Testimony Of Witness Who Identified Accused In Court Cannot Be Discarded Merely Because TIP Was Not Conducted: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that the testimony of a witness who has identified the accused in the Court cannot be discarded merely because Test Identification Parade was not conducted.

In a given case, there may be otherwise sufficient corroboration to the testimony of the witness, the bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka said.

The court observed thus in a judgment allowing the appeal filed by the accused who were convicted under Section 55(a) of Kerala Abkari Act. However, in this case, the court disbelieved a witness who identified the accused in court where he saw him for the first time after 11 years.

One of the contentions raised by the appellant was that in this case Test Identification Parade (T.I Parade) was not conducted and therefore, the version of a prosecution witness that he identified him in the court nearly after lapse of 12 years cannot be believed.

In this context, the court observed that T.I Parade is a part of investigation and it is not a substantive evidence. The bench said:

"The question of holding T.I Parade arises when the accused is not known to the witness earlier. The identification by a witness of the accused in the Court who has for the first time seen the accused in the incident of offence is a weak piece of evidence especially when there is a large time gap between the date of the incident and the date of recording of his evidence. In such a case, T.I Parade may make the identification of the accused by the witness before the Court trustworthy. However, the absence of T.I Parade may not be ipso facto sufficient to discard the testimony of a witness who has identified the accused in the Court. In a given case, there may be otherwise sufficient corroboration to the testimony of the witness. In some cases, the Court may be impressed with testimony of the prosecution witnesses which is of a sterling quality. In such cases, the testimony of such a witness can be believed.

The court noted that in the present case, the prosecution witness accepted that he is not able to identify any persons whom he had seen 11 years back. However, he had asserted that he can identify the accused though he had seen them for the first time more than 11 years back on the date of the incident, the court noted.

"It is very difficult to believe that PW13 who was not knowing the accused Nos.2 and 4 prior to the incident could identify them in the Court after lapse of 11 years. That is also the case with all the official witnesses. The prosecution has chosen not to produce evidence regarding the correct registration number of the truck and the name of the registered owner thereof. Therefore, the entire prosecution case becomes doubtful.", the bench said while allowing the appeal.

Click here to Read/Download Judgment