Test Identification Parade

The purpose of TIP is to find out whether he is preparator of the crime.

This is necessary where the name of the offender is not mentioned by those who claim to be eyewitness of the incident, but they claim that although they did not know earlier, they could recall his features in sufficient details and would also be able to identify him if and when they happen to see him again.

It enables the investigating officer to ascertain whether the witnesses had really seen the preparator of crime and test their capacity to identify him and thereby fill the gap in the investigation regarding the identity of the culprit.

It is a workable way of  testing memory.

The evidence generated by TI parade is used for corroboration.

The purpose of TI parade is to test and strengthen trustworthiness of the evidence of the witness in the court.

In State (Delhi Adminisration) v. V.C. Shukala (1980) the Supreme Court laid down that the indentification accused by the witness for the first time in court without being tested by a prior test identification  parade was valueless.

The Supreme Court also held that where one of the witness failed to identify the accused at the identification parade, identification by him of the  accused in the court was useless.

Where the eyewitness stated in the F.I.R, that he could not identify the assailant, but even so he identified him at the T.I. parade, the Supreme Court held that such identification was a farce evidence.

Ordinarily the person who is supposed to have identified the assailants at the test identification parade must himself give evidence in regard to the identification.

In any even, the evidence in regard to the identification is at the most corroborative piece of evidence and can not remove the affirmities of the testimony itself.

The Supreme Court observed that evidence given by the witness in the court was substantive testimony while the indentification made by him at the parade was confirmatory of that fact.

Failure on the part of those who were injured in a mass attack to identify the assailants and the successful identification by persons who were injured in process was held to have made no difference to the quality of the evidence.

The hold of T.I. parade is not compulsory.

The failure to hold it is not fatal to the prosecution case where the accused persons were previously known to the witness and their name also appeared in the F.I.R.

Even where the accused demands T.I. parade, the prosecution is not bound to do so and its case will not be weakened by the mere absence of the parade.

Where the accused of day time robbery case refused to appear in parade though he was kept throughout under cover, he was not allowed to put a challenge to this identification in court.

Delay in holding

The delay in holding T.I. parade must be satisfactorily accounted for.

In Rajesh Govind v. State of Maharashtra (2000) , The explanation that no magistrate was available in Bombay for 5 weeks for supervising the parade was held to be not satisfactory.

In Murari Lal Jivan Ram Shama v. State of Maharashtra (1997), Two months delay was held to be sufficiently accounted for where the investigating officer did keep writing to the magistrate but the magistrate could not spare time earlier due to his preoccupations.

In Munna Kumar v. State of A.P. (2012) A photograph of accused appeared in newspapers . There was a long gap of time between such publication and holding of T.I. parade. The court said the fading of public memory must have taken place in the mean time. The publication could not be taken to have reduced the value of T.I. parade.

In Ravi v. State (2007) In the case of an F.I.R. against unknown persons, the Supreme Court said that T.I. parade should be held as early as possible. A conviction can not be based on a vague identification.

Where accused already known to witness

In Dana Yadav v. State of Bihar (2002) The Supreme Court observed that where the accused was already known to the witnesses , the holding of an identification parade would be waste of public time.

In State of Madhya Pradesh v. Chamru (2007) Photographs of the accused were shown to the child witnesses before the parade. The Supreme Court held that this took away the effect of the test identification parade.

If accused is well known by sight T.I. parade is not necessary.

Identification is not substantive evidence. It only assures the investigation agency of the fact it is proceeding on right lines.

Identification in Court

Identification of the accused by an eye witness in the court has been held to be substantive evidence.

The identification  through a parade is a primary evidence but not a substantive evidence. The same can be used to corroborate the identification of the accused in the court.

In Dana Yadav v. State of Bihar (2002) The accused in this case was not named in F.I.R. His identification in court was not  accepted by the Supreme Court as reliable evidence.

Identification for the first time in the court without any corroborative evidence should not form the basis of conviction unless there are exceptional circumstances to justify it.

In Oma v. State of T.N. (2014), in a dacoity case, the F.I.R. was lodged against unknown persons. T.I. was not held. Identification in court by a witness after 10 Years was held to be of doubtful validity.

In State of Haryana v. Surender (2007) , the injured eyewitness identified the accused in the court. T.I. parade could not be held because of refusal by accused to participate. The Supreme Court held that rejection of evidence of the eye-witness in the court without assigning any reasons was not proper.

----------------

--- Dr. Deepak Miglani

Email id. :- legalbuddy@gmail.com