MUHAMMAD QASIM KHAN, J.--- Petitioner (Zahoor Hussain) seeks post arrest bail in case FIR N0,481/2013 dated 27,12,2013 for offences under sections 395/412 PPC registered at police station Narang, District Shelkhupure, wherein, precisely the prosecution case is that on 27,12,2013 the complainant (Muhammad Nisar Ahmad) was present in the house of his in-laws, when about 4,00 a.m, seven unknown armed persons entered the house by scaling over the wall. After awakening the housemates, per force of arms , snatched four golden bangles, two pairs of gold earrings, two golden rings, two golden chain (neckless) weighing eight tolas, one nokia mobile X2- 01 with SIM No.0344-6639037 (EME1 No.351946055918402), one nokia mobile-101 duel SIM with SIM No.0347- 4755141 (FMEI N0,354615053269343) and (354615053269350) and one licensed 30-bore pistol (License No.1033). As the bulbs were on, the comp lainant,. lrfan Ali and Muhammad Salim saw the accused and they could be identified when seen. Afterwards, on 21.02.2014 the complainant got recorded his supplementary statement to the effect that on 15.01.2014,. he (the complainant) along with Irfan and Muhammad Salim was present at bus stop Naling Moor; six persons passed in front of them and they were identified to be the accused who had committed the occurrence in their house. On exploration, their names and addresses were disclosed to be (i) Zahoor Hussain- present -petitioner , (ii) Zubair Ahmad, both sons of Manzoor Ahmad caste Bhatti Odh, residents of Allahpur , District Okara, (iii) Ramzan son of Yasin caste Sheikh, (iv) Tariq son of Mehmood Caste Odh, residents of Ameenabad Tehsil Depalpur District Okara, (v) Aamir Shehzad alias Aamri son of Muhammad Nisar , and (vi) Junaid alias l3illa son of Muhammad Jamil Caste Dogar , residents of Manga V irkan Tehsil, District Sheikhupura.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that in the FIR, neither features nor description or role of the accused have been mentioned and moreover no identification parade has been conducted in this case. It is further contended that nomination of the accuse d through supplementary statement has no evidentiary value in the eyes of law, whereas, recoveries have been planted. In support of his arguments, learned counsel placed reliance on the case "STATE through Advocate-General, Sindh, Karachi versus FARMAN HUSSAIN and others " (PLD 1995 SC 1), "GULIN KHAN versus THE STATE and 2 others" (2000 P.Cr. I, 1306), ",.SABIR ALI WASEEM and 3 others versus THE STATE (2007 YLR 2142 ), "WALAYAT versus THE STATE (PLD 2008 Lahore 470), "MURSAL KAZMI alias QAMAR SHAH and another versus THE STATE (2009 SCMR 1410 ) and "HAFEEZULLAH YAMEEN versus THE ST ATE and another " (2012 P .Cr.L.J. 1287).
3. The learned Deputy Prosecutor General assisted by leaned counsel for the complainant opposed the bail application by contending that in this case the accused were identified in most natural manner , and as the complainant had clarified in the FIR that accused could be identified by him as well as by the witnesses whenever seen, therefore, when the complainant and witnesses happened to be present at bus stop, the accused passed in front of them and as a natural course the complainant and his witnesses identified them to be the accused who had committed the offence. The learned counsel for the complainant added that complainant or the witnesses had no previous enmity towards the accused, including the present petitioner , for which they could have false implicated them with the commission of crime.
4. I have heard the arguments of learne d counsel for the parties at considerable length and perused the entire available record with their assistance.
5. Mainly , following principles are stated regarding evidentiary value of identifica tion parade i.e. (i) Identification tests do not constitute substantive evidence, they can only be used as corroborative of the statement in Court; (ii) the main object of holding an identification parade during interrogation stage is to test the memory of the witnesses based upon first impression and also to enable the prosecution to divide whether all or any of them could be cited as eye-witnesses of the crime; (iii) In order to eliminate the possibility of the accused being known to the witnesses prior to the test identification parade and it is desirable that a test identification should be conducted as soon as - after the arrest of the accused, and (iv) Appreciation of such evidence would depend upon the strength and trustworthiness of witness. Mahesh v . State of Rajasthan" (2006 CrLJ 1657 (Raj).
6. It is almost settled that as a general rule that the substantive evidence of a witness is the statement made in Court and the evidence of mere identification of the accused person at the trial for the first time is from its very nature inherently of a weak character . The purpose of a prior test identification therefore is to test and strengthen the trustworthiness of that evidence. It is accordingly considered a safe rule of prudence to generally look for corroboration of the sworn testimony of witnesses in court as the identity of the accused who are strangers to them, in the form of earlier identification proceedings.
