The European Proceedings of
Social & Behavioural Sciences
EpSBS
Future Academy ISSN: 2357-1330
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 4.0
Unported License, permitting all non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is
properly cited.
https://dx.doi.org/10.15405/epsbs.2018.07.02.94
IEBMC 2017
8th International Economics and Business Management
Conference
IDENTIFICATION PARADE: CURRENT POSITION AND ISSUES
IN MALAYSIA
Ramalinggam Rajamanickam (a)* & Kevin Brendan Kung (b)
*Corresponding author
(a) Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Law, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM), 43600 Bangi, Selangor Darul Ehsan,
Malaysia, rama@ukm.edu.my
(b) Undergraduate, Faculty of Law, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM), 43600 Bangi, Selangor Darul Ehsan,
Malaysia, kevin-swiss@hotmail.com
Abstract
Much has been said regarding identification. Identification does not refer only to fingerprints. It
covers other types of identification such as footprints, voice and identification parade. This paper only
focuses on identification parade. Once a person is suspected of committing a crime, he or she may be
caused to be made available for an identification parade. Identification is a line of people who stand next
to each other while the victim or bystander tries to identify them as the person who has committed the
crime Identification parade is usually carried out to test the trustworthiness of the evidence per se. This
paper serves to set out briefly the principles and guidelines set down by case laws that should be followed
and applied during an identification parade. This paper provides the current position of identification
parade and also the evidentiary value of identification parade in the eyes of the court. Identification in
Malaysia has been progressing. There is a new form of identification being applied together with the
identification parade which is dock identification. However, there are few issues pertaining to
identification parade that are identified in this paper which are the lack of knowledge in conducting
identification parade, the principles enunciated in case laws are mere guidelines and the reliability of
witness which would need redresses to overcome the issues.
© 2018 Published by Future Academy www.FutureAcademy.org.UK
Keywords: Identification parade, dock identification, evidentiary value, Malaysia.
https://dx.doi.org/10.15405/epsbs.2018.07.02.94
Corresponding Author: Ramalinggam Rajamanickam
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the Organizing Committee of the conference
eISSN: 2357-1330
894
1. Introduction
Although advances in DNA profiling, eyewitness identification still plays an important in criminal
cases. One of the ways where law enforcement agencies carry out identification is through identification
parade. Identification parade is held where there is some doubt as to the identity of the persons who are
alleged to have committed an offence. Identification parade is no doubt a very important part of the
investigation for the court to determine the credibility of witnesses on the point of identification. There is
no specific provision under the Evidence Act 1950 or Criminal Procedure Code in Malaysia with regard
to identification parades. There are however numerous case laws that provide guidelines on identification
evidence. Any infirmity or defectiveness in the conduct of identification parades will render the
identification to be of little or no value (PP v. Mohamed Majid, 1976).
2. Problem Statement
Identification parade has been used as a mechanism to identify suspect or suspects in Malaysia
since many years ago. The witness identification in the parade is conducted before the trial and is always
tendered as evidence in the courtroom. Court gives high probative value for proper identification. The
issue arises with regard to identification parade is whether the Turnbull guideline is mandatory for the
court to follow or whether the court can deviate from it? The issue also arises about the way to conduct
proper identification parade in Malaysia as Turnbull only laid down the general principles of an
identification parade. There are also some conflicting decisions on how to conduct proper identification
parade in Malaysia including the issue of dock identification in the absence of identification parade. Other
key issues which arises is the reliability of witness pertaining to the mental capacity to remember.
3. Research Questions
The research questions are as follow:
▪ how identification parade is conducted in Malaysia?
▪ How the courts in Malaysia admit the evidence of identification parade in Malaysia?
▪ What is the evidentiary value of identification parade?
▪ Whether the guidelines laid down in R v. Turnbull (1976) are mandatory to be followed?
▪ How reliable is a witness in identifying during an identification parade?
▪ Why enforcement agency is unable to carry out identification parade successfully?
4. Purpose of the Study
The research outlined three objectives to be achieved as follow:
▪ to investigate how identification parade is conducted in Malaysia.
▪ to identify the admissibility of evidence of identification parade in Malaysia.
