TEST OF IDENTIFICATION PARADE
1. What is Test Identification Parade and its Purpose?
It is a process that is mostly used in criminal cases to identify the accused before the court.
The role of the witness is very important in the test identification parade because it is the
responsibility of the witness to identify the accused through the parade.
The idea of this process is to check whether the witness can identify the accused among the
various several individuals. This will establish the fidelity of the witness in identifying an
unknown person related to the context of the offense.
Law enforcement often uses this mechanism to establish the credibility of the witness and it
is mostly used in cases where the witness has never seen the accused except on the crime
scene.
2. Law governing the Test Identification Parade
Section 9 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and Section 54A of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 deal with the procedure and the legality of the Test Identification Parade.
Section 9 of the Evidence Act makes the test of identification of proper accused and
properties admissible and relevant facts in a court of Law, but this act does not make it
obligatory for the accused to present for the Test Identification Parade by the investigating
officer.
The problem of Section 9 of the Evidence Act is tackled in Section 54A of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973. This section says that when the identification of an accused by the
witness is considered necessary for investigation of such offense in which the accused is
arrested, the Court, having jurisdiction, may on the request of the officer in charge of a police
station, direct the accused so arrested to subject himself to identification by witness or
witnesses in such manner as the Court may deem fit.
3. Test Identification parade :Necessity
Such test is conducted to test the veracity of the witness and his capacity to identify the
unknown persons. Test Identification Parade is primarily meant for the investigation
purposes.
Supreme Court in Ramanathan v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1978 SC 1201, has held that the
purpose of test identification parade is to find out whether the accused is the perpetrator of
the crime or not. If the name of the offender is not mentioned by the eye-witnesses then in
such circumstances such evidence becomes more important.
In Ram Babu v. State of U.P, AIR 2010 SC 2143, Supreme Court held that purpose of test
identification parade is to test credibility and trustworthiness of the evidence of the witness in
court.
Supreme Court in Hare Kishan Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR 1988 SC 863, held where one
of the witnesses failed to identify the accused at the identification parade, identification by
him of the accused in the court is useless.
In Har Nath Singh v. State of M.P., AIR 1970 SC 1619 Supreme Court observed that TIP
serves two purposes (i) to satisfy the investigating authorities that certain person not
previously known to witness was involved in the offence and (ii) to furnish evidence to
corroborate the testimony which the witness concerned tenders before the court.
4. Evidentiary Value Of Test Identification Parade
It is imperative to mention here that the evidentiary value and usefulness of the test
identification parade was explained exhaustively by the Supreme Court in the case of
Ramanathan v State of Tamil Nadu AIR 1978 SC 1201 at pp. 1211 – 12 wherein it was held
that:
Identification parades have been in common use for a very long time for the object of placing
suspect in a line-up with other persons for identification. The purpose is to find out whether
he is the perpetrator of the crime. This is all the more necessary where the name of the
offender is not mentioned by those who claim to be eye – witnesses of the incident, but they
claim that although they did not know him earlier, they could recall his features in sufficient
details and would also be able to identify him if and when they happen to see him again.
Such identification is in the interest of both, the accused and the investigating agency. It
enables the investigating officer to ascertain whether the witnesses had really seen the
perpetrator of the crime and test their capacity to identify him and thereby to fill the gap in
the investigation regarding the identity of the culprit. The line – up of the accused in a test
identification parade is therefore a workable way of testing the memory and veracity of the
witnesses and has worked well in actual practice.
In Ayyub v State AIR 2002 SC 1192, it was held by the Supreme Court that test identification
parade as such is not a substantive piece of evidence. It is done only for the satisfaction of the
prosecution that the investigation was moving in the right direction.
In Md Kalam v State of Rajasthan AIR 2008 SC 1813, it was held by the Supreme Court that
test identification parade strengthens trustworthiness of identification in the court. It was also
held that holding of such parade is not obligatory and accused cannot insist upon it. Further,
delay in holding it is not fatal, but it should be held quickly to eliminate possibility of accused
being shown to witnesses.
5. When Test Identification Parade Is Valueless
I must also mention here quite clearly that the Supreme Court through many of its rulings has
also categorically specified the situations under which test identification parade carries no
value and is not worthy of being relied upon. As for instance, the Apex Court in State (Delhi
Administration) v VC Shukla AIR 1980 SC 1382 at p. 1396 stated that the identification of
the accused by the witness for the first time in the court without being tested by a prior test
identification parade was valueless.
In Hare Kishan Singh v State of Bihar, AIR 1988 SC 863 it was held by the Supreme Court
that where one of the witnesses failed to identify the accused at the identification parade,
identification by him of the accused in the court was useless.
Also, in Hari Nath v State of UP, AIR 1988 SC 345 it was held by the Apex Court that
holding a test identification parade after four months diluted its evidentiary value.
