Summary
A murder conviction was overturned because the appellant’s identification remained doubtful. Previously unacquainted witnesses had seen a person wearing a face-covering monkey cap; police later showed the accused in hospital, and no identification parade was conducted despite an unexplained opportunity to do so. In these particular circumstances dock identification lacked necessary corroboration. Acquittal was confined to the appellant and did not affect the other accused.
Issues
- Whether courtroom identification reliably established the masked stranger’s identity without a prior identification parade.
- What value attached to identification made while police presented the accused in hospital.
- Whether the evidence proved this appellant’s involvement beyond reasonable doubt.
Provisions considered
- Section 162, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The witness’s hospital identification was a statement to police and could be used only within the statutory limits, rather than as independent substantive identification evidence. (¶ 9)
Held
- Identification in court is substantive evidence, whereas a test identification parade forms part of investigation and ordinarily strengthens its reliability. Absence of a parade is not invariably fatal; its importance depends on the circumstances and strength of the identification evidence. (¶¶ 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15)
- Here both identifying witnesses were strangers to the appellant and had observed him at a distance wearing a monkey cap covering much of the face. Police showed the arrested accused to them in hospital, and offered no satisfactory explanation for failing to arrange a parade. In these circumstances a prior independent identification exercise was necessary to corroborate the dock identification. (¶¶ 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15)
- The High Court rejected one witness’s identification yet accepted the other’s under essentially similar conditions merely because the latter was independent and lacked hostility. That reasoning did not cure the risk of mistaken identity. The appellant’s identity was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. (¶¶ 12, 13, 16)
- The Court also noted evidentiary difficulties concerning the recoveries and absence of motive against this appellant. Its conclusions concerned only the evidence against accused No.2; the prosecution had additional material, including motive, against accused No.1, whose case was not before it. (¶¶ 7, 8, 9, 16)
- The appellant was acquitted, the impugned High Court order set aside and release ordered forthwith unless required in another case. The decision expressly has no bearing on accused No.1. (¶ 16)
Result
Appeal allowed; appellant acquitted and release directed unless required in another case. No effect on the case of accused No.1.