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case STATE through Advocate-General, Sindh, Karachi versus FARMAN HUSSAIN and others " (PLD 1995 SC 1), held that "If witness gets a momentary glimpse of accused and claims that he would be able to identify him, then after arrest, identification test becomes very essential which is to be conducted strictly according to guidelines and legal requirements enunciated by law". The apex Court further held that:- "A distinction is to be made between a case in which witness has had only a fleeing glimpse of the accused who happened to be stranger and a witness who had known the accused previously or who had met the accused several times. In the former case the Court insists upon having proper identification parade whereas in the latter case the identification parade can be dispensed with as the witness can identify the accused even in the Court."
A learned Division Bench of this Court in the case "ZULFIQAR ALI alias DITTU and anothe r versus THE STATE"
(1991 P.Cr.L.J. 1125" held that person's right perception of an object seen by him, depends amongst others on the circumstances i.e. (i) on his situation relative to the object viewed, his nearness to or distance from it, (ii) also on his capacity to see with perfect or sufficient distinctness an object far-of f, (iii) he may be able to discern clearly things at a great distance from him, or to see distinctly only objects near to him that is, he may be either far-sighted or near-sighted, (iv) his right perception of the object may also depend on the light by which it is seen and therefore, on the time, whether day or night, (v) if may depend, also on the length or shortness of the time he has, in which to view the object, (vi) it may depend also on the freedom of his view from all obstructions at the time, from whatever cause, or momentary , and (vii) the sun shining full in the face of a person may very much obstruct his sight, and the same effect may be produced by falling snow , or dense rain or smoke. Here in this case, as the contents of the FIR show , the complainant and the witnesses had sufficient time and sources of light, etc. at the time of occurrence to capture the features of the accused in their mind and for the same reason when they saw the accused, on roadside they were able to identify the accused.
8. While dilating upon the above legal issue, the Court has not lost sight of the fact that as mentioned above the complainant while recording the FIR had mentioned in clear terms that the accused could be identified by them whenever they will see the accused and subsequently when they saw the accused on a bus stand, they identified them. Thus, it is a case of spontaneous identification and in the case "HASRA T PATHAN v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA" (2007 CRI.L,J, (NOC) 917) (B0M), 2007 (5) AIR Born R, 343, 2007 (5) AIR Bom It 343), It has been held that "Where witnesses abruptly QOM aims the culprit and points out at 81401, such spontaneous identification is admissible in evidence no formal test identification parade is necessary . But where the accused is called at the police station and shown to the witnesses such identification would not be called spontaneous identification and would not he relied upon." Further in the case "STATE v SUSHIL SHARMA" (2007 CriIJ 4008 (Del-DB), where the witnesses police officials had deposed that they saw the accused in the restaurant on the day of occurrence when the dead body of the deceased was being burnt in a big oven, no formal identification parade of the accused was held to be necessary .
9. But, one thing the courts must always bear in mind 'is that evidence as to identification must be subjected to a close scrutiny at the time of trial whether all the persons identified were previously known to the witnesses or were perfect strangers. The time, state of lights, the opportunities, the range and distance etc. would remain the material circumstances and the court while believing identification must simultaneously analyze that the witnesses of identification must not be having animosity or ill will towards the accused; as in that eventuality , serious doubts are bound to occur in that piece of evidence. It may further be observed here that test identification during investigation is to be considered only as corroboration to the identification of the accused by the witnesses before the court of law.
10. After the above detailed discussed on the point of identification, this court is convinced that spontaneous identification of an accused is sufficient corroborative piece of evidence and it may not be discarded merely , on the ground that formal identification parade was not conducted. With all respect to the case law referred by learned counsel for the petitioner , the same has been pronounced in somewhat different circumstances, as such, has no direct applicability on the issue involved in the instant case.
11. At this stage, however , I would like to pay my gratitude to the effort put in by learned counsel for the parties, especially the research work by the learned counsel for the petitioner is commendable which made it convenient for the court to deliberate on this important aspect in detail.
12. For what has been discussed above, prima facie sufficient evidence has been collected against the petitioner to connect him with commission of an offence covered by prohibitory clause. While deciding bail applications deeper appreciation of evidence is not permissib le, and the court is to tentatively examine the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer or other material produced before it. The petitioner therefore, is not found entitled for bail at this stage. The instant petition, is hereby dismissed.