Section 327 of BNSS : Section 327: Identification report of Magistrate.

Explanation using Example

Example 1:

Scenario: Identification of a Stolen Vehicle

Context: A car was reported stolen in Mumbai. The police recovered a vehicle matching the description and brought it to the police station. The owner was called to identify the vehicle.

Application of Section 327:

1. An Executive Magistrate was present during the identification process.
2. The owner identified the vehicle as theirs, and the Magistrate prepared an identification report.
3. This report, signed by the Magistrate, stated that the owner positively identified the vehicle as the stolen one.

Legal Use:

• During the trial of the accused for vehicle theft, the identification report prepared by the Magistrate was submitted as evidence.
• The Magistrate was not required to be present in court to testify about the identification process.
• However, if the defense or prosecution requested, the court could summon the Magistrate to testify about the report.

Example 2:

Scenario: Identification of a Suspect in a Robbery Case

Context: A robbery occurred in a Delhi jewelry store. The police apprehended a suspect based on CCTV footage and witness descriptions. The witnesses were called to identify the suspect in a lineup.

Application of Section 327:

1. An Executive Magistrate oversaw the identification lineup.
2. The witnesses identified the suspect from the lineup, and the Magistrate documented this in an identification report.
3. The report included statements from the witnesses about their identification of the suspect.

Legal Use:

• The identification report was used as evidence in the trial against the suspect.
• The statements of the witnesses in the report were subject to the provisions of sections 19, 26, 27, 158, or 160 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.
• If the defense or prosecution wanted to challenge the identification process, they could request the court to summon the Magistrate to testify about the report.

Example 3:

Scenario: Identification of Confiscated Property

Context: During a raid in a suspected smuggler's warehouse in Chennai, the police confiscated several items believed to be stolen goods. The rightful owners were called to identify their property.

Application of Section 327:

1. An Executive Magistrate was present during the identification of the confiscated items.
2. The owners identified their property, and the Magistrate prepared an identification report documenting these identifications.
3. The report included details of the items and the owners' statements confirming their ownership.

Legal Use:

• The identification report was presented as evidence in the trial against the smuggler.
• The Magistrate's presence during the identification process ensured the report's credibility, even though the Magistrate was not required to testify in court.
• If necessary, the court could summon the Magistrate to provide further details about the identification process.

Example 4:

Scenario: Identification of a Deceased Person

Context: A body was found in a remote area in Kolkata, and the police suspected foul play. The family of a missing person was called to identify the body.

Application of Section 327:

1. An Executive Magistrate was present during the identification of the deceased.
2. The family identified the body as their missing relative, and the Magistrate documented this in an identification report.
3. The report included the family's statements and the identification details.

Legal Use:

• The identification report was used as evidence in the investigation and any subsequent trial related to the death.
• The Magistrate's report was admissible as evidence without the Magistrate needing to testify.
• If the prosecution or defense required, the court could summon the Magistrate to discuss the identification process and the report's contents.