Repeated Test Identification Parades makes it invalid as it is against the law: SC

Repeated Test Identification Parades makes it invalid as it is against the law: SC

The Hon’ble Bench comprising Justice Navin Sinha and Justice R. Subhash Reddy observed that “the Test Identification Parade (hereinafter referred to as ‘TIP’) which is being conducted as part of the investigation has to be proved by the prosecution as being conducted accordance with the law. If the prosecution fails to establish the same the accused need not disprove anything and benefit goes to the accused.”

Moreover, it was stated by the Hon’ble bench regarding the purpose of TIP that “the purpose of TIP is to ensure during the investigation that the investigating agency is proceeding in the right direction in cases, especially in cases where there may be accused who is unknown. TIP under section 9 of Indian Evidence Act is only corroborative evidence and not substantive evidence.”

It is further observed that “As stated that TIP is only corroborated evidence mere identification through TIP is not enough but for conviction, TIP must be supported by other facts and circumstances for corroborating identification.”

It is further added that “there cannot be repeated TIPs the time that the prosecution is successful in obtaining identification of the accused.”

The case herein is an appeal against the order and judgment of the high court where appellants herein were convicted under section 395 and section 397 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The appellants herein were involved in a dacoity and were caught by the police on the same night when they have committed dacoity and subsequently confessed to police the act which they have committed, along with this the police also recovered the looted ornaments and weapons they carried along.

In the case herein the prosecution witness who was 13 years old identified the accused herein only in 3rd and 4th rounds and one more prosecution witness did not identify appellants at all.

Further, a Magistrate who is stated to have conducted the TIP has not been examined. Added to this, the recovery was never proved by the production of seizure memo due to which appellants were discharged under section 412 of IPC and arms act.