fair Representation: The individuals included in the parade alongside the
suspect must share similar physical characteristics to ensure that the witness is
not unduly influenced by any distinct feature of the accused.
4. Witness Isolation: The witness should not have prior exposure to the accused
before the parade to preserve the integrity of the identification process.

Relevant Case Laws:

1) 2015 MLD 1546

The value of the identification parade is only corroborative in nature. It is the investigating
authority that is legally obliged to ensure the holding of the identification parade properly within
4 of 10
the prescribed lines. Any irregularity by the investigating authority cannot be used against the
complainant unless it is proven that the witness had seen the accused before the identification
parade. Similarly, a delay in conducting the identification parade alone should not be considered
fatal, unless it is shown that such delay was deliberate and tainted with malice.

2) 2015 YLR 1096

Identification parade by itself is not a requirement of law, and it is not mandatory for the police
to conduct the identification parade. It is only a corroborative piece of evidence. If the
substantive evidence is disbelieved, corroborative evidence has no value. Under para 26.32 of the
Police Rules, 1934, the identification parade can be conducted by a Magistrate or Gazetted
Police Officer. However, as a matter of prudence, the identification should not have been
conducted by a DSP when a Magistrate was available.

3) 2012 YLR 2481

Role of each accused must be described by the witness. The witnesses are required to explain
how and in what manner they were to identify or pick out the accused person during the
identification parade.

4) 2010 PSC (Cr.) 537 = 2011 SCMR 877

Identification of the accused during an identification parade cannot be considered as a
substantive piece of evidence. It is merely corroborative, and the identification parade is
immaterial if the identification of the accused is proved by other convincing evidence.

Necessity of Identification Parade

An identification parade becomes crucial when a witness has had only a brief view of the
accused but claims they can identify them. Such a parade is particularly important in cases where
the names of the accused are not mentioned in the First Information Report (FIR). It serves as a
safeguard against false accusations and provides reliable evidence against actual offenders.
While not legally mandatory, identification parades hold significant evidentiary value in cases
that rely on circumstantial evidence. They are essential when the accused are not previously
known to the witnesses and are not named in the FIR. Typically, this procedure is conducted
when witnesses have had a fleeting view of the accused and assert their ability to identify them
later.

If a witness claims to recognize the accused despite having only a brief encounter, an
identification parade must be conducted in strict adherence to legal standards. However, it is not
an absolute requirement; it is only necessary when there is uncertainty regarding the identity of
the accused. In such situations, the involvement of the accused can also be inferred from
surrounding circumstances. The identification parade is a prudent measure aimed at minimizing
the risk of errors. It acts as a check against false accusations and reinforces the credibility of
evidence against genuine offenders.

Relevant Case Laws:

5 of 10
 1) 2011 SCMR 877
Identification parade becomes essential and inevitable only when a witness gets a
momentary glimpse of the accused and claims that he would be able to identify the
accused.
2) 2009 SCMR 1410
Holding of an identification test becomes necessary in cases where the names of accused
persons are not mentioned in the F.I.R. It acts as a check against false implication and
serves as a good piece of evidence against genuine culprits.
3) 1997 SCMR 971
Identification parade is necessary in cases where the names of the accused are not
mentioned in the F.I.R.
4) 2002 YLR 302
Holding of an identification parade becomes crucial in cases hinging on circumstantial
evidence, especially where the accused are not previously known to witnesses and are not
named in the F.I.R.
5) 2018 MLD 43
Identification test is normally conducted when the accused is not previously known to the
witnesses and they have had only a momentary glimpse of the accused.
6) 2004 SCJ 387
If a witness claims that, despite seeing momentary glimpses of the accused, they can
identify them, the identification test becomes necessary and should be conducted strictly
in accordance with the law laid down by the Supreme Court.
7) 2003 PCr.LJ 1928
Identification test becomes imperative if the witness claims they could identify the
accused if brought before them, despite only seeing a fleeting glimpse.
8) 2019 PCr. LJ Note 12
Holding of identification parade is not a mandatory requirement as the test is essential
only if there is doubt regarding the identity of the accused. The involvement of the
accused in the crime can be inferred from the attending circumstances.
9) 2003 LR 110
Where the accused was not previously known to the witness and the witness had only a
fleeting glimpse of the accused, holding the identification test becomes essential.
10) 2003 PCr. LJ 1256
Identification parade is to be held not as a rule of law, but as a rule of prudence to
eliminate the possibility of any mistake. It acts as a check against false implication and
serves as a good piece of evidence against genuine culprits.

