Identification evidence and test parades must be reliable; without legal proof linking the accused, conviction cannot stand.

Sworn in-court testimony remains substantive evidence, while a test identification parade only tests that evidence and may provide corroboration where the accused is a stranger. An FIR is not substantive evidence and cannot corroborate a witness who is not its maker. Here, the identification evidence was found unreliable because the appellant was not identified in court as a participant, the parade was delayed, multiple parades were held in a suspicious sequence, and the safeguards for fairness were inadequate. On those facts, the conviction could not be sustained because no legal evidence connected the appellant with the offence.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant's conviction could be sustained on the basis of the identification evidence and the test identification parades.

Analysis: The sworn testimony of a witness in court is substantive evidence, while a test identification parade serves only to test that evidence and ordinarily provides corroboration where the accused is a stranger to the witness. A first information report is not substantive evidence and cannot be used to corroborate a witness who is not its maker. The identification proceedings here were found unreliable because the appellant was not identified in court as a participant in the occurrence, the parade was held after avoidable delay, several parades were conducted in suspicious sequence, and the precautions taken to ensure fairness were unsatisfactory. If the witness had already recognized the appellant at the scene, the later parade would have little corroborative value; if he had not, the parade could not independently sustain the conviction.

Conclusion: The conviction of the appellant could not be sustained, as there was no legal evidence connecting him with the offence.

---