Test identification parade evidence requires independent panch proof; police testimony alone cannot sustain conviction when identity is vital.

Where identification of the accused in a test identification parade is central to proving house-breaking, the parade record cannot be established only through a police officer and the panchnama if the independent panch witness is available. A panchnama is merely a contemporaneous record of what the panch observed, and its proof through hearsay from police evidence does not substitute for independent testimony. In such a case, fairness of the parade and the accused's right to cross-examine the panch require direct proof from the witness who attended the proceeding. On that basis, the conviction was held unsustainable and the accused was acquitted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the conviction could be sustained when the identification of the accused in the identification parade was sought to be proved only through a police officer's testimony and the panchnama, without examining the independent panch witness.

Analysis: The evidence connecting the accused to the alleged house-breaking depended materially on the identification parade. The record of that parade was introduced through the police officer alone. The rule applied was that a panchnama is only a contemporaneous record of what the panch saw and cannot be proved through hearsay from a police witness when the independent witness is available. In a case where identification is vital, independent proof of a fair and properly held parade is required, and failure to call the panch deprives the accused of cross-examination and permits inadmissible corroboration.

Conclusion: The conviction could not be sustained. The appeal was allowed and the accused was acquitted.

---