▪ to analyse the issues pertaining to identification parade in Malaysia.
https://dx.doi.org/10.15405/epsbs.2018.07.02.94
Corresponding Author: Ramalinggam Rajamanickam
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the Organizing Committee of the conference
eISSN: 2357-1330
895
5. Research Methods
The research is a pure legal research which employed qualitative design method to achieve the
objectives of this research. The article used exploratory, explanatory and critical analysis methods to
analyse the current position and issues pertaining to identification parade in Malaysia.
6. Findings
The research has few finding relating to identification parade in Malaysia.
6.1. Principle under R v. Turnbull (1976)
In R v. Turnbull (1976), Court of Appeal provided useful guidelines in regards to matter
concerning identity. There is plethora of authorities that have followed the principles and guidelines set
out in Turnbull. In Jaafar bin Ali v. PP (1998), Augustine Paul J referred to Criminal Evidence (3rd
Edition) by Andrews and Hirst which rearranged the Turnbull guidelines into four issues as follows:
a) The requirement for the judge to caution the jury about the dangers of identification.
First, whenever a case or evidence against the accused depends wholly or substantially on the one or
more identifications in which the accused alleges to be mistaken, the judge should warn and caution the
jury before convicting upon relying the definitiveness of the identification. Further, the judge should warn
of the chances that a mistaken witness could be believable. It is also prudent to note, that jury to be
warned of the danger mistaken recognition of close relatives and friends which are sometimes made.
b) The requirement of the judge to guide the jury to look at different particular issues that may
affect the quality or cogency of evidence before them.
Furthermore, the judge should guide the jury to look at intently the conditions of which the
identification by each witness came to be made. To what extent the witness observed the accused? What
was the distance? In what light? Was the observation or view blocked in any way, as for example by
passing traffic or press of people? Did the witness see the perpetrator before? How frequent? If only
occasionally, had he any special reasons in recalling the accused? How long had passed since the original
observation until subsequent identification to the police? Was there any material disparity between the
portrayal of the accused given by the witness to the police which was first seen by them and his actual
appearance? …. Lastly, he should caution the jury of any specific shortcoming which had showed up in
the identification evidence.
Each of these issues goes to the very nature of the identification evidence. If the quality is great
and stays great at the end of the accused case, the risk of mistaken identification is reduced; but the
poorer the quality, the higher the risk.
c) The question of when a jury may properly be permitted by the judge to convict the accused even
in the absence of other supporting evidence.
https://dx.doi.org/10.15405/epsbs.2018.07.02.94
Corresponding Author: Ramalinggam Rajamanickam
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the Organizing Committee of the conference
eISSN: 2357-1330
896
In the judgement, when the nature of the identification is great, as when the identification is made
after a long span of observation, or in a adequate conditions by a relative, a neighbour, a dear companion,
a workmate and so forth, the jury can safely be left to access the value of the identifying evidence, even
though there is no other evidence to corroborate it: provided always, however, that a sufficient caution
has been given. Were court to decide contrary, injustice would happen.
When in the decision of the trial judge, the nature of the identifying evidence is bad, as for
example when it depends solely on a transitory look or on a longer observation made in challenging
conditions, the circumstances is altogether different. The judge should then acquit the accused unless
there is other evidence which goes to corroborate the correctness of the identification.
d) The question of what other evidence may properly be regarded as capable of supporting an
identification.
This supporting evidence may be corroboration in the sense counsels utilize the word, yet it
require not be so if its impact is to ensure that there has been no mistake in the identification. For
example, Y sees the perpetrator; he gets only a fleeting short lived look of the criminals face as he keeps
running off, however he sees him going into a close by house. Later, he picks him out in the identity
parade. If there was no more evidence than this, the poor natureof the identification would amount to
acquittal; but this would be so if there was evidence that the house into which the accused was alleged by
X to have run was his father’s.
Another case of other evidence not amounting to corroboration can be seen in the case of R v.
Long (1973). The perpetrator was accused of robbery, had been recognised by three witness in different
place on various events, but each had only a short opportunity for observation. Immediately after the
robbery, the accused had left his home and could not be traced by the police. At some point later he was
seen by them, he claimed to know who had done the robbery and offered hemp to find the perpetrator. At
his trial, he put forward a plausible defence which the jury rejected.
