Test Identification Parade (“TIP”) evidence is confirmatory and not substantive; it serves to corroborate in-court identification. Its value depends entirely on strict adherence to procedural safeguards by the executive magistrate. Failure to call the magistrate as a witness or to observe precautions may render TIP evidence inadmissible or unreliable.
1. TIP Evidence: Substantive vs. Corroborative
Under Indian law, identification of accused before the court is substantive evidence, whereas identification at a TIP is only corroborative. The Supreme Court in Venkata Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh held that:
-
Court-room identification stands on its own.
-
TIP is “primary” evidence but not substantive; it supports only in-court identification if the latter is shaky or missing entirely.
Accordingly, a conviction cannot rest solely on TIP unless:
-
The witness has identified the accused in TIP and the magistrate’s report confirms it.
-
The trial judge remarks on the witness’s credibility and explains why in-court identification was impaired (e.g., fright).
Where no TIP is held, in-court identification of a stranger must be closely scrutinized but need not be discarded if the court finds it reliable (e.g., no delay, clear recollection).
2. Duty to Summon and Examine the Magistrate
In Jafar v. State of Kerala (2024), the Supreme Court quashed conviction under Sections 395/397 IPC where identification at the police station was treated as TIP without magistrate supervision or report. The Court held that evidence of mere “showing” of the accused by police is not a TIP, and TIP not conducted in accordance with law cannot be used to convict.
Further, the Orissa High Court in State of Odisha v. XYZ (2024) emphasized that prosecution must examine the magistrate who conducted TIP so that legal sanctity and circumstances of the parade are on record. Failure to do so undermines the reliability of TIP.
3. Procedural Safeguards: Bombay High Court Guidelines
The Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court directed the Maharashtra government to frame SOPs for TIP under POCSO Act, highlighting grave lapses when a six-year-old victim was made to touch the accused among dummies in jail premises. More generally, the Bombay High Court Criminal Manual prescribes:
-
Pre-parade briefing: Magistrate must acquaint with facts, identify suspects and witnesses, and secure two independent “respectable” panch witnesses.
-
Isolation: Witnesses must be kept from seeing suspects before TIP; no prior photographs or descriptions.
-
Selection of line-up: Include 6–12 “dummies” of similar age, height, build and complexion; only up to two suspects per parade.
-
Dress and position: Accused may change dress or choose position; such changes must be recorded.
-
No police interference: Police and jail staff must withdraw entirely from identification room; parade ideally outside station.
-
Sequential identification: Call witnesses one by one; allow them to circle and touch participants.
-
Recording objections: Magistrate must note any accused’s objection to manner or venue of TIP.
-
Detailed identification memo: Date, time, place, names/addresses of panch witnesses, list of participants in order, and witness statements on first identification or hesitation. Panches must sign the memo on its reading back.
4. Delays and Reliability
The Supreme Court accepts satisfactory reasons for delay in conducting TIP (e.g., unavailable magistrate). But unexplained or inordinate delay may prove fatal if it risks witness exposure to accused or memory fade.
5. Appreciating TIP in Dacoity and Robbery
In highway dacoity or robbery cases, the stakes for accurate identification are higher as victims often see masked or fleeting assailants. Courts should, therefore:
-
Require TIP whenever identification is not contemporaneous and familiar (e.g., cleaner and driver seeing faces under dim light).
-
Scrutinize the magistrate’s evidence if prosecution omits to summon him—mere report without testimony is insufficient.
-
Weigh TIP evidence only if all procedural safeguards were meticulously followed; any deviation undermines its corroborative value.
6. Conclusion
Test Identification Parade remains a valuable tool to corroborate witness testimony, provided it meets the twin imperatives of judicial supervision (the magistrate must conduct and testify) and strict procedural safeguards (as laid down by the Supreme Court and Bombay High Court). Properly conducted TIPs—free from police influence, prompt, well-documented and supervised—significantly bolster the reliability of in-court identification, especially in dacoity and robbery cases on highways.