Test Identification Parade Only Rule Of Prudence, Its Absence Does Not Necessarily Vitiate Identification Of Accused In Court: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court on Tuesday held that the absence of a test identification parade, does not necessarily invalidate identification of an accused in court.

A single bench of Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas held that:

“The object of a test identification parade is to test and ascertain the trustworthiness of the evidence regarding the identification of the accused. Test identification parade is only a rule of prudence. It is intended to be a measure of corroboration of the identification of the accused by the witnesses in court, especially when the accused are strangers. However, if the ocular evidence and the identification of the accused by the witnesses in court are impressive, nothing restricts the court from relying upon the said identification, as recognising the accused in court is the substantive evidence, while test identification parade is not an evidence of that character”

The matter pertains to a man booked under Sections 394 (Voluntarily causing hurt in committing robbery) and 450 (house trespass in order to commit an offense punishable with life) of the Indian Penal Code for breaking into a house and injuring three persons in an attempt to commit theft. The accused was pronounced guilty by the Sessions Judge and this conviction was being challenged by the accused in an appeal.

It was the case of the accused that since there was no prior acquaintance with the accused, it was necessary to conduct a test identification parade, and without such a process, the identification made in court after a four-year lapse could not be relied on.

However, this was opposed by the Public Prosecutor as according to him the evidence of the three witnesses is “very categoric” and leaves no room for doubt on the identity of the accused.

The court observed that the test identification parade is not law, it is only a rule of prudence and nothing can stop the court from relying on the evidence of the witnesses in court:

“The identification of an accused in the witness box is the substantive evidence. The acceptability of such an identification depends upon the trustworthiness and reliability of the evidence of the witnesses. If the testimony of the eyewitness relating to the identity of the accused inspires confidence in the mind of the court, the absence of a test identification parade by itself will not denigrate the identification of the accused in court.

In the case at hand, the court noted that the identification of the accused by the witnesses was “inspiring” and “totally reliable”. The court identified four reasons for the same. Firstly, one of the witnesses identified the accused the day after the incident itself. Secondly, the witnesses had a chance to actually see the accused up close and under lights at the time of the incident. Thirdly, one of the witness caught hold of the accused during the tussle. Fourthly, one of the witnesses had described the identifying features of the accused in the First Information Statement given to the police.

The court while affirming the decision of the Sessions Judge noted that the identification of the accused in this case was reliable and that the lack of test identification parade would not put its veracity into question.

Counsel for the Accused: Adv. Saipooja, Adv. P Mohamed Sabah, Adv. Libin Stanley

Public Prosecutor: Adv. C N Prabhakaran

Case Title: Sabu @ Eetty Sabu v State of Kerala

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 111

Click here to read/download order