The trial judge ought to recognize the jury the evidence which he adjudges is capable or
circumstances which the jury might think was supporting when it did not have this quality, the judge
should say so. A jury, for instance, may believe that support for identification evidence could be found
when in fact that the accused had not given evidence before them. An accused’s non-appearance from the
witness-box cannot provide evidence of anything, and the judge should tell the jury so. But he would
entitled to tell them that when accessing the quality of the identification evidence, they could take into
consideration the fact that it was uncontradicted by any evidence coming from the accused himself.
Care ought to be taken by the judge when giving directions to the jury about the corroboration for
identification which may be considered from the fact that they have rejected an alibi. False alibis may be
given for many reasons: an accused, who has only his own evidence to rely on, may fabricate an alibi and
get some witness’s to support it because he fears that his own evidence will not be enough. Moreover,
alibi witnesses can make genuine mistakes about dates and occasions like any other witnesses can. It is
only where the jury are satisfied that the sole reason for the for the creation of the alibi was to trick them
https://dx.doi.org/10.15405/epsbs.2018.07.02.94
Corresponding Author: Ramalinggam Rajamanickam
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the Organizing Committee of the conference
eISSN: 2357-1330
897
and there is no other reasons for its being put forward, that fabrication can provide any support for
identification evidence.
6.2. Process of identification parade.
The whole process of identification Parade is enumerated in Mallal’s Criminal Procedure Code
(Mallal’s Criminal Procedure, 2013). Identification parade must be carried out at the earliest opportunity
and all available witnesses should be required to attend at the very first parade. The proper practise in
England is that parade should be carried out by the police officer on duty in charge of the police station
and not by the officer in charge of the investigation. The witnesses must be allowed to see the accused
until the moment when everything is ready and they walk to pick him out, and they should not have been
previously assisted by photographs or by any verbal or written description.
The accused should be put together with a number of person, which is not less than 10 for one
accused, 15 if two and so on. He should be allowed to stand wherever among these people, who stand in a
row, and he may change his position for each identification parade being conducted. The officer in charge
of the identification should ask the accused if he has any objection to any of the persons present of to the
arrangements made, and he should previously have been asked if he wished to have his solicitor, family
member or friend present. Every effort should be made to make the parade a fair one and to see that the
accused admits that it is so. The place selected for the parade should be well lighted. A suspect may be
invited to walk or move in any way likely to be distinctive.
The line up of persons in the identification parade should be of similar character. It is a settled
practise for the police to parade persons of similar height, built and ages and the same nationality of the
suspect of to identify the suspect (R v. Dickman, 1910; R v. Bundy, R 272). When the accused had brown
eyes and the person with such brown eyes had not been mixed in the parade the evidence of the
identification had to be rejected (Chander v. S A, 1973). When the accused is a bearded man, with a tape
on his neck waited with the witnesses outside the magistrate’s court and among five other persons in the
parade none was similarly bearded the evidence had to be rejected (Yeshwant v. S A, 1973).
The witness should be brought in one by one, and are usually directed to touch the person they
identify. Each witness having succeeded or failed, as the case may be, should be taken out by a different
door and kept apart from the witnesses who are to come. If the identifying witnesses were waiting outside
when the persons were called in for identification parade and the identifying witnesses identified the
accused, the identification was unfair (Gobardhan v. R A, 1932). Every circumstance connected with the
identification, the names of the witnesses and their decisions, must be carefully noted by the officer in
charge who must record the proceedings as fully and fairly and carefully.
Further, in Poovananeswaran a/l Sellan & Anor v. PP (2016), the issue arose was whether the
identification parade conducted to identify the appellant was defective. The appellants claimed that the
identification parade was defective because both of them were identified in only one identification parade.
The High Court of Shah Alam, in this case, held that where there is more than one accused, the
identification parade for all the accused should be done separately as mentioned in the case of PP v.
Jamal & Anor (2006). The identification must be absolutely independent (PP v. Aling bin Ayun, 1970). In
a parade, there should not be any disparity of ages among the persons in the parade (Chan Sin v. PP,
https://dx.doi.org/10.15405/epsbs.2018.07.02.94
Corresponding Author: Ramalinggam Rajamanickam
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the Organizing Committee of the conference
eISSN: 2357-1330
898
1949). They do not have to look similar (Thirumalai Kumar v. PP, 1977) or wearing the same attire (Lee
Tiaw Chwee v. PP, 1998). In the event, there are two accused, a separate identification parade must be
carried out (PP v. Chan Choon Keong & Ors, 1989).
