Trial Courts Must Be Cautious In Accepting Dock Identification Of Stranger Accused By Witness Without Test Identification Parade : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that if the accused is a stranger to a witness, then without holding a Test Identification Parade(TIP) of the accused, the identification of the accused by a witness in the court cannot be considered a good piece of evidence for deciding conviction.

“In cases where accused is a stranger to a witness and there has been no TIP, the trial court should be very cautious while accepting the dock identification by such a witness.”, the court said.

The Court added that if there was no TIP, then the conviction cannot be decided solely on the identification of an accused made by a witness in the Court. The court said so to prevent the dock identification of the accused by a witness, wherein the identity of an accused always remains under the cloud of suspicion being fairly determined by a TIP.

“After considering the peculiar facts of the present case, we are of the opinion that not conducting a TIP in this case was a fatal flaw in the police investigation and in the absence of TIP in the present case the dock identification of the present appellant will always remain doubtful. Doubt always belongs to the accused. The prosecution has not been able to prove the identity of the present appellant i.e. A-2 beyond a reasonable doubt.”, the bench comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Prasanna B Varale said.

In the present case, the Appellant/Accused, whose face was not clearly visible was identified by the witnesses in the hospital. Later on, the witness has identified the Appellant in the Court. However, there was no TIP conducted by the Police before the Appellant's identification in the Court so that corroboration could be made with the TIP.

Taking a cue from the case of Jayan vs. State of Kerala, the court where an accused was identified for the first time before the Court, then in such cases holding a T.I. Parade may make the identification of the accused by the witness before the Court trustworthy.

In Jayan's case, the court stated that if there was sufficient corroboration to the testimony of the witness then the testimony of a witness who has identified the accused in the Court cannot be discarded merely because Test Identification Parade was not conducted.

Distinguishing Jayan's case from the present case, the Court observed that since the identity of the appellant was in doubt and there was no sufficient corroboration to the witness testimony, thus the appellant could not be convicted based on very doubtful evidence as to the appellant's identity.

The appeal was allowed.

Counsels For Appellant(s) Mr. Jayanth Muth Raj, Sr. Adv. Mr. C. K. Sasi, AOR Mrs. Malavika Jayanth, Adv. Ms. Anupriya, Adv.

Counsels For Respondent(s) Mr. V. Krishnamurthy, Sr. A.A.G. Mr. D. Kumanan, AOR Mrs. Deepa. S, Adv. Mr. Sheikh F. Kalia, Adv. Ms. Richa Vishwakarma, Adv.

Case Details: P. SASIKUMAR Versus THE STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 460

Click here to read/download the judgment