Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Madan B. Lokur, J.

1. The question before us is whether, in the absence of a Test Identification Parade (TIP for short), the evidence of a child witness should have been accepted for convicting the appellant. In our opinion, on the facts of this case both the Trial Court and the High Court were right in convicting the appellant for offences punishable under Section 397 (robbery or dacoity, with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt) and Section 302 (punishment for murder) of the Indian Penal Code. However, no case has been made out for convicting the appellant for an offence punishable Section 449 (house trespass in order to commit offence punishable with death) of the IPC.

12. The Trial Judge also saw no reason to disbelieve the Investigating Officer who confirmed the recovery of the gold ornaments at the instance of the appellant on 24th October 1997.

13. The principal contention of the appellant before the Trial Judge was that since he was a total stranger to Lidiya, she could not have recognized him in the Court and in the absence of a TIP, reliance on her identification of the appellant could not be considered safe. The Trial Judge rejected this contention on the ground that there was sufficient other evidence to show the presence of the appellant in the vicinity of the house of Jose son of Antony and in view of the corroboration from other witnesses, there was no reason to doubt Lidiya.

18. We are unable to agree with the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant.

(i) Not holding a TIP:

19. We have gone through the decisions referred to by the High Court and find that only Sk. Hasib is of any relevance. In that case, this Court explained the purpose of a TIP. It was observed that an identification parade is held at the investigation stage by the investigating officer for a two-fold purpose: to identify the property subject matter of the alleged offence or the person concerned in the alleged offence and to assure the investigating authority that the investigation is proceeding along the right lines. For this reason, the identification parade should be held at the earliest, so that memory does not fade in the meanwhile. More importantly, however, to ensure that the identification parade inspires confidence and is fair and effective, certain precautions need to be taken.

22. A more useful and elaborate discussion on the subject is to be found in Malkhansingh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2003) 5 SCC 746 where the TIP is linked to the requirement of Section 9 of the Evidence Act, 1872 and coupled with the caution that in the absence of a TIP, the weight to be attached to the identification of the accused in Court is a matter for the courts of fact to decide.

23. Similarly, in Vijay @ Chinee v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2010) 8 SCC 191 after a discussion on the subject, it was concluded that, “… … the test identification is a part of the investigation and is very useful in a case where the accused are not known beforehand to the witnesses. It is used only to corroborate the evidence recorded in the court. Therefore, it is not substantive evidence. The actual evidence is what is given by the witnesses in the court.” It was noted in Vijay with reference to State of Himachal Pradesh v. Lekh Raj, (2000) 1 SCC 247 that the holding of a TIP is “a rule of prudence which is required to be followed in cases where the accused is not known to the witness or complainant.”