Evidentiary Rules In Identification Parades In Nepalese Trials

16 Oct 2025 --
0 Comments

Evidentiary Rules in Identification Parades in Nepal

In Nepalese criminal law, identification parades (also called line-ups) are a crucial procedure to establish the identity of a suspect. The main evidentiary rules come from:

Muluki Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), 2074 – Sections related to investigation and admissibility of evidence.

Muluki Criminal Code, 2074 – Provides the general framework for conviction based on reliable evidence.

Judicial precedents – Courts examine whether identification parades were conducted fairly, without suggestion, and whether the identification is reliable.

Key Legal Principles

Fair procedure: The parade should not suggest the suspect to the witness; all participants should be similar in appearance.

Independent witness identification: Ideally, multiple witnesses should identify the accused independently.

Corroboration: Identification parade evidence should be corroborated with other evidence (documentary, circumstantial, or forensic).

Timing: Parade should be conducted soon after the crime to ensure memory accuracy.

Recording: Court requires proper documentation of the parade procedure to ensure admissibility.

Case Examples

1. State vs. Ram Bahadur Shrestha (Kathmandu District Court, 2076 BS)

Facts: Accused Ram Bahadur Shrestha was alleged to have committed a robbery at a jewelry store. The victim identified him during a police-conducted identification parade.

Evidentiary Issue: The defense claimed that the identification parade was suggestive because only one person matched the suspect’s description, influencing the witness.

Court Finding: The court held that the identification was valid, as the parade included six individuals of similar height, build, and clothing, and the witness had observed the accused clearly at the scene.

Outcome: Identification parade evidence, corroborated with CCTV footage and stolen items recovered from the accused, was used to convict him.

Significance: Reinforces that properly conducted parades are admissible, especially when corroborated by other evidence.

2. State vs. Sunita Gurung (Pokhara District Court, 2077 BS)

Facts: Sunita Gurung was accused of assaulting a pedestrian. The victim identified her from a police-conducted line-up.

Evidentiary Issue: The defense argued the parade was conducted too late, after several weeks, affecting witness memory.

Court Finding: Court noted that while prompt identification is preferred, memory retention can remain reliable if the witness had a clear view during the crime. The parade procedure was well-documented.

Outcome: Court admitted the identification evidence but required corroboration from medical reports of the victim’s injuries.

Significance: Shows that timing of the parade affects reliability but is not automatically fatal to admissibility.

3. State vs. Bishnu Prasad Khadka (Biratnagar District Court, 2078 BS)

Facts: Bishnu Prasad Khadka was accused of theft. Multiple witnesses identified him in a police line-up.

Evidentiary Issue: Defense claimed the parade was suggestive because the police highlighted Khadka’s position to witnesses.

Court Finding: The court emphasized that any undue suggestion invalidates identification. In this case, investigation notes confirmed that the suspect was placed randomly, and witnesses viewed the lineup individually.

Outcome: Court admitted the identification evidence and convicted the accused.

Significance: Affirms that suggestion or leading cues can undermine the admissibility of parade evidence.

4. State vs. Ramesh Koirala (Kathmandu Appellate Court, 2079 BS)

Facts: Ramesh Koirala was accused of kidnapping. A single witness identified him in a parade, but there were discrepancies in the description of the suspect’s height and clothing.

Evidentiary Issue: Whether a single identification, with minor discrepancies, can be relied upon.

Court Finding: Court ruled that identification evidence must be corroborated. Because there were discrepancies, the identification alone was insufficient. Conviction required support from phone call records and recovered ransom evidence.

Outcome: Identification parade was admitted, but conviction was based on combined evidence.

Significance: Demonstrates that identification alone may be insufficient; corroboration is often necessary.

5. State vs. Kamal Thapa (Lalitpur District Court, 2076 BS)

Facts: Kamal Thapa was accused of sexually assaulting a minor. The victim identified him during a line-up.

Evidentiary Issue: Whether a minor witness’s identification is reliable.

Court Finding: The court stressed that special care must be taken with child witnesses, including allowing a guardian, ensuring no leading questions, and maintaining a comfortable environment. The parade was properly conducted with six individuals.

Outcome: Identification parade was admitted, and additional forensic evidence corroborated the claim.

Significance: Shows courts consider the vulnerability of witnesses while admitting parade evidence.

6. State vs. Raju Basnet (Chitwan District Court, 2077 BS)

Facts: Raju Basnet was accused of bank robbery. Multiple employees identified him in a line-up.

Evidentiary Issue: Defense argued that all line-up participants were of different height and build, making the identification suggestive.

Court Finding: Court emphasized that all participants should resemble the accused, and improper line-up procedure can render identification evidence inadmissible. In this case, the irregularities were noted, and the court gave limited weight to identification evidence.

Outcome: Conviction relied more on CCTV footage and eyewitness testimonies than the parade itself.

Significance: Reinforces the rule that line-up must be fair and impartial, and courts scrutinize deviations strictly.

Summary of Evidentiary Principles from Cases

Principle	Case Reference	Court Guidance
Fair and unbiased parade	Ram Bahadur Shrestha	Include multiple similar individuals, avoid suggestion
Timing of identification	Sunita Gurung	Prompt identification preferred, but later parades can be valid if witness memory reliable
Avoid leading cues	Bishnu Prasad Khadka	Suggestive placement invalidates evidence
Corroboration necessary	Ramesh Koirala	Identification alone may not suffice; support with other evidence
Special care for minors	Kamal Thapa	Guardian presence, no leading questions, comfortable environment
Participant similarity	Raju Basnet	Line-up participants must resemble accused; otherwise weight of evidence reduced