Similarly in Soni v State of UP, (1982) 3 SCC 368, it was held by the Supreme Court that
identification after 42 days cannot be relied upon to sustain conviction. But in Brij Mohan v
State of Rajasthan, AIR 1994 SC 739 where test identification parade was held within 24
hours of arrest, held by the Apex Court to be good evidence, though the accused alleged that
he was shown to the witnesses.
6. Test Identification Parade When Necessary
The Supreme Court explained this in detail in Jadunath Singh v State of UP AIR 1971 SC
363. It was held that:
It seems to us that it has been clearly laid down by this court that the absence of test
identification parade in all cases is not fatal and if the accused person is well known by sight
it would be waste of time to put him up for identification. Of course, if the prosecution fails
to hold an identification parade on the plea that the witnesses already knew the accused well
and it transpires in the course of the trial that the witnesses did not know the accused
previously, the prosecution would run the risk of losing its case. It seems to us that if there is
any doubt in the matter, the prosecution should hold an identification parade.'
In Mohammad Saleem v State, 1992 Cr LJ 1959 (Delhi) , the Delhi High Court in a case
pertaining to rape and kidnapping held that test identification parade was necessary in view of
the fact that the accused was not named in the FIR, nor was known to the witness previously
and that the prosecutrix remained unconscious for five days after the alleged kidnapping. In
Mahabir v State of Delhi AIR 2008 SC 2543, it was held that identification parade must be
held at the earliest opportunity.
One of the essential condition is that suspect should be unknown to the witness. If an accused
is known to a witness, placement of accused for identification is a futile exercise. Test
identification parade is necessary to be conducted as early as possible to eliminate the
possibility of the accused being shown to the witnesses prior to the identification parade.
One of the essential condition is that suspect should be unknown to the witness. If an accused
is known to a witness, placement of accused for identification is a futile exercise. Test
identification parade is necessary to be conducted as early as possible to eliminate the
possibility of the accused being shown to the witnesses prior to the identification parade.
7. Test Identification Parade When Not Necessary
It would be imperative to mention here that in Asha v State of Rajasthan, AIR 1997 SC
2828, test identification parade was not considered necessary by the Apex Court where the
FIR was lodged within one hour and the culprits were named therein.
In a case of dacoity and murder in State of UP v Sukhpal Singh, AIR 2009 SC 1729, all the
witnesses disclosed that they had known the accused persons and they were no strangers to
them. They clearly identified them in the moonlight and lantern light. Under such
circumstances, the Supreme Court held that holding test identification parade was not
necessary.
Similarly in Surendra Narayan v State of UP AIR 1998 SC 192, it was held that if the claim
of the eyewitnesses that he knew accused from before is found to be true, failure to hold the
test identification parade is inconsequential.
In Jarnail Singh v State of Punjab, AIR 2010 SC 3699, it was held by the Supreme Court
that where the accused identified by witnesses at the time of arrest itself, test identification
parade would have been futile exercise.
8. Test Identification Parade By Police Officers
In Ramkrishan v State of Bombay AIR 1955 SC 104, it was held categorically by the
Supreme Court that test identification parade must not be conducted by police officers. Any
identifications made by any persons to a police officer in the course of investigations is
valueless and the same is inadmissible in evidence. However, in Sheo Raj v State Air 1964
All 290 and Ali Bahadur v State 1998 (1) Crimes 557, it was held that mere presence of
police constable is not a ground to reject the evidence of the identification parade.
Refusal Of Accused To Submit For Test Identification Parade
In Suraj Pal v State of Haryana, (1995) 2 SCC 64, the prosecution was anxiously taking
steps to hold the test identification parade but the appellants declined to submit themselves
for that purpose. It was held by the Apex Court that it is true that they could not have been
compelled to line up for test parade and so if they refused to submit for it they did so at their
own risk. The prosecution could not be blamed for not holding the test parade.
The reason given out by the appellants for declining to stand the test of identification was that
they were shown by the police to the witnesses. This allegation was found to be baseless and
unfounded by both the courts below. There was absolutely no basis to say that the appellants
or any of them were shown to the witnesses.
If the appellants had, in exercise of their own volition, chosen not to stand the test of
identification without any reasonable cause, they did so at their own risk for which they could
not be heard to say that in the absence of test parade, dock identification was not proper and
should not be accepted, if it was otherwise found to be reliable. The logical conclusion that
we can draw from this ruling is that the accused should always be prepared to submit himself
for test identification parade unless he has strong, bonafide and sustainable reasons for not
submitting himself for the same which he must be able to prove also.
9. Delay In Holding Test Identification Parade When Fatal
It is not in all cases that delay in holding test identification parade is fatal. It is only where
there is unaccounted and unreasonable delay that it really affects its credibility. As for
instance, in Puttan alias Kamal Prasad v State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1992 SC 2032,
identification parade held after six months of arrest of accused. No explanation for inordinate
delay in holding identification parade. Held, conviction cannot be based upon it.
