Test Identification Parade (S. 9, Evidence Act)

Facts necessary to explain or introduce relevant facts: Section 09 of the Indian Evidence Act,1872.

The Test Identification Parade is used as a means to vet the veracity of the witness and their ability to determine an unfamiliar or unknown person. The object of the Test Identification Parade is that the witness has seen the culprits at the time of occurrence of an offense as it is to identify from the midst of the person without any source or aid. The Test Identification Parade is pragmatic means in the scrutiny and with the right program, it can be endorsed as Evidence in the Court of law as corroborative.

The intent is primarily to test and intensify the actual substantial evidence of the witness in the court of law.

The test is conducted or proves the innocence of the person accused of the offense, it can be done on person or articles. The test is performed in criminal cases when the investigation is going on for the case. In criminal cases, the test identification parade is used to identify; The living or known or unknown dead persons; Articles; Fingerprints, handwriting, pictures.

The identification is considered to be of more value if it conducted before the trial of an accused. It can be done through observing voice, features that are unique, photographs, fingerprints. TIP is an intrinsic part of the criminal investigation.

Ahmad Bin Salam v. State of Andhra Pradesh 1999[1]

In this case, it was held that if a person can identify or recognize an accused through physical appearance and cannot name an accused person then the Test Identification Parade is not applicable in such cases. The witness was able to recognize the accused person when they were lined up together.

State of H.P. v. Lekh Raj[2]

In this case, it was stated that Test Identification Parade is treated as a safe percept of Judiciousness for certification of the sworn testimony of evidentiary means, for the person presenting himself or herself as a witness before the court of law for recognizing the character of an accused person.

Some of the illustrations are:

1. X sues Y for prompting Z to break a contract of service made Z with X. Z on leaving X’s service of contract, says to x- I am leaving as Y has made a better offer to him. The statement made by Y is relevant facts as explanatory of Z’s conduct.
2. G is tried for a riot and is proved to have marched at the head of a mob. The cries of a mob are relevant as explanatory of the nature of the transactions.
3. H is accused of theft as seems of giving a stolen property to I who gives it to H’s wife.
   • I stated that he delivers it.
   • H says that you have to hide this.
   • I, is stating a relevant statement as explanatory to the nature of the transactions.

Test Identification Parade under various Legislations

In the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 09 deals with TIP. The section states that the identification of the person is admissible in the court of law, the suspected person has no compulsion to be presented in the identification parade.

In the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 54A deals with the procedure to facilitate the process of Identification to the Suspect. It can be conducted by any person or police officer.

In the Constitution of India, 1950, under Article 20(3) Self-incrimination. It is not violated by compelling an accused to show his/her face or any scar, mark for identification. It does not give an amount to testimony.

Evidentiary Value of test Identification Parade

The Test Identification parade cannot be considered as the Substantive piece of evidence and the reason for the conviction of the accused.

Budhsen v. State of Uttar Pradesh[3]

In this case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that Test Identification Parade is based on two objectives:

1. Identification of the accused and verifying the integrity of the witness before trial.
2. It helps in testing the witness’s memory.

The identification of accuse plays an important role in Investigation. The crime is not disputed but the person who commits a crime or offense is disputed. Thus, the identity of the accused becomes relevant. 

Ramakrishna v.  State of Bombay[4]

The Supreme Court held that the identification parade is carried on by a police officer for the authentication of the properties and the person who is accused of the committed offense. This the enabling process for witnesses to identify.

Vitality and Enforceability of the Test Identification Parade

The purpose of identification is necessary when the identity of an accused is disputed or when the victim has never seen or met the accused in his/her life before the incident of an offense. The parade is conducted in the cases when the victim has seen the criminal while committing an offense and that he/she can identify that person, be it through body structure, height, etc. The test to be done as early as possible and before the magistrate.

Birey Singh v. State [5]

To conduct Test Identification Parade, the following points to be taken into consideration:

1. The victim is unfamiliar to the accused.
2. When the witness gave an eloquent description of the accused in F.I.R.
3. When a victim tends to recognize the accused person.
4. Presence of peculiar features in respect of the accused.
5. Conditions like the considerable presence of light, to identify the features of witness.

Non-Enforceability of the Test Identification Parade

When witnesses as well as accused reside in the same community and know each other well. The purpose of the test is to examine the legitimacy of the evidence.

Heera and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan[6]

The Supreme Court was of the view that, if the court finds any other evidence which is safe and reliable and also the investigation will be side-tracked, then any of the party cannot initiate identification parade. It is laid down under section 162 of the act that the Test Identification Parade is not considered as substantive evidence and non-performance of the same will not affect the admissibility of the evidence before the court of law. In some cases, it can be admissible without affirmation. 

When Test Identification Parade is to be Held?

In the case of Awadh Singh and Ors. v. The State[7] it was stated by the court that not holding test identification may not be a ground to annihilate the trial but it is an important feature for considering the credibility of the witness.

In the case of Rameshwar Singh v. State of Jammu & Kashmir[8], the court stated that the identification test of the accused by the witness soon after the arrest of the accused, plays an important role in providing justice on fair play to both prosecution as well as to accused.

