concerned, his identity is seriously in dispute. In the FIR, she has merely referred to the main assailant as Amina's brother. In the crossexamination, she has admitted that she was not aware as to how many brothers Amina had. Therefore in this circumstance, it was imperative that the police should have conducted a test identification parade to enable her to fix the identity of accused no.1 as the main assailant who was described as Amina's brother in the FIR. There is absolutely no explanation offered on behalf of the prosecution as to why the identification parade was not held or why it was not possible or was not felt necessary to hold the identification parade. It is quite obvious that this witness was not knowing the accused no.1 by name. No description of the assailants was given in the FIR. Therefore, we are not inclined to place much reliance on the identification of accused no.1 in the Court for the first time. It is also important to note that before the trial Court, there were only three accused out of whom one was a lady. Therefore, it was not very difficult for this witness to have identified the accused no.1 sitting in the dock as Amina's brother. She has also not explained as to how during the deposition she was saying that Amina's brother known as 'Shetta', was present in the Court. If she was aware that Amina's brother was known as Shetta, she would not have failed to mention that Shetta had assaulted. In her cross-examination, she has admitted that she travelled to Rajawadi Hospital when her son was removed to the hospital and at that time, she had not informed the police about the name of the assailant. In her cross-examination, she has stated that when she came out of her house, her son was lying in an injured
