Chapter V
Section 54A CrPC: Identification of person arrested
New Law Update (2024)
Section 35 BNSS
TRIAL COURT
Punishment
Procedural – Warrant / Summons Process
Cognizable?
Bailable?
Compoundable?
Bare Act Text
Where a person is arrested on a charge of committing an offence and his identification by any other person or persons is considered necessary for the purpose of investigation of such offence, the Court, having jurisdiction, may on the request of the officer in charge of a police station, direct the person so arrested to subject himself to identification by any person or persons in such manner as the Court may deem fit.
Provided that, if the person identifying the person arrested is mentally or physically disabled, such process of identification shall take place under the supervision of a Judicial Magistrate who shall take appropriate steps to ensure that such person identifies the person arrested using methods that person is comfortable with;
Provided further that if the person identifying the person arrested is mentally or physically disabled, the identification process shall be videographed.
Important Sub-Sections Explained
Proviso 1 to Section 54A CrPC
This proviso mandates that if the person identifying the arrested individual is mentally or physically disabled, the identification process must be conducted under the direct supervision of a Judicial Magistrate. The Magistrate is responsible for ensuring that the process accommodates the disabled person’s comfort and preferred methods of identification.
Proviso 2 to Section 54A CrPC
This proviso further stipulates that in cases where the identifying person is mentally or physically disabled, the entire identification process must be videographed. This provision aims to enhance transparency and ensure the integrity and evidentiary value of the identification procedure.
Landmark Judgements
Munna Kumar v. State of Bihar (2019):
The Supreme Court emphasized the crucial role of an identification parade under Section 54A CrPC in the investigation process, particularly when the identity of the accused is in question. It underscored that the procedure ensures fairness and prevents miscarriage of justice, making it an indispensable part of the investigative tools.
Ashok Kumar v. State of Rajasthan (2015):
The Supreme Court reiterated that the primary purpose of an identification parade is to test the memory and veracity of the witnesses and to establish the identity of the accused in relation to the crime. It highlighted that such a parade, when properly conducted, adds significant corroborative value to the prosecution’s case.