6.3 Evidentiary value of identification parade.
In S.C. Bahri (1994), the court addresses the value of identification where the Supreme Court
observed thus:
“It is well settled that substantive evidence of the witness is his evidence in the court but when
the accused person is not previously known to the witness concerned then identification of the
accused by the witness soon after arrest is of great importance because it furnishes on assurance
that the investigation is proceeding on right lines in addition to furnishing corroboration of the
evidence to be given by the witness later in court at the trial. From this point of view, it is matter
of great importance both for the investigating agency and for the accused and a fortiori for the
proper administration of justice that such identification is held without available and
unreasonable delay after arrest of the accused and that all the necessary precautions and
safeguards were effectively taken so the investigation proceeds on correct lines for punishing the
real culprit. It would, in addition, be fair to the witness concerned also who was a stranger to the
accused because in that event the chances of his memory fading away are reduced and he is
required to identify the alleged culprit at the earliest possible opportunity after the occurrence. It
is in adopting this course that justice and fair play can be assured both to the accused as well as
to the prosecution. But the position may be different when the accused or a culprit who stands
trial had been seen not once but for quite a number of times at different point of time and places
which fact may do away with the necessity of test identification parade.”
In Rameshkumar Soni v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1997), the court stated that:
“The evidence of identity must be thoroughly scrutinised, giving benefit of all doubt to the
accused; but if after a through scrutiny there appears to be nothing on record to suspect the
testimony of the identification witnesses, the Court ought not to feel shy of basing a conviction
on such evidence alone, because of the bare possibility that there could be honest though
mistaken identification.”
The value of identification parade was explained in ST Shinde v. State of Marashtra (1974) as follows:
“The evidence at test identification is admissible under section 9 of the Evidence Act, it is, at
best supporting evidence. It can be used only to corroborate the substantive evidence given by
the witnesses in court regarding identification or the accused as the doer of the criminal act. The
earlier identification made by the witnesses at the test identification parade, by itself, had no
independent value.”
https://dx.doi.org/10.15405/epsbs.2018.07.02.94
Corresponding Author: Ramalinggam Rajamanickam
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the Organizing Committee of the conference
eISSN: 2357-1330
899
Where accused is already known to the witnesses, identification parade shall not be held (PP v.
Sarjeet Singh, 1994). If a witness do not know the accused before the occurrence and no proper and fair
identification parade is held after the necessary precaution and safeguards are taken, a test parade was
held to test his power of identification and the witness was also shown the accused by the police before he
identified the accused at the identification parade and later in court, his evidence becomes valueless
(Mohanlal Gangaram Gehori v. State of Maharashtra, 1982); PP v. Ayavoo Subramaniam, 2004). If the
manner of holding identification parade throws suspicion on police, the evidence is not entitled to any
weight (Bhandari v. R A, 1940). Technical breaches of identification parade may not vitiate the evidence
per se, unless the prejudicial effect overrides its probative force.
6.4 Current application and issues of identification parade in Malaysia.
In Malaysia, Turnbull principles are being applied with certain modification on the fact that it will
be the judge that will assess the quality of witness identification. The most recent decision where
identification parade was carried out is Asis Lako v. PP (2017). It is now a common practise now that
after an identification parade is conducted, that dock identification is later carried out in court. Dock
identification for the first time has been accepted in the case of Basah bin Bakhtiar @ Johan v. Public
Prosecutor (2016). In the case of Goh Kooi Pheng v. PP (2013) court said when identification parade is
carried out is unfair manner to the accused, the subsequent identification was of little value and or
significance to the court.
In the case of PP v. Dharma Raj Ballurajah & Anor (2016), a quarrel took place between the
deceased and the defendants. The witness had seen of the defendants threw a punch to the deceased and a
knife was thrown. Two police officers managed to detain and charged them for murder under section 302
of the Penal Code. Identification parade was conducted where the witness identified them. However, the
identification parade was improperly conducted and was unfair to the third appellant therefore the court
was of the view that the dock identification of both the accused in this case is therefore rendered of little
value of significance. However, in the cases of R v. Cartwright (1914) and Jaafar bin Ali v. Public
Prosecutor (1999), the court stated that it is improper to identify a suspect for the first time only when he
is in dock where he is a complete stranger to the witness meaning that the very first identification should
be carried out through an identification parade and then the following identification can be carried out in
the courtroom. This was further agreed in the case of Magendran Mohan v. PP (2011).
