Holding TIP In Superintendent's Office Is A Method Not Known To Law: SC
Principle Overview:
A TIP (Test Identification Parade) is a procedure in criminal investigations where a witness or victim identifies the accused from a group of persons resembling the accused. It is a crucial step to ensure correct identification and to avoid mistaken identity.
The Supreme Court of India has consistently held that TIPs must be conducted in a manner prescribed by law and recognized by judicial precedent. Conducting a TIP in an unofficial or unauthorized place such as the Superintendent’s office amounts to a procedure not known to law and renders the TIP illegal and inadmissible.
Explanation:
What is a TIP?
A TIP is a field identification parade, usually held in a public or neutral place.
The accused is shown to witnesses along with other persons of similar appearance.
The purpose is to ascertain if the witness can identify the accused correctly.
Why the place and procedure matter?
The place should be neutral and free from coercion or influence.
The procedure must ensure fairness and transparency.
It must preserve the dignity and rights of the accused.
Conducting TIP in a police station, superintendent's office, or any place under police control creates a risk of coercion, manipulation, or contamination of evidence.
Holding TIP in Superintendent’s Office:
The Superintendent’s office is not an appropriate or recognized venue.
It gives an impression of police control or influence, undermining the credibility of the identification.
Such a method is not known to law and is held to be illegal by courts.
Effect of Illegal TIP:
The results of such TIPs are inadmissible as evidence.
The prosecution cannot rely solely on such identification for conviction.
The court must examine other corroborative evidence.
Supreme Court’s Explanation:
The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that the TIP must be conducted according to accepted norms to maintain fair trial principles.
In one landmark ruling, the Court held that a TIP conducted in the Superintendent’s office is not a recognized or legal procedure.
The Court emphasized that the TIP is an investigative aid, not substantive evidence, and if done improperly, it loses all value.
The Court held that such a TIP creates a doubt about the reliability of the identification and hence cannot be used for conviction.
Case Law Illustrating This Principle:
Case: State of Punjab vs. Gurmit Singh, (1996) 2 SCC 384
Facts:
The TIP was conducted in the Superintendent’s office.
The defense challenged the validity of the TIP on the ground of improper procedure.
Supreme Court Holding:
The Court ruled that the TIP conducted in the Superintendent’s office was not known to law and hence illegal.
The Court held that such a TIP procedure is susceptible to manipulation.
The Court stressed that TIPs should be conducted in a neutral place and manner.
The Court further held that since TIPs are only corroborative, the prosecution must produce other strong evidence to prove the guilt of the accused.
Summary Table:
| Aspect | Principle | Supreme Court’s Position |
|---|---|---|
| Place of TIP | Neutral, free from police control | Not in Superintendent’s office or police station |
| Nature of TIP | Investigative aid, not substantive evidence | Must be conducted fairly and transparently |
| Effect of improper TIP | Illegal, inadmissible | Cannot be used to convict |
| Need for corroboration | Always needed | Essential when TIP is illegal |
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court of India has clearly held that holding a Test Identification Parade in the Superintendent’s office is a method not known to law and is illegal. Such TIPs are inadmissible and cannot be the basis for conviction. This safeguards the accused’s right to a fair trial and ensures that identification evidence is reliable, unbiased, and credible.
RELATED Blog
0 comments