1. Whether there is any conceptual conflict between “Benefit of Probation” & “The plea Bargain” and how it can be reconciled ?
10. A witness states before T.I. parade that he can identify the culprit on the basis of voice and the style of walking of the culprit. What should be the appropriate course for the Magistrate ?
9. Whether an accused himself can also demand for his test identification parade ?
8. In What circumstances the Magistrate concerned should refuse to hold test identification parade of should postpone it ?
7. What can be the appropriate place for recording confession / statement or for conducting T.I. parade (viz Chamber of the P.O.: Court room: Jail premises; Police station; Residence of the Magistrate etc.)
6. What prosecutions should be observed while conducting test identify- cation parade and from where persons/property to be mixed can be arranged ? Whether any notes of the proceedings should be taken dawn by the Magistrate for finally preparing the memo ? Whether police officer can be permitted to remain present during test identifi-cation parade or while recording statement u/s. 164 Cr.P.C. ? How the identity of witness should be ensured ?
5. “Oral statement given by a witness during trial is substantive evidence”. What can be a supplemental to this statement ?
4. What should be the proportion between (i) Case property and property mixed with it (ii) Culprit and the persons mixed with him ? Whether there can be one test identification parade for more than one accused ? Whether an at what stage an accused can refuse to participate in test identification parade ? What legal recourse should taken place in such event ?
3. Whether identifying any person or property during test identification (T.I.) parade amounts to “statement made to a Judicial Magistrate during investigation”, requiring observance of formalities as provided in section 164 Cr.P.C. ? Mention the section of Evidence Act which makes the evidence of test identification parade to be relevant ?
Probation
2. The degrees of Criminal intent and resultant Criminal liability are directly proportionate to each other, therefore, a person who causes death by rash or negligent act can be punished for imprisonment up to only two years whereas, the person who knowingly or intentionally commit it can be imprisoned for ten years / life term and even can be hanged. To the contra, a convict u/s. 304-A I.P.C. seldom gets benefit of probation whereas a similarly situated culprit of Section 304 part II I.P.C. may get it. Examine the justification behind it ?