Cases Dealing With Test Identification Parade
Test Identification Parade (TIP) is used in police investigation is ‘test identification’ i.e. a process by which the identity of persons, things or animals concerned in the offence under investigation or trial is established through a test parade.
Here we present important judgments on Test Identification Parade
- Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kanta Prashad vrs. Delhi Administration, reported in AIR 1958 SC 350, and connected matters, have held that failure to hold an identification parade does not make inadmissible the evidence of identification in the Court. Their lordships have held as follows:As for the test identification parade, it is true that no test identification parade was held. The appellants were known to the police officials who had deposed against the appellants and the only persons who did not know them before were the persons who gave evidence of association, to which the High Court did not attach much importance. It would no doubt have been prudent to hold a test identification parade with respect to witnesses who did not know the accused before the occurrence, but failure to hold such a parade would not make inadmissible the evidence of identification in court. The weight to be attached to such identification would be a matter for the courts of fact and it is not for this Court to reassess the evidence unless exceptional grounds were established necessitating such a course
- In the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vrs. Sunder Lal, reported in 1992 Cri. L.J. 2519, their lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court have held that the girl who was 13 years old could not have forgotten the face of a man who committed ghastly crime upon her. It has been held as follows:“ We have perused the judgments of both the courts and also have evidence of PWs- 2 and 4. We are of the opinion that the High Court was in error in disbelieving the testimony of PW-2 with respect to the identity of the accused. The girl was 13 yearsâ€™ old and she could not have forgotten the fact of the man who committed such ghastly crime upon her. It is not the case of the defence that there was no light. On the contrary, the prosecution evidence is that accused himself made PW-4 prepare lamps, and light them, before taking away PW-2. It is not a case where PW-2 had a mere fleeting glimpse of the accused. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the identity of the accused has been amply established by the evidence of PWs- 2 and 4. Accordingly, we set aside the judgment of the High Court and restore that of the learned Trial Judge.”
- In the case of Visveswaran vrs. State Rep. by S.D.M., reported in AIR 2003 SC 2471, their lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court have held that the approach required to be adopted by the Courts in rape cases has to be different. The ground realities are to be kept in view. Moreover, their lordships have further held that the identification of accused either in Court or in test identification parade is not a sine qua non for conviction. In every case, the guilt can be proved from other circumstances. It has been held as follows:” It is unfortunate that despite the aforesaid facts, the test identification parade was not held. An important aspect of the case is that the appellant had beard and moustaches when PW1 and PW2 were examined as witnesses for the prosecution. It was not so at the time of the occurrence. PW1 and PW2, therefore, it is evident, could not identify him in Court and stated in their deposition that the said person is not in Court. It does not mean that the acquittal is to follow as a natural corroboratory from the statements of PW1 and PW2. The identification of the accused either in test identification parade or in Court is not a sine qua non in every case if from the circumstances the guilt is otherwise established. Many a times, crimes are committed under cover of darkness when none is able to identify the accused. The commission of crime can be proved also by circumstantial evidence. In the present case, there are clinching circumstances unerringly pointing out the accusing finger towards the appellant beyond any reasonable doubt.Before we notice the circumstances proving the case against the appellant and establishing his identity beyond reasonable doubt, it has to be borne in mind that approach required to be adopted by courts in such cases has to be different. The cases are required to be dealt with utmost sensitivity, courts have to show greater responsibility when trying an accused on charge of rape. In such cases, the broader probabilities are required to be examined and the courts are not to get swayed by minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies which are not of substantial character. The evidence is required to be appreciated having regard to the background of the entire case and not in isolation. The ground realities are to be kept in view. It is also required to be kept in view that every defective investigation need not necessarily result in the acquittal. In defective investigation, the only requirement is of extra caution by Courts while evaluating evidence. It would not be just to acquit the accused solely as a result of defective investigation. Any deficiency or irregularity in investigation need not necessarily lead to rejection of the case of prosecution when it is otherwise proved.
- In the case of Dastagir Sab and another vrs. State of Karnataka, reported in (2004) 3 SCC 106, their lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court have held that when the prosecutrix had the occasion to see the accused on three occasions, the non-holding of test identification parade was not fatal. It has been held as follows:“ The prosecution in support of its case has examined as many as 26 witnesses. The prosecutrix Malleshwari examined herself as P.W. 1. She in her evidence detailed the circumstance in which the offence is said to have been committed. She also disclosed enough materials to show that she had the occasion to see the accused persons at least on three occasions almost immediately prior to the commission of offence and also when she was intercepted and forcibly committed sexual assault on her. It is further borne out from records that immediately upon hearing her cries when the appellants allegedly took to heels, her brother P.W. 6 Rambabu saw the appellants running away from the spot. The other witnesses including the father of the prosecutrix, the other labourers who were working in the field i.e. Gobindamma w/o Malappa, resident of Athnoor Village, Kabir Jayamma w/o Gangappa Malad, Laxmi w/o Amaresh Malad, Nagaraj s/o Gangappa Malad, Viresh s/o Gangappa Malad, Subamma w/o Rahiman Choudhary of Solapur, Ramjanamma w/o Bhandenawaz, Hussain s/o Choudhary Abi Sab, Mohammed s/o Lal Sab came immediately to the place of occurrence. The father of the prosecutrix got hold of the accused persons and allegedly they confessed their guilt but they refused to come with him. When the incident was narrated to the labourers and others including the P.Ws. 2, 3, 6 and 14, they expressed their anguish and wanted the boys to be punished. One Subamma went to the village and assaulted the appellant No. 1 with her chappal.No law states that non-holding of Test Identification Parade would by itself disprove the prosecution case. To what extent and if at all the same would adversely affect the prosecution case, would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case.In the facts of this case, holding of T.I. Parade was wholly unnecessary. Had such T.I. Parade been held, the propriety thereof itself would have been questioned before the Trial Court.
