Test Identification Parades
📌 What is Test Identification Parade (TIP)?
A Test Identification Parade (TIP) is a procedure where a witness or victim is asked to identify an accused person from a group of individuals, generally in criminal cases where the witness has to identify the assailant or culprit.
Conducted after the commission of the crime but before the trial.
The aim is to establish the identity of the accused.
Serves as preliminary evidence about the accused’s involvement.
📜 Legal Provisions and Guidelines
Section 9 of the Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920: Provides legal backing for taking measurements, photographs, and identification of criminals.
Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Confession made in consequence of information obtained from TIP can be admissible.
Judicial guidelines: The procedure and fairness of TIP is controlled by the courts.
📌 Importance of TIP
It helps establish the identity of the accused before trial.
The reliability of TIP affects the credibility of prosecution evidence.
Improper TIP procedure may lead to wrongful conviction or acquittal.
⚖️ Guidelines for Conducting TIP
Conducted in a fair and impartial manner.
Suspects (including accused) must resemble each other in appearance.
Witness should not be influenced or coached.
The number of persons in the parade should be sufficient to avoid undue suggestion.
The details of the TIP must be recorded in the investigation diary.
The witness must be asked to identify the accused without any hints or suggestions.
The court considers the circumstances under which TIP was conducted before relying on it.
⚖️ Important Case Laws on Test Identification Parade
⚖️ 1. Ram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (AIR 1958 SC 538)
Facts:
The accused was identified in a TIP, but the procedure was not properly conducted.
Issue:
Validity of identification parade and its impact on conviction.
Judgment:
Supreme Court observed that improperly conducted TIP weakens the prosecution case. Identification must be free, voluntary, and fair.
Importance:
Courts must ensure fairness in TIP.
TIP alone cannot be the sole basis of conviction without corroboration.
⚖️ 2. Rattan Singh v. State of Punjab (AIR 1954 SC 196)
Facts:
A witness identified the accused in a TIP but had poor opportunity to observe during the crime.
Issue:
Reliability of the identification parade.
Judgment:
Court held that identification in TIP must be made under circumstances favorable to accurate recognition, otherwise it can be unreliable.
Importance:
Opportunity to observe accused during crime is crucial for reliable TIP.
Courts must examine the quality of observation.
⚖️ 3. Ram Nath v. State of Punjab (AIR 1958 SC 804)
Facts:
The accused was identified in a TIP conducted many days after the incident.
Issue:
Does delay affect the reliability of TIP?
Judgment:
Supreme Court held that delay in conducting TIP does not invalidate it, but the circumstances of delay must be examined.
Importance:
Delay weakens reliability but does not render TIP inadmissible.
Courts consider totality of circumstances.
⚖️ 4. P.C. Ramachandran v. Public Prosecutor (AIR 1957 SC 108)
Facts:
The accused was identified in a TIP but with only a small number of persons in the parade.
Issue:
Is a TIP with fewer participants reliable?
Judgment:
Court held that TIP should have enough persons to avoid suggestiveness and less number of persons reduces reliability.
Importance:
Number of participants affects fairness.
Suggestiveness in TIP may lead to mistaken identity.
⚖️ 5. Tukaram S. Dighole v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 2010 SC 207)
Facts:
The accused challenged the TIP on grounds of suggestiveness and improper procedure.
Issue:
What is the evidentiary value of TIP if procedure is flawed?
Judgment:
Supreme Court ruled that TIP evidence is not substantive proof of guilt but corroborative in nature. Courts must carefully scrutinize the circumstances of TIP before relying on it.
Importance:
TIP is not conclusive proof.
Should be corroborated with other evidence.
⚖️ 6. K. Mohanan v. State of Kerala (2000 AIR SC 2687)
Facts:
The TIP was conducted without recording proper details and the accused was easily distinguishable.
Issue:
Validity and weight of such TIP evidence.
Judgment:
Court held that TIP done without fairness and proper procedure is not reliable and cannot be sole basis for conviction.
Importance:
Proper documentation and fairness are essential.
Courts must exclude unreliable TIP.
🧠 Summary of Legal Principles on TIP
| Principle | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Fairness and impartiality | TIP must be conducted without any undue influence or suggestion. |
| Number of participants | Sufficient number to avoid identification by elimination. |
| Opportunity to observe | Witness must have had a reasonable chance to observe accused at crime time. |
| Corroborative evidence | TIP is not conclusive proof; needs corroboration. |
| Procedure adherence | Details must be properly recorded in investigation. |
| Delay in conducting TIP | Delay weakens but does not invalidate TIP. |
📌 Conclusion
Test Identification Parades are important tools for establishing identity but are fragile and prone to error.
Courts treat TIP as circumstantial evidence which must be supported by other evidence.
Proper procedure, fairness, and detailed recording are essential to make TIP credible.
Judicial scrutiny of TIP aims to prevent miscarriages of justice based on mistaken identity.
RELATED Blog
0 comments