Explain the rule and judicial guidelines regarding admissibility of test identification parade (TIP) under Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

Question: Explain the rule and judicial guidelines regarding admissibility of test identification parade (TIP) under Indian Evidence Act, 1872. [HPJS 2019]

Find the answer to the mains question only on Legal Bites. [Explain the rule and judicial guidelines regarding admissibility of test identification parade (TIP) under Indian Evidence Act, 1872.]

Answer

A Test Identification Parade (TIP) is a process conducted by law enforcement authorities to enable a witness or victim to identify an accused person from a lineup of individuals with similar physical appearances. While the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, does not explicitly mention TIP, its admissibility is governed by judicial precedents and procedural laws.

Legal Basis of TIP in India

Not Substantive Evidence:

A TIP is not considered substantive evidence. It is only a corroborative tool to strengthen the identification of the accused by the witness in court. The Supreme Court has held that the primary purpose of TIP is to test the memory of the witness under fair conditions.

Relevant Provisions in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872:

Section 9: Facts necessary to explain or introduce a relevant fact are admissible. Identification of an accused person by a witness is relevant if it helps in connecting the accused with the offence.

Section 162 of CrPC: Statements made during a TIP are not substantive evidence but may be used to test the credibility of the witness in court.

Indian courts have laid down several principles regarding the conduct and evidentiary value of a TIP:

(I) Timeliness of TIP is Crucial: In Ramkishan Mithanlal Sharma v. State of Bombay (1955 AIR 104), the Supreme Court ruled that Section 162 CrPC applied only to investigations conducted after August 1, 1951, when the Bombay Police Act, 1951 made CrPC provisions applicable to Bombay City Police. It held that test identification parades (TIPs) conducted in police presence are inadmissible under Section 162 CrPC, but those conducted solely under Panch witnesses may be valid.

The Court also clarified that under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, only the part of a statement directly leading to discovery is admissible. Emphasizing the trial judge’s duty to properly guide the jury, the Court held that appellate courts must exclude inadmissible evidence and reassess whether a conviction stands on lawful grounds.

(II) TIP Must Be Conducted Before the Witness Sees the Accused: If the witness has already seen the accused (in police custody or media coverage), the TIP loses its evidentiary value. In Kanan And Ors. v. State of Kerala (AIR 1979 SC1127), the Supreme Court acquitted the appellants, citing a lack of legal evidence. The prosecution's case relied on an unreliable in-court identification without a prior Test Identification (T.I.) parade, vague and uncorroborated conspiracy testimonies, and a weak extra-judicial confession. The Court held that these evidentiary deficiencies made the conviction unsustainable, setting aside the High Court’s judgment.

(III) TIP Should Be Conducted in the Presence of a Magistrate:  In State of U.P. v. Boota Singh & Others (1978 AIR 1770), the Supreme Court overturned the High Court’s acquittal, reinstating the conviction of Boota Singh for murder and conspiracy. The Court held that the High Court had misread evidence, wrongly rejected a voluntary confession, and underestimated the strength of identification and corroborative evidence.

While Boota Singh's conviction was upheld based on strong circumstantial proof, another accused was acquitted due to unreliable identification. The ruling emphasized the evidentiary value of confessions and properly conducted identification parades.

The admissibility of a Test Identification Parade under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is based on judicial precedents rather than statutory provisions. While TIP serves as a crucial investigative tool, it is not substantive evidence and only acts as corroborative evidence. Courts emphasize on timeliness, fairness, and proper procedure in determining the reliability of TIPs. The final identification in court holds greater evidentiary value than an identification parade.