The first issue relating to identification parade in Malaysia is whether the Turnbull guidelines are
mandatory to be followed by the trial judge or is it a mere guideline. In the case of Mohammad Yazri
Minhat v. PP (2003), where in the Court of Appeal remarked as follows:
“Now the English case of Turnbull did not lay down any proposition of law embodied in
concrete. As all members of the criminal bar are aware, the several propositions in Turnbull are
known as the “Turnbull guidelines”. And that is what they really are. They are just guidelines
and each case depends on its own facts. What was said in Turnbull does not amount to inflexible
rules with no exceptions whatsoever.”
https://dx.doi.org/10.15405/epsbs.2018.07.02.94
Corresponding Author: Ramalinggam Rajamanickam
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the Organizing Committee of the conference
eISSN: 2357-1330
900
The above proposition was agreed in the case of Mohamas Yazri v. PP (2003).There are other
cases like Ahmad Nazari bin Abdul Majid v. PP (2009) and PP v. Joachim Selvanathan & Ors (2009)
which agreed that Turnbull directions are only directions.
The second issue is relating to the reliability of the witness or victim himself. The fragility of
memories continues to misidentification even though the court is practising the Turnbull guidelines.
There are three stages. The first stage is acquisition, where an event is originally observed or information
is taken in. The second stage is retention where memory is stored and the third stage is retrieval where
memory is recalled.
Retention is the time between an event and recollection. It is very important especially during
identification parade to identify the perpetrator of a criminal offence. Once encoded in memory, the
memory will not remain intact and would fade over time and changes taking place. It is something of
common sense. The retention stage is a great danger because that memory will become contaminated by
new or other information. Faces are complicated, we have not one face but thousands of different faces. It
is a common and know fact that people fail to recognise someone they know or mistaken one person to
another. There is also delay of days or several weeks before and identification parade is conducted. As
memory fades over time, there is the likelihood that witness accuracy will also be in decline.
The third issue is the lack of knowledge of the enforcement officers to conduct an identification
parade. This is well in the High Court case of Public Prosecutor v. Dharma Raj Ballurajah & Anor
(2016), the conduct of the identification parades suffers from infirmities that do not assist the prosecution
in proving positively, the identification of the accused persons. There were two accused persons involved
and thus the proper way was to put them separately for identification purpose with not less than nine or
ten persons (PP v. Chan Choo Keong & Ors, 1989). Yet, no separate parade was held for each accused
and only 11 participants were involved in the parade line up including both accused. Besides that, all
witnesses were kept in the same holding room during the identification parade, and at the conclusion of
the identification, each witness had returned to the holding room. This leaves open the possibility of the
opportunity of the witnesses to discuss the case and inform the other witnesses of the position of the
suspects in the line up, given the fact that they remained in their position unchanged throughout the
exercise.
Although it has been established that it is the duty of the officer conducting the parade to look for
participants who are of similar age, stature and appearance as the accused person (PP v. Pasupathy
Kanagasaby, 2001), there are still instances in which the officer failed to follow this procedure. In the
recent case of Public Prosecutor v. Tay Ee Hung (2016), there was a serious flaw in the way the
identification parade was conducted. First, the eyewitnesses were shown with the photography of the
accused when they were briefed by the police officer before the parade was conducted which led to the
positive identification of the accused. Second, the age of the participants in identification line up was
either too young or too old compared to the age of the accused. Further, the accused was the only one
bald and wearing different clothing as he was in police custody. The interesting part of the case is that
PW10, Inspector Alis bin Nen who conducted the parade admitted that the ideal age and height of the
participants should be more or less the same with the accused, but curiously, the flaw was still persistent.
https://dx.doi.org/10.15405/epsbs.2018.07.02.94
Corresponding Author: Ramalinggam Rajamanickam
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the Organizing Committee of the conference
eISSN: 2357-1330
901
Other latest cases that the Court held the identification parade as defective are in the case of
Poovaneswaran a/l Sellan & Anor v. Pendakwa Raya (2016) in which the victim identified both the
appellants in one single identification, and similarly in the case of Public Prosecutor v. Nazariman
Bujang & Anor (2016) in which the learned Session Court Judge, learned counsel for the respondent and
even the learned DPP, had conceded that the identification parade that was arranged by the police was
unsatisfactory.
