Test Identification Parade Loses Evidentiary Value When Witness Who Identified Accused Wasn't Examined In Trial : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently acquitted an accused after noting that the person who witnessed the accused during the Test Identification Parade (“TIP”) was not examined during the trial.

The Court stressed that unless the person who witnessed the accused during the TIP is not examined in trial, then the TIP report which may be useful to corroborate or contradict the witness would lose its evidentiary value for the purposes of identification.

“Thus, if the witness who identified a person or an article in the TIP is not examined during trial, the TIP report which may be useful to corroborate or contradict him would lose its evidentiary value for the purposes of identification. The rationale behind the aforesaid legal principle is that unless the witness enters the witness box and submits himself for cross examination how can it be ascertained as to on what basis he identified the person or the article. Because it is quite possible that before the TIP is conducted the accused may be shown to the witness or the witness may be tutored to identify the accused. Be that as it may, once the person who identifies the accused during the TIP is not produced as a witness during trial, the TIP is of no use to sustain an identification by some other witness.”, the court observed.

A bench of Justice PS Narasimha and Manoj Misra heard the case where the Appellant was convicted by the trial court and High Court for dacoity and offences committed under the Arms Act. An allegation was labeled that the Appellant at gunpoint stopped the moving bus and robbed the passengers.

The TIP was conducted in the presence of three witnesses, who were not examined in the trial.

Setting aside the conviction, the judgment authored by Justice Misra observed the TIP lost its relevance because the key witnesses who identified the Appellant during the TIP were not examined during the trial, therefore it would not be possible to ascertain as to on what basis they identified the appellant.

“In the instant case, though it was proved by PW-7 (i.e., the Naib Tehsildar who executed the TIP) that the TIP for identifying the appellant was conducted and the appellant was identified by two out of three witnesses, those three witnesses who participated in the TIP of the appellant were not examined during trial. Thus, the TIP report, which could have been used to either contradict or corroborate those witnesses, is of no evidentiary value.”, the Court observed.

In light of the aforementioned, the Court allowed the appeal, and set aside the conviction giving a benefit of the doubt to the Appellant/accused.

Case Title: VINOD @ NASMULLA VERSUS THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 215

Click here to read/download the judgment

Appearance:

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Manish Kumar Gupta, AOR(Arguing counsel) Mrs. Sangita Gupta, Adv. Mr. Sharad Prakash Pandey, Adv.

For Respondent(s) :Mr. Apoorv Shukla, AOR (arguing counsel) Mr. Puneet Chahar, Adv. Ms. Prabhleen A. Shukla, Adv.