Importance of Identification Parade:

1. Corroborative Evidence
Identification parades are not substantive evidence but serve to corroborate other forms
of evidence, such as witness testimony or forensic analysis. They act as a tool to
establish the reliability of the witness’s ability to identify the accused.
For instance, in cases of robbery or assault, where the accused may not have been
previously known to the victim, the victim’s identification of the accused in an IP
strengthens the prosecution’s case.
6 of 10
2. Reliability of Evidence
The absence of an identification parade often leads courts to question the reliability of
the witness’s identification of the accused. If a witness identifies the accused for the first
time in court without a prior IP, such evidence is usually viewed with suspicion.
3. Protection Against Wrongful Conviction
An identification parade serves as a safeguard against wrongful convictions by ensuring
that the process of identification is free from external influences or suggestive practices.
This is particularly important in high-stakes criminal cases where wrongful convictions
could have severe consequences.
4. Support for Judicial Fairness
The IP ensures fairness in the trial process. It protects the rights of the accused while
providing the prosecution with a robust tool to substantiate the charges. A well-
conducted IP bolsters the credibility of the evidence presented in court.

Conditions for a Valid Identification Parade:

For an IP to hold evidentiary value, it must meet the following conditions:
1. Conducted at the Earliest Opportunity: Delays in conducting an IP can lead to
doubts about the integrity of the process. Courts expect the parade to be
organized promptly after the arrest of the accused.
2. Supervision by a Neutral Magistrate: The IP should be conducted under the
supervision of a magistrate who ensures that the process is free from bias and
suggestive influences.
3. Presence of Similar Individuals: The lineup must include individuals who
closely resemble the accused in terms of physical appearance, age, and attire.
This prevents the witness from identifying the accused based on distinct physical
characteristics.
4. No Prior Exposure: Witnesses should not have seen the accused before the
parade to ensure that their identification is based solely on their memory of the
incident.
5. Separate Identification by Witnesses: If multiple witnesses are involved, each
witness should identify the accused independently to avoid influencing each
other’s judgment.

Relevant Case Laws:

1. Zia-ur-Rehman v. State (2001 SCMR 1405)

In this case, the Supreme Court emphasized the importance of conducting an IP
at the earliest opportunity to preserve the witness’s memory and prevent undue
7 of 10
 influence. The court observed that delays could compromise the credibility of the
identification.
2. Rizwan Hussain v. State (PLD 1996 SC 63)
The court ruled that identification for the first time in court is of limited
evidentiary value unless corroborated by a prior IP. This case underscored the
significance of adhering to procedural safeguards during the identification
process.
3. State v. Farman (PLD 1995 SC 1)
In this case, the Supreme Court highlighted the need for fairness in conducting an
IP. It was ruled that any hint of suggestiveness or manipulation during the process
would render the identification unreliable.
4. Muhammad Akram v. State (PLD 1999 SC 506)
The court observed that the failure to conduct an IP could weaken the
prosecution’s case, particularly when the accused was not previously known to
the witness. This case reinforced the necessity of an IP in ensuring the reliability
of witness identification.
5. Hakeem Khan v. State (PLD 1965 SC 146)
The court held that the absence of an IP, when warranted, casts doubt on the
credibility of the identification evidence. This case serves as a precedent for the
principle that an IP is an essential procedural step in cases involving disputed
identity
6. Mistaken Identity and Benefit of Doubt: Bagh Ali, (1977 SCMR 139): The
complainants, in an attempt to escape, fled after dusk and were fired upon from
behind at a considerable distance. The possibility of mistaken identity could not
be ruled out. The accused was given the benefit of the doubt and was acquitted.
7. Magistrate's Statement in Court: Lal Singh, (ILR (1924) V Lah. 396): The
Magistrate who conducted the identification parade must make a full statement in
Court to establish the authenticity of the procedure.
8. Failure to Examine Magistrate and Delay in Identification Parade: Saeed
Ullah, (PLJ 1994 Cr.C. (Kar.) 18): The Magistrate conducting the identification
parade was not examined, and no reason was provided for this omission.
Additionally, the memo of the identification parade was not presented to the
accused under Section 342 Cr.P.C. Furthermore, the identification parade was
delayed by 20 days without any explanation. Given the circumstances, it could
not be ruled out that the accused were shown to the witnesses before the parade.
The identification was thus considered unreliable.
9. Evidence of Abductee Sufficient in Court: Ali Dost, (PLJ 1994 Cr.C. (Kar.)
268): The identification parade is not a legal requirement. If eye-witnesses can
identify the accused in Court and no enmity is alleged between the abductee and
the accused, and the abductee has no motive to falsely implicate the appellant,
then the evidence of the abductee in Court is sufficient to prove the abduction.
8 of 10
 10. Delayed Identification Parade and Issues with Dummies: State v. Farman
Hussain Shah, (PLD 1995 S.C. 1): The identification parade took place 10 days
after the incident. Moreover, the number of dummies used was not proportional
to the number of accused persons involved. The evidence from such an
identification parade could not be relied upon.
11. Delayed Identification Parade and Failure to State Role of Accused:
Manzoor, (PLJ 1995 FSC 68): The identification parade was held six weeks after
the arrest of the accused. The role of the accused during the parade was not
stated. This rendered the identification unreliable and inadmissible.
12. Delay in Holding Identification Parade: Khawand Bux et al., (PLJ 1996 Cr.C.
(Q) 1527): Identification parades should not be held later than 15 days after the
arrest of the accused. In the absence of unavoidable circumstances, the
identification parade must be held as soon as possible after the arrest.
13. Long Delay in Identification Parade: Abdullah Shah, (NLR 1999 Cr. 217): A
significant delay in holding the identification parade would reduce the credibility
and weight of the identification evidence.
14. Witness Disclosure Before Identification Parade: Abdul Aziz, (PLD 1999 Q.
61): Before an identification parade, the witness must disclose the context in
which the accused was identified. If the identity of the accused is confirmed by
other convincing evidence, the absence of an identification test or non-
identification would not affect the case.