7. Conclusion
It is evident that identification parade is part and parcel of a criminal investigation. The guidelines
provided in the case of R v. Turnbull (1976) is still being applied in Malaysian courts today. Dock
identification is being applied together with identification parade to support the reliability of an
identification. However, there is still some important issues that needs to be addressed such as the
reliability of the witness in an identification parade, officers carrying identification parade has very little
knowledge or guidelines to be followed when carrying out identification parade and also since precedent
shows that guidelines provided in R v. Turnbull (1976) are merely guidelines, whether the court can
deviate or is it still mandatory guidelines for the court to follow.
Acknowledgments
The research is funded by Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM) via research grant: GGPM-
2016-036..
References
Ahmad Nazari bin Abdul Majid v. PP, 9 MLJ 297 (2009).
Andrew & Hirst. (1991). Criminal evidence. Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, 3rd Edition, Bristol,
Jordan.
Asis Lako v. PP, 1 LNS 707 (2017).
Basah bin Bakhtiar @ Johan v. Public Prosecutor, MLJU 99 (2016).
Bhandari v. R A, L 281 (1940).
Chander v. S A 1973 SC 1200 (1973).
Chan Sin v. PP, MLJ 106 CA (1949).
Gobardhan v. R A, L 308 (1932).
Goh Kooi Pheng v. PP, 1 CLJ 190 (2013).
Jaafar bin Ali v. PP, 4 MLJ 406 (1998).
Jaafar bin Ali v. Public Prosecutor, I CLJ 410 (1999).
Lee Tiaw Chwee v. PP, 3 SLR 563 (1998).
Magendran Mohan v. PP, 1 CLJ 805 (2011).
Mallal’s Criminal Procedure. (2013). 4th Edition, Malaysia.
Mohammad Yazri Minhat v. PP, 2 MLJ 241 (2003).
Mohamas Yazri v. PP, 2 CLJ 65 (2003).
Mohanlal Gangaram Gehori v. State of Maharashtra, SC 839 (1982).
Poovananeswaran a/l Sellan & Anor v. PP, MLJU 559 (2016).
PP v. Joachim Selvanathan & Ors, 10 CLJ 488 (2009).
PP v. Aling bin Ayun, 2 MLJ 160 (1970).
PP v. Ayavoo Subramaniam, 1 LNS 141 (2004).
PP v. Chan Choon Keong & Ors, 2 MLJ 247 (1989).
https://dx.doi.org/10.15405/epsbs.2018.07.02.94
Corresponding Author: Ramalinggam Rajamanickam
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the Organizing Committee of the conference
eISSN: 2357-1330
902
PP v. Dharma Raj Ballurajah & Anor, 4 CLJ 773 (2016).
PP v. Jamal & Anor, MLJU 167 (2006).
PP v. Mohamed Majid, 1 LNS 104 (1976); 1 MLJ 121 (1977).
PP v. Pasupathy Kanagasaby, 2 CLJ 753 (2001); 2 MLJ 143 (2001).
PP v. Sarjeet Singh, 2 MLJ 290 (1994).
Public Prosecutor v. Nazariman Bujang & Anor, 9 CLJ 437 (2016).
Public Prosecutor v. Dharma Raj Ballurajah & Anor, 4 CLJ 791 (2016).
Public Prosecutor v. Tay Ee Hung, 4 CLJ 897 (2016).
Poovaneswaran a/l Sellan & Anor v. Pendakwa Raya, MLJU 599 (2016).
Rameshkumar Soni v. State of Madhya Pradesh, Cri LJ 3418 (1997).
R v. Cartwright, 10 Cr. App. R. 219 (1914).
R v. Dickman, 74 J. P. 449 (1910).
R v. Bundy 5 Cr.App. (R 272).
R v. Long, 57 Cr App Rep 871 (1973).
R v. Turnbull, 3 ALL ER 549 (1976).
S.C. Bahri. (1994). Cri LJ 3271.
ST Shinde v. State of Marashtra, SC 791 (1974).
Thirumalai Kumar v. PP, 3 SLR 434 (1977).
Yeshwant v. S A, SC 337 (1973).