Not Prudent To Convict An Accused Solely On Basis Of Identification For The First Time In Court Without Test...
Legal Principle
It is not prudent to convict an accused solely on the basis of identification for the first time in court without a prior Test Identification Parade (TIP).
The logic is:
When a witness identifies the accused in court for the very first time, it may be unreliable because the accused is already sitting in the dock and the witness may be influenced.
A Test Identification Parade (TIP) conducted during investigation helps the police and courts ensure that the witness actually had the opportunity to identify the accused independently at the time of the incident.
So, without TIP or corroboration, in-court identification alone is considered weak evidence.
Why TIP is Important
Corroborative Value:
TIP is not substantive evidence in itself, but it provides strong corroboration to in-court identification.
Fairness to the Accused:
It ensures the accused is not convicted merely because the witness saw him in police custody or in the courtroom.
Prevention of False Implication:
TIP reduces the risk of mistaken identity, especially in cases involving strangers.
Case Laws
Kanta Prashad v. Delhi Administration (AIR 1958 SC 350)
The Supreme Court held that identification in court for the first time without prior TIP carries little value.
TIP is important to test the veracity of the witness.
Budhsen & Anr. v. State of U.P. (1970) 2 SCC 128
The Court observed that in-court identification without prior TIP is unsafe unless supported by other reliable evidence.
Malkhansingh v. State of M.P. (2003) 5 SCC 746
Held that TIP is only to strengthen the prosecution case, but in its absence, conviction can still be based on in-court identification if the witness had ample opportunity to see the accused during the incident.
However, such cases are rare and depend on facts.
Matru v. State of U.P. (1971) 2 SCC 75
The Court set aside conviction because the accused was identified only in court and no TIP was conducted.
Dana Yadav v. State of Bihar (2002) 7 SCC 295
Reiterated that TIP is not substantive evidence but is an important step in investigation; in-court identification for the first time is inherently weak.
Conclusion
Rule: Conviction cannot rest solely on in-court identification made for the first time without TIP.
Exception: If the witness had a clear, prolonged, and independent opportunity to see the accused at the time of the offence, courts may still rely on in-court identification, but with great caution.
Principle of Justice: This safeguard ensures protection of accused persons from wrongful conviction due to mistaken identity.
RELATED Blog
0 comments