- In the case of Toorpati Majsaiah and another vrs. State of A.P., reported in 2005 Cri. L.J. 568, the learned Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that identification of the accused in the open Court by the prosecutrix cannot be disbelieved on the ground of lapse of time and absence of identification parade. It has been held as follows:” On the strength of this Ex. P-1, crime was registered and investigation was taken up, completed and the accused were charge- sheeted referred to supra. From the evidence available on record, there cannot be any doubt that the incident as such happened but the only question which had been elaborately argued by the learned counsel representing the appellants is that these accused cannot be connected with these offences unless there is legally acceptable evidence. The counsel would submit that it is highly improbable that after a long lapse of time in view of the fact that this incident had happened at odd hours, P.W. 5 could have identified A-1 and A-2. By mere lapse of time or by the mere fact that the test identification parade was not conducted so far it relates to P.W. 5 is concerned. The identification made by P.W. 5 in the open Court cannot be disbelieved. No doubt, she deposed that she had participated in the test identification parade but it appears to be not a fact. However, there was sufficient opportunity for P.W. 5 to identify the accused since the switching off the light and the other aspects, they are of at the later point of time. The medical evidence clearly supports the prosecution version that the offence of rape had been perpetrated as against P.W. 5. It is no doubt true, as far as the seizure of other material objects is concerned the panch witnesses were declared hostile. But as far as the offence relating to Section 376(g), I.P.C. is concerned, the evidence is clear. The evidence of P.Ws. 5 and 6 is well corroborated by the medical evidence. Hence, there cannot be any doubt that the prosecution had established the guilt of the accused under Section376(g)of I.P.C. As far as the seizure of M.Os. 1 to 3 is concerned, both the witnesses P.Ws. 3 and 4 were declared hostile. No doubt, the Investigating Officer had deposed about the seizure of M.Os. 1 to 3, in the light of the fact that there is acceptable evidence in relation to the incident in the light of the clear evidence of Investigating Officer relating to seizure of M.Os. 1 to 3. Merely because P.Ws. 3 and 4 were declared hostile, the aspect of seizure of M.Os. 1 to 3 also cannot be disbelieved and hence the learned Judge had arrived at the correct conclusion in recording the said findings.”
- In the case of Mohd. Jamil vrs. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in 2005 Cri. L.J. 1470, the learned Single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that the object of conducting the test identification parade is two folds. First is to enable the witness to satisfy themselves that the prisoner whom they suspect is real one who was seen by them in connection with commission of crime. Second is to satisfy the investigating authorities that the suspect is the real person whom the witnesses have seen in connection with the said occurrence. Thus, merely because the test identification parade was not arranged by the Investigating Agency, would not discredit the clear, cogent and trustworthy evidence of the witness. It has been held as follows:We have discussed hereinabove the evidence of Vijay Kumar Shrivastava in its entirety and after appreciating the evidence we can say that his evidence is clear, cogent and trustworthy. It is no use to imagine and magnify theoretical possibility with regard to the state of mind of the witness and with regard to their power of memorizing the identity of the assailant. Power of perception and memorizing differs from man to man and also depends upon situation. It would also depend upon capacity to recapitulate what has been seen earlier
- The Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra V.Suresh, (2000) 1 SCC 471, while considering the scope of test identification parade categorically held and laid down the law of land that identification parades are not primarily meant for the Court. They are meant for investigation purposes. The object of conducting test identification parade is two-fold. First is to enable the witnesses to satisfy themselves that the prisoner whom they suspect is real one who has seen by them in connection with commission of crime. Second is to satisfy the investigating authorities that the suspect is the real person whom the witnesses have seen in connection with the said occurrence. Thus, merely because the test identification parade was not arranged by the Investigating Agency, would not discredit the clear, cogent and trustworthy evidence of Vijay Kumar Shrivastava who firmly said, that he had an occasion to see the accused for considerable time in broad day light he had also seen the accused/appellant who had fired by â€™Katlaâ€™ to the deceased. This witness had seen the entire act of appellant right from very beginning. Thus, the argument in this regard advanced by learned Counsel for the appellant can not be accepted.