Irregularity In Test Identification Parade Does Not Erode Evidentiary Value Of Identification In Court: Jharkhand High Court

The Jharkhand High Court has clarified that Test Identification Parade (TIP) conducted during the investigation is part of the investigative process and does not constitute substantive evidence. Thus, it emphasised that irregularities in conducting TIP is not a sufficient ground to discard the prosecution's case, if supported by other credible evidence.

Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary, presiding over the case, observed,

“Even if it is assumed that there was irregularity in the TIP, which appears to be in the present case, that will by itself not erode the evidentiary value of the identification in the Court. identification in TIP during investigation is part of the investigation and it is not substantive piece of evidence. Any irregularity committed during investigation cannot be said to be the sole ground to discard the prosecution case in its entirety if it is otherwise proved by other cogent and reliable evidence.”

The prosecution alleged a road robbery involving the looting of two trucks and the critical injury of a truck driver by a knife. Following the FIR registration, a charge sheet was filed against the accused under Sections 394 and 411 of the IPC. The trial court convicted the accused under Section 394, and the appellate court upheld the conviction. Thereafter, a criminal revision petition was filed by the accused, challenging this decision.

The petitioner argued that the TIP was conducted with a three-month delay and noted that the name of three accused, including petitioner Bholu, appeared in a confessional statement, but Bholu was not identified in court.

The State countered that the informant's statement was recorded on the day of the incident, confirming the occurrence, and that all accused were identified both in TIP and in court. The State argued that TIP serves as corroborative, not substantive, evidence and any investigation irregularities are not fatal to the prosecution's case.

that in exercising revisional jurisdiction, the Court must focus solely on the legality and propriety of the judgement or order under review and will not interfere unless the order is found to be perverse.

In its analysis, the Court noted, “In criminal adjudication mainly two facts need to be proved. First is the actual commission of the offence and secondly the person involved in the offence. In the present case commission of road robbery is established by the consistent account of the witnesses. The case was lodged without any delay on the basis of the statement of the injured victim, and one of the accused viz Bholu Singh was apprehended on spot.”

The Court acknowledged that there were irregularities in the Test Identification Parade (TIP), but concluded that these irregularities alone did not undermine the evidentiary value of the identification in court.

The Court emphasised, “Appreciation of evidence is to be made considering the totality of evidence against the overall facts and circumstance of the case. In any case defect in investigation cannot be a ground to cat away the testimony of witnesses, which is otherwise proved.”

In support of its position, the Court cited the judgments in Yogesh Singh Vs Mahabeer Singh and ors AIR 2016 SC 5160; AIR 2013 SC 1000 Hema Vs. State through Inspector of Police Madras.

The Court further highlighted, “It has been deposed by Investigating Officer (PW-10) in Para 2 that accused Bholu Singh was apprehended on spot. Since Bholu Singh was arrested by this witness therefore I.O he becomes direct eye witness. When an accused is apprehended on spot and is named, there is no purpose of putting him on TIP.”

Based on these considerations, the Court concluded that there was no illegality in the trial court's judgement, leading to the dismissal of the revision petition.

Case Title: Bholu Singh @ Bhu Kumar Singh @ Bholu Kumar Singh V. The State of Jharkhand

LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 132

Click Here To Read Judgement