- The Supreme Court stated that a witness' evidence identifying an accused in court cannot be thrown out just because a Test Identification Parade was not held.
- The bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka said that in some cases, there may be sufficient confirmation of the witness' testimony.
- In this case, the prosecution witness admitted that he had been unable to identify any individual he had seen 11 years ago, but that he would be able to identify the accused even though he had only seen him for the first time on the day of the incident 11 years ago.
- The division bench stated that in most cases, there is enough corroborative evidence to back up the testimony of witnesses.
- One of the arguments advanced by the appellant was that no Test Identification Parade (T.I Parade) was held in this case, and so the testimony of a prosecution witness that he identified him in court nearly 12 years later could not be trusted.
- The court granted the accused's appeal, despite the fact that he had been convicted under Section 55(a) of the Kerala Akbari Act, and disbelieved the witness who had recognised the accused in court for the first time in 11 years.
Do you think the court should believe the testimony of the witness who identified the accused after seeing him only once 11 years ago? Let us know your views on the issue in the comment section below.