There Cannot Be Repeated Test Identification Parades Till Accused Is Identified: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that there cannot be repeated Test Identification Parades till such time that the prosecution is successful in obtaining identification of the accused.

The bench of Justices Navin Sinha and R. Subhash Reddy observed that mere identification in the test identification parade cannot form the substantive basis for conviction unless there are other facts and circumstances corroborating the identification. It reiterated that a test identification parade under Section 9 of the Evidence Act is not substantive evidence in a criminal prosecution but is only corroborative evidence.

In this case, the accused were convicted by the Trial Court on the basis of them being identified in a test identification parade (TIP). In appeal before the Supreme Court, they contended that the conviction based on the TIP is unsustainable as no TIP has been proved to have been held in accordance with law.  It was further submitted that repeated TIPs have been held only after which the accused were 'identified'. 

While considering the appeal, the court noted that the case of the prosecution solely rests on identification in the TIP. 

"A test identification parade under Section 9 of the Evidence Act is not substantive evidence in a criminal prosecution but is only corroborative evidence. The purpose of holding a test identification parade during the stage of investigation is only to ensure that the investigating agency prima facie was proceeding in the right direction where the accused may be unknown or there was a fleeting glance of the accused. Mere identification in the test identification parade therefore cannot form the substantive basis 3 for conviction unless there are other facts and circumstances corroborating the identification. But more important than that, the test identification parade being a part of the investigation, has to be proved by the prosecution as having been held in accordance with law.", the court said.

The court added that the onus lies on the prosecution to establish that the TIP was held in accordance with law. It is only after the prosecution prima facie establishes a valid TIP having been held, the question of considering any objection to the same arises. "If the prosecution has failed to establish that a TIP was properly held by examining the witnesses to the same, there is nothing for the accused to disprove.", it said.

In the present case, the court noted that a Magistrate had conducted the TIP, but was not examined and prosecution offered no explanation for it.

"There cannot be repeated TIPs till such time that the prosecution is successful in obtaining identification of the accused. We find it extremely disturbing that both the Trial Court and the High Court did not go into this aspect at all to satisfy  themselves if any TIP had been proved to have been held at all and that too in accordance with the law.", the bench observed while acquitting the accused.

Case: Umesh Chandra vs. State of Uttarakhand ; CrA 801 OF 2021
Citation: LL 2021 SC 374
Coram: Justices Navin Sinha and R. Subhash Reddy
Counsel: Sr. Adv Vibha Datta Makhija, Adv D.S. Matya for appellants, Adv Rajiv Nanda for respondent state

Click here to Read/Download Order