Test Identification Parade (TIP) in Criminal Investigation

Test Identification Parade (TIP) is a crucial procedure in criminal investigation, primarily used to confirm the identity of an accused person by a witness. It serves as an evidentiary tool in cases where the accused was previously unknown to the witness. The procedure ensures that the identification process is conducted fairly and impartially to avoid mistaken identity, which can lead to wrongful convictions.

Legal Basis and Importance of TIP

In India, TIP is governed by Section 9 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (currently Section 7 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023) which deals with facts necessary to explain or introduce relevant facts. The identification of an accused by a witness is considered a relevant fact that aids in the judicial process. Before the 2005 CrPC amendment, no specific provision existed for the TIP of an accused under the Indian Evidence Act or CrPC. The amendment introduced Section 54A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973 (now Section 54 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita), empowering courts to conduct TIPs for arrested persons when necessary.

The Supreme Court of India has consistently held that TIP is not substantive evidence but corroborative. It is primarily used to test the veracity of a witness’s memory and ability to recognize the accused. However, failure to conduct a TIP does not render an identification in court invalid but may weaken its evidentiary value.

Objectives of Test Identification Parade

• To Prevent Misidentification: It helps in ensuring that the accused is correctly identified by the witness, reducing the risk of convicting an innocent person.
• To Strengthen the Prosecution’s Case: If a witness correctly identifies the accused in a TIP, it adds credibility to their testimony during trial.
• To Test the Reliability of a Witness: The identification process evaluates the ability of the witness to recall and recognize the accused, making their court testimony more credible.
• To Aid in Investigation: It provides investigative agencies with a means to establish connections between the accused and the crime, especially in cases where there is a lack of direct evidence.

Procedure of Conducting a TIP

A TIP must be conducted following strict procedural safeguards to ensure fairness and accuracy. The key steps include:

• Authority Conducting the TIP: The parade is usually conducted by a magistrate or an independent officer in the presence of witnesses.
• Selection of Dummies: The suspect is placed among other individuals (dummies) of similar physical appearance to ensure the process remains unbiased.
• Separation of Witnesses: Witnesses are kept separate to prevent collusion or exchange of information that could influence identification.
• Instructions to Witnesses: Witnesses are informed that the accused may or may not be present in the lineup and are not obligated to identify anyone if unsure.
• Identification Process: Witnesses are asked to identify the accused from among the participants in the lineup. The witness should not be prompted or influenced.
• Recording the Identification: The magistrate or officer records the details of the identification, including the statements of the witness and any observations made during the process.
• Signatures and Documentation: The process is documented, and statements are taken from the witnesses and the magistrate to maintain authenticity.
• Police and Legal Role: The police do not interfere with the identification process but ensure it is conducted according to legal provisions.

Evidentiary Value of TIP

Though TIP does not hold substantive evidentiary value, it acts as corroborative evidence. Courts rely on the following principles while assessing its importance:

1. Corroboration in Trial: If the accused is identified in a TIP and the same is confirmed in court, it strengthens the prosecution’s case.
2. Independent Witness Identification: Courts prefer cases where multiple independent witnesses confirm the identity of the accused.
3. Conduct of TIP and Its Impact: If procedural lapses occur, courts may disregard the identification.
4. Delay in Conducting TIP: A significant delay in conducting the TIP may reduce its reliability unless adequately explained.

Judicial Precedents on TIP

Several landmark judgments have established the importance and limitations of TIP:

(I) Ramkishan Mithanlal Sharma v. State of Bombay (1955 AIR 104):

The Supreme Court ruled that statements made during test identification parades (TIP) in police presence are inadmissible unless conducted under independent supervision. The Court also clarified that only facts discovered from the accused statements are admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act [Section 23(2) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023]. It emphasized that misdirection in a jury trial does not justify reversal unless it leads to a failure of justice.

(II) Jadunath Singh v. State of UP (1971 AIR 363):

The Supreme Court held that while a test identification parade (TIP) is not mandatory, it is necessary when witness familiarity with the accused is doubtful. The appellants, convicted under Section 302 (currently Section 103, BNS) read with Section 34 IPC, had requested a TIP, arguing that some eyewitnesses did not know them.

The request was wrongly denied by the Magistrate, citing the filing of the charge sheet. However, since one witness’s familiarity was undisputed and another had limited but existing knowledge, the trial was not vitiated. The Court reaffirmed that refusal of TIP can weaken the prosecution if witness identification is uncertain.

(III) State of Maharashtra v. Sukhdeo Singh (1992 AIR 2100):

The case involved the assassination of General Vaidya, where identification of the accused played a crucial role. The prosecution relied on the Test Identification Parade (TIP) to establish the identity of the culprits. However, the Supreme Court observed that the TIP was conducted after a considerable delay, reducing its evidentiary value.

The Court emphasized that identification for the first time in court after a long lapse, especially when the accused had altered their appearances, lacked reliability. Additionally, the failure of the investigating officer to hold a prompt TIP weakened the prosecution's case. Despite this, the security personnel’s direct testimony identifying Accused No.1 as the shooter was deemed credible, supporting the conviction.

(IV) Sheikh Hasib v. State of Bihar (1972 AIR 283, 1972 SCR (2) 405):

The Supreme Court examined the reliability of the Test Identification Parade (TIP) in convicting the appellant. The TIP was conducted belatedly on February 14, 1963, despite the accused being arrested on January 29, 1963. The Court noted that prompt identification is crucial to avoid memory lapses and ensure fairness.

Moreover, the identification process was flawed, as multiple TIPs were held due to unsatisfactory results, raising doubts about investigative integrity. Additionally, the appellant was produced in court a day before the TIP, increasing the risk of witnesses having seen him beforehand. Since the only evidence against the appellant was his identification by a police inspector in the TIP, which lacked procedural fairness and reliability, the Court ruled that there was no legal evidence connecting him to the crime and acquitted him.

Challenges

Despite its significance, TIP is not without challenges:

• Possibility of Suggestion and Bias: Witnesses may be influenced by investigators or prior exposure to the accused.
• Memory Reliability Issues: Human memory is fallible, and identification can sometimes be erroneous due to stress, time-lapse, or poor visibility during the crime.
• Procedural Irregularities: If not conducted correctly, the defence may challenge the validity of the identification.
• Technological Advancements: With the advent of CCTV footage, facial recognition, and digital evidence, traditional TIP methods may become less relevant.

Reforms and Recommendations

• Use of Technology: Video lineups and AI-based facial recognition should be integrated to supplement traditional methods.
• Standardized Procedures: Clear guidelines should be established to eliminate biases and ensure fairness.
• Training for Law Enforcement: Officers should be trained in handling TIPs with minimal influence on witnesses.
• Ensuring Legal Representation: Accused persons should have legal representation to safeguard their rights during TIPs.

Conclusion

Test Identification Parade remains a crucial tool in criminal investigation and prosecution. While it serves as an important method to verify the identity of the accused, it is not foolproof and must be conducted with utmost fairness and adherence to legal protocols. With evolving legal jurisprudence and technological advancements, TIP should be reformed to enhance its reliability and effectiveness in the criminal justice system.