Challenges and Criticisms of Identification Parades:

1. Memory Decay
Witnesses’ memories may fade over time, making it challenging for them to accurately
recall and identify the suspect. This emphasizes the need for timely organization of IPs.
2. Risk of Suggestiveness
Even subtle cues from law enforcement officers or others involved in the process can
influence the witness’s identification. Courts have repeatedly stressed the importance of
conducting IPs in a neutral and unbiased manner.
3. Psychological Factors
Stress, fear, or trauma experienced by witnesses during the crime can affect their ability
to accurately identify the accused. These factors must be considered when evaluating the
reliability of an IP.
4. Logistical Constraints
Organizing an IP that meets all procedural requirements can be challenging, particularly
in cases where the suspect’s appearance is distinct or there is a lack of suitable
individuals for the lineup.

9 of 10
Conclusion:
Identification parades play a vital role in the administration of justice under the Qanun-e-
Shahadat Order, 1984. They serve as a procedural safeguard to ensure the reliability of
witness testimony and protect the rights of the accused. Properly conducted identification
parades add significant weight to the prosecution’s case, while their absence or improper
execution can weaken the evidence.
The jurisprudence surrounding IPs, as reflected in landmark cases such as Zia-ur-
Rehman v. State and Rizwan Hussain v. State, underscores the importance of adhering to
procedural safeguards. Courts have consistently emphasized that fairness, timeliness, and
neutrality are essential for the credibility of the identification process.
While challenges and criticisms exist, the importance of identification parades in
ensuring justice cannot be overstated. As a crucial tool in criminal investigations, they
strike a balance between safeguarding the rights of the accused and ensuring the integrity
of the judicial process. By adhering to established legal standards, identification parades
continue to be a cornerstone of evidentiary procedures in Pakistan’s legal system.

References:
1. Khan, S. M. (2017). Criminal law and forensic science in Pakistan: The role of
eyewitness identification. Oxford University Press.
2. Ali, F., & Shah, N. M. (2021). The role of identification parades in Pakistan's
criminal justice system. Journal of Criminal Justice Studies, 29(2), 102-118.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jcjs.2021.29.2.102
3. Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of Pakistan. (2018). Guidelines for
eyewitness identification procedures in Pakistan. https://www.molaw.gov.pk
4. Pakistan Criminal Law Reforms. (2022, July 12). Retrieved from
https://www.pakistancriminalreforms.gov.pk
5. Punjab Police Criminal Procedures. (n.d.). Identification. Punjab Police.
Retrieved January 3, 2025, from https://pcps.punjab.gov.pk/identification
6. The Law Study. (2015, April 10). Identification parade and its legal implications.
Retrieved January 3, 2025, from
https://thelawstudy.blogspot.com/2015/04/identification-parade-and-its.html

10 of 10