(MAJOR COURT CONFIRMATION)

SUDAN GOVERNMENT v. AHMED SOLIMAN AGAB EL DOUR

AC-CP-293-1966

 Principles

·  Evidence-Identification parade—Corroboration is required—Evidence of those who make the test must be heard in court

i. Identification evidence must be corroborated by other independent evidence.
ii. The police officers who conduct the identification parade must be heard in court in order that the identification evidence be admissible.

Judgment

Hassan Abdel Rahim. (By authority of the Chief Justice). June 15, 1966: —In my opinion the finding and sentence should be quashed. The incident took place on April 1, 1962, while accused was arrested on April 8, 1963, on mere suspicion by the police. Several persons were arrested before this date but they were all released for lack of evidence in spite of the fact that tbe two prosecution witnesses identified some of them in a parade held on April 14, 1962. Prosecution witness 2 Hamdan identified the accused on August 22, 1963, but after much hesitation. It was con firmed by the Chief Inspector of police (at p. 74 of the case diary) that the prosecution depends on the evidence obtained in the identification parade. The court did not hear the evidence of the police officer who conducted the identification parade and this makes the identification evidence of no value and inadmissible. Identification tests as a rule cannot form a sufficient basis for conviction though they may perhaps add some weight to the other evidence against the accused. In this case the identificatIon evidence of the two witnesses has no weight in the eye of the law and it was not corroborated by any other evidence. Identification evidence should not be accepted blindly and the court should make most careful scrutiny before accepting it as a basis for conviction in cases of robbery and sexual offences. There is reasonable doubt and accused is entitled to an acquittal.