same way, pW-3 Thaniyappa has stated in para-2 of his deposition that he did not know A2 and A3 before the date of the incident. In the same way, PW-5 Kumaran has stated in para-15 of his deposition that he had not seen A2 and A3 before the date of incident and he saw them only at the time of the incident. In the same way, PW-6 Kumara has stated in para-2 of his deposition that he had not seen A2 and A3 prior to the time of incident. The evidence of PW-7 Lingappa and PW-13 John Crasta is also equally vague in this behalf. It needs to be noted that an identification parade was held on 26-06-1979 by PW-11 J.Ashwath with respect to A2 and A3. The evidence of PW-11 J.Ashwath is briefly referred to hereinabove. It will suffice if it is noted at this juncture that there are so many infirmities in the identification parade conducted by PW-11 J.Ashwath. In this connection, PW-11’s evidence at para 20 deserves to be noted. In the course of his cross-examination, he has stated that he has not noted down the dress worn by different persons standing in identification parade or by A2 Sanjiva Handa and A3 Basava Handa. He has further admitted that he has not noted any particulars with respect to those persons and the accused as regard height, age etc., and other descriptive particulars. He has further stated that he has noted down in the different exhibits from Exs.P10 to P23 whatever he has done. He has admitted that it is mentioned in different memorandums at Exs.P10 to P23 that the Sub-Inspector of Police produced the accused persons i.e., A2 and A3. Further, it is seen from the memorandums maintained by PW-11 Ashwath at Exs.P10 to P23 that the identification parade was held at C.I.’s office. As seen above, the Sub-Inspector of Police produced A2 and A3. The identification parade was held at the C.I’s office. Further, the total number of persons, who were made to stand with the accused persons i.e., A2 and A3 were ten. Further, the descriptive particulars were also not given. The ratio is also alarmingly less. In this connection, the decision of our Hon’ble High Court in Pemya and others -V- The State , reported in 1978(2) Karnataka Law Journal, at page 87 can be looked into with advantage. In the said case, it was observed that prudence requires that people with similar height and features should be mixed up with the accused in the proportion of not less than 1 to 9, and the Executive Magistrate should also take care