Procedures and Provisions of the Test Identification Parade

The procedure involved in holding the TIP, to be conducted soon after the arrest of an accused, so that it can be easily identified by the witness. The test is to be conducted in front of the Magistrate and the police officer. The witness to identify an accused at both the places that are at the time of Test Identification Parade and in Courts. The most important aspect is that the accused or the criminal should be unknown to the witness.

The provision or the safety measures to keep in the process while holding the Test Identification Parade is that,

1. There should be an absence of any Police Officer at the place of identification so that the identifier can identify the evidence easily.
2. Only the magistrate and the person identifying the accused to be present in the place where the test is conducted.
3. If there is the presence of any Police Officer then it was inadmissible in the court of law.
4. All the suspects should not be lined up together. All the records made by witnesses, accused to be recorded.
5. If there is any mark that is visible and can expedite his identification, then it is the obligation of the examiner to either cover or hide the visible mark or mix the accused with other people having the same mark.
6. Infusing suspects with non-suspects or innocent persons.
7. Concealment of any unique mark (In State v.  Madan Lal Jaggi)[9], the covering of marks should within the reasonable limit but if it conceals any fact or disputes the identification then the object of conducting test would be failed.
8. Suspects of the same age group and built should be mixed.

Credibility of the TIP

The credibility of the Test Identification Parade depends upon the circumstances and cases. The time, harshness of the act committed by a criminal, leave chilling experience in the life of the identifier or the victim and thus the accused can be easily identified. Time of the day, place where the act was committed, the number of people involved in committing an offense all are included.

Ramanbhai Naranbahi Patel v. State of Gujarat[10]

In this case, the conviction was appraised through the Test Identification Parade, as the assault was committed in the broad daylight which makes it easy for an identifier to identify the accused.

Case Laws

1. Raju Manjhi v. State of Bihar[11]:

In this case, there were 10-12 people between the age of 22 to 23 years robbed the house of Kamdeo Singh, and stole items from the place.  The complaint was registered and investigation was started by the police.  The identification was not done by the witness and therefore there was the formation of filmy stories. This does not make the case prosecution as a false case. The identification test is just a support to the investigation by the police officer. The identification test is not considered substantial evidence.

2. State of A.P v. Dr. M.V Ramana Reddy[12]

In this case, the appellants murdered the politician, trade union worker who was on his terrace with his daughter and was sleeping when the offense was committed, around 3.00 in the night, the appellant stabbed knife to the deceased, after this they tried to stab to the respondent but somehow she escaped and ran towards her home to tell about the incident to her mother and neighbor. The police came and started the investigation and arrested all the 19 accused, out of which three accused were convicted under section 302, 148, and 324 if Indian Penal Code.

The High Court pointed that whether the respondent was present at the terrace at the time of commitment of an offense.

The Supreme Court held that the respondent was present at the time of the event and hence her Test Identification Parade is admissible as evidence.

3. In Kanta Prasad v. Delhi Administration[13]

In this case, the Test Identification Parade was not conducted, but this does not mean that the person cannot be identified in the court.  The accused person is known to everyone except the person identifying them. The Supreme Court stated that it can be re-assessed only in exceptional circumstances, but that is not required in this case.

4. In State of Uttar Pradesh v. Girija Shankar Mishra[14]

The respondent and the appellants were Husband and Wife, Husband was a politician while the wife was a Social worker. The respondent had an affair with a police officer and the appellant knew about it. One day, few assailants came with the rifle looking for the appellant, and entered the house, somehow the appellant escaped and filed FIR against the assailants and stated that her husband has conspired with them to kill her. The police decided to conduct the Test Identification Parade, but there was an unreasonable delay. Thereafter, the court knew that the respondent was a politicization and can manipulate the investigations, therefore Supreme Court accepted the Test Identification Parade of the appellant as Evidence.

5. In State of Maharashtra v. Suresh[15]

In this case, the appellant who is the father of the deceased, a four-year-old daughter of the appellant was kidnapped, raped, and murdered. The deceased lodged the FIR after her daughter went missing, and police started with an investigation where they found the girl on the farm, having bruised marks on the body and after the post-mortem, it was reported that the girl has been sexually assaulted and had bruised marks on the sexual parts. The father portrayed suspicion on the accused, and it was stated by the doctor that the respondent will also be having bruised marks on his sexual organ, after examining the respondent it came as corroborative evidence. A nearby shopkeeper was an eye witness when the crime was committed as he saw the girl child was crying and hence his identification would be considered as evidence the accused was convicted under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code with the punishment of Life Imprisonment.

Conclusion

The Test Identification Parade plays a vital role in conducting an investigation. It provides a fair play of justice to both accused and prosecution. Though the Test Identification parade is not a Substantive Evidence but helps the investigating agency to apprehend the victims. It helps in making investigations faster and the case is solved sooner.

---

References:

[1] AIR (SC) 1617

[2] 2011

[3] 1970 AIR 1321, 1971 SCR (1) 564

[4] AIR 1955 SC 401

[5] AIR (1953) All 785

[6] AIR (2007) SC

[7] (1954) 2 BLJR 23

[8] AIR (1972) SC 102

[9] AIR (1959) All 504

[10] 1999

[11] 2005

[12] AIR (1991) 1938, SCR 3 600

[13] (1958) 1 SCR 1218

[14] (1993) AIR 2618

[15] 1999