Section 121 · Paragraph 116. Rules for the identification of a person (criminal) in action

In all cases in which it is likely that a parade for the identification of the suspect by witnesses will be required at any stage, the Investigating Officer should take steps from the outset to ensure that the suspect has no opportunity of being seen by the witnesses before the identification proceedings are held. Such proceedings should, whenever possible, be postponed until they can be conducted in jail, subject to the provisions contained in the Government Order and paragraph 31 of these Regulations, for the due observance of which the Public Prosecutor shall be responsible, so far as the police are concerned. When identification proceedings cannot be conducted in jail for want of evidence sufficient for arrest against the suspect or for any other reason, the above mentioned instructions shall be followed by the Investigating Officer, as far as applicable. In such cases, proceedings should be conducted before a magistrate, as if they were conducted in jail, or if a magistrate is not available, before respectable and impartial individuals who should be asked to satisfy themselves that the proceedings are just for both the witnesses and the accused. In important cases, when a magistrate is not available for identification proceedings not conducted in jail, arrangements should be made for the presence of a gazetted police officer.
Note: The burden is on the prosecution to prove that the witnesses who saw and identified the accused at the time of the incident did not know them beforehand or saw them again between the incident and the identification proceedings. The investigating officer should also inform such accused about the identification proceedings at the time of their arrest, cover their faces, and ensure that their subordinates ensure that they are not seen or recognized on the way to the police station, between the court and the jail. The same precautions should be taken whenever such an accused is brought out of jail for a confession, etc. All these precautions are necessary to ensure that the case is not adversely affected.
In a murder case, a sub-inspector conducted identification proceedings to satisfy himself without the magistrate's permission. This was considered a serious error by the court in the case of Methi Paintian et al. (1960 Cr.L.A. 1402) and held that the proceedings should have been conducted to satisfy the law, not the investigation.
Identification proceedings conducted before the police, whether of the accused or of the verandah material, are considered barred by Section 162 of the Cr.P.C., and are inadmissible in evidence. Therefore, identification proceedings should be completed before the accused is released on bail, and bail should be opposed on this basis (1960 Cr.L.A. 358). However, the new Cr.P.C. does not justify keeping the accused in jail solely on this basis.
The purpose of identification proceedings is to satisfy the magistrate about the testimony of the witness. This does not mean that without such proceedings, the witness's statement has no value. However, this does not mean that the need for such proceedings should be ignored.
Unless exceptional circumstances are established, a delay of about a year or more in identification proceedings nullifies its value, as was found in Sheetla v. State. This does not establish the rule of law that witnesses who saw and identified the accused at the scene of crime can no longer identify him due to the long delay. Delhi Administration v. Bal Kishan also held that the absence of this principle would provide a significant defense to the accused, who, after a certain period, could appear and state with the belief that he would no longer be guilty. In Law v. State, it was held that identification proceedings are necessary to ensure that the witness' testimony is not wasted without his/her presence. In Antar Singh v. State, it was held that when the identification proceedings of some accused were conducted on time, while those of others were conducted after a year, and no reason was given for the delay, the proceedings are invalid.