There is no plausible explanation regarding the inordinate delay in holding the identification
parade. In yet another case, Hari Nath v State of UP AIR 1998 SC 345, it was held that if
there is unexplained and unreasonable delay in putting the accused for a test identification,
the delay by itself detracts from the credibility of test. Also,in Shabad Pulla Reddy v State of
AP, 1997 (7) Supreme 602, it was held that if there is unusual and unexplained delay in
holding test identification parade, it would be difficult to hold that witnesses have correctly
identified the accused. In Raj Kishore v State of Bihar AIR 1971 SC 1058 , it was held that
identification parade held long after incident is of a little value.
In Subhash v State of UP AIR 1997 SC 1222, it was held that since identification parade was
conducted after four months of murder and no description was given by witness in FIR or
during investigation, hence accused would be entitled to benefit of doubt. It is thus quite clear
after analyzing all such cases that for test identification parade to be reliable, it must be
conducted as soon as possible and there should be no unreasonable delay in holding the same.
Also, before it is done, witness should not be allowed to see the accused because if the
accused is exposed before the eye witness, it will render valueless the test identification
parade to be conducted and the whole process will thus be rendered infructuous!
This is best illustrated in the case of Mullagirivijram V State of AP, AIR 1993 SC 1243,
where it was held that since witness saw the accused the identification is not reliable. Also, in
Shaikh Umar Ahmad Shaikh and another v State of Maharashtra, 2000 (1) LW (Cr) 129 (SC),
it was held that undoubtedly, the evidence of identification parade is not a substantive
evidence, but its utility is for purposes of corroboration. Where there is strong possibility of
suspects that accused being shown to eye-witnesses at police station, such identification
parade lost its value and could not be relied.
[Link] By Photograph
Section 22 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (“TADA” for
short) stated that: “Where a person has been declared a proclaimed offender in a terrorist
case, the evidence regarding his identification by witnesses on the basis of his photograph
shall have the same value as the evidence of the test identification parade.”
In the case of, Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab , constitutional validity of Section 22 of TADA
was challenged before the Apex Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that,
Section 22 of TADA was opposed to the fair and reasonable procedure enshrined in Article
21 of the Constitution of India, 1950.
[Link] By Voice
In the case of, Mohan Singh v. State of Bihar, the trial pertained to an offence concerning
conspiracy for murder; here, the witness heard the accused while the accused was demanding
money from the victim, and subsequently the witness identified the accused by the voice of
the accused. Even prior to the happening of the incident, the witness had some acquaintance
with the accused. The court held that, the evidence tendered by the witness, identifying the
accused by his voice was reliable.
[Link] for Test Identification Parade
Supreme Court in the case of State of H.P. v. Prem Chand held that Test Identification Parade
is not necessary when the witness already knew the accused and identify the accused in the
court of law.
This judgment was again upheld by the Apex Court in the case of Ramesh Kumar v. State of
Punjab where it again clarifies that the Test Identification Parade is not necessary when the
witness already knew the accused.
Supreme Court in the case of State of A.P. v. v.K. Venkata Reddy held that the testimony of
a witness in the court of law is the substantive testimony and identification of an accused in
the Test Identification Parade is only the confirmatory of the testimony made before the
court.
Supreme Court in the case of Dana Yadav V. State of Bihar upheld its decision and again
made it clear that the sole purpose of TIP is to lend corroboration to the court identification of
the accused.
[Link] judgments on Test Identification Parade
Supreme Court in the case of Hare Kishan Singh V. State of Bihar held that the
Court identification of the accused by the witness is useless when the witness has
already failed to identify the accused at the Test Identification Parade.
Supreme Court in the case of Kishore Prabhakar Sawant V. State of Maharashtra
held that if the accused is caught red-handed from the Crime Scene, then no question
of Test Identification Parade arises.
The Supreme Court, in the case of, Kiwan Prakash Pandurang Mokash V. State of
Maharashtra held that if the accused refuses to appear for Test Identification Parade,
then an adverse inference of guilt can be drawn against him under Section 54A of the
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.
Supreme Court in the case of Suraj Pal Singh V. State of Haryana held that the
accused can’t be compelled to line up for Test Identification Parade and if the
accused refuses to submit himself for Test Identification Parade, he does so at his
own risk.
Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra V. Suresh said that the Test
Identification Parade is done for the benefit of the investigation they are not primarily
held for the court.
Conclusion
Test Identification Parade might not be substantive evidence but it plays a very vital role in
the investigation. It helps the investigating officer to ascertain that the investigation is going
in the right direction and help me to tailor the course of further investigation.
Like any other law or test this test also has its disadvantages like some critics say that human
memory can be easily manipulated and everyone has their way to analyze the scene. So,
witness identifying the accused might not always be accurate and it affects the course of the
investigation and also interrupt the process of justice.
This can be improved by implementing strict and clear guidelines for the investigation
officers which will be fair for both the accused and the witness. Improved process will help
the court in delivering the just judgment.