Introduction
In criminal jurisprudence, the identification of an offender forms an integral part of the
process of proof. The credibility of the prosecution’s case often depends upon the ability of
eyewitnesses to correctly recognise the person who committed the offence. The Bharatiya
Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, under Section 7, renders relevant those facts which, though not
themselves in issue, are necessary to explain or introduce facts in issue or relevant facts.
Among such facts are those which establish the identity of any person or thing whose
identity is relevant to the case. It is within this doctrinal framework that the Test
Identification Parade (TIP) assumes importance.
The TIP is not an evidentiary device of substantive nature but an investigative procedure
aimed at testing the memory, perception and veracity of witnesses who claim to have seen
the offender at the time of the commission of the crime. The underlying object is twofold:
first, to provide assurance to the investigating authorities that the inquiry is proceeding on
proper lines by linking the suspect with the offence; and secondly, to furnish corroborative
evidence to support the testimony that will later be adduced in court. The Supreme Court in
Matru v. State of U.P., (1971) held that the identification made in a TIP has merely
corroborative value; conviction cannot rest solely upon it. Similarly, in Santokh Singh v. Izhar
Hussain (1973), the Court reaffirmed that the TIP serves only as a preliminary test of
identification and must be followed by identification in court.
Under illustrations (a) to (f) of Section 7, the law recognises the relevance of facts that
explain, introduce, or support inferences about the fact in issue. Where the identity of an
offender is in question, a TIP becomes a relevant fact establishing such identity. The process
thus falls squarely under Section 7(4) of the BSA—“facts establishing the identity of any
person or thing whose identity is relevant.” The parade, conducted in the presence of a
Magistrate, enables the witness to identify the suspect from a lineup of persons of similar
appearance without any suggestion or prompting, thereby ensuring procedural fairness and
protecting the accused from false implication.
However, since human memory is fallible and the possibility of influence or mistake cannot
be excluded, the courts have consistently treated the result of a TIP as non-substantive. Its
evidentiary weight depends on its fairness, promptness, and freedom from suspicion of
police coaching. In Mulla and Another v. State of U.P. (2010), the Supreme Court emphasised
that the parade should be held as soon as possible after the arrest to avoid the risk of
mistaken identity, and any unjustified delay must be satisfactorily explained.
In the context of the present problem—where a witness identifies the accused, Mr Anup,
during a Test Identification Parade after a robbery—Section 7 provides the statutory basis for
considering the TIP proceedings as relevant. The issue to be examined, therefore, is twofold:
first, the legal significance and admissibility of such identification in light of its corroborative
nature, and second, the procedural guidelines governing the conduct of a TIP and the
consequences of their violation. These considerations must be evaluated within the broader
evidentiary principles under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam and the long-standing
jurisprudence of the Supreme Court of India.
Introduction
In criminal trials, the issue of identification of an accused is often crucial. When a witness
sees an unknown perpetrator (or recognises a person for the first time), the challenge is to
ensure the process of identification is reliable, fair, and capable of being tested in court. The
procedure known as a Test Identification Parade (TIP) is one mechanism designed to assist
in this respect. The present fact-situation raises two main questions: (1) what is the legal
significance of a TIP in criminal trials and whether the identification of Mr Anup in this case
would be admissible; (2) what guidelines govern the conduct of a TIP and what the
consequences are of violation of those guidelines. In answering both questions we will draw
upon Indian jurisprudence, legal theory, and practical illustrations to explain the applicable
principles.
Part I: Legal Significance of TIP and Admissibility of the Identification of Mr Anup
1. Purpose of TIP
The TIP is an exercise, during investigation, in which persons (including the suspect
and others of similar description) are shown to a witness who claims he has seen the
offender, in order to test the witness’s power of recognition and fix the memory of
the witness for future identification. Drishti Judiciary+2CDN BBSR+2 It assists both
the investigating agency and the court by helping reduce the risk of mistaken
identification, facilitating the recollection of the witness, and providing a record of
identification under controlled conditions. LawBhoomi+1
2. TIP and Relevance/Admissibility
o The TIP is not, by itself, substantive evidence of guilt. The ultimate
identification in court by the witness during trial is the substantive testimony.
The role of the TIP is corroborative – it strengthens the reliability of the court
identification. Indian Kanoon+1
o Indian courts have held that if the identifications made in court (by a witness
who had earlier taken part in a TIP) are clear and reliable, the TIP can serve as
an important link or corroboration. Drishti Judiciary+1
o The Court in Dana Yadav v. State of Bihar (2002) observed that where the
accused is identified for the first time in court (without prior TIP or other
recognition) the evidentiary value is weak and caution must be exercised.
latestlaws.com+1
o A TIP’s omission does not automatically vitiate the entire case, but its absence
or serious irregularity weakens the identification evidence considerably.
Indian Kanoon
3. Application to Mr Anup’s Case
o The facts: Two masked individuals robbed a jewellery store. A suspect (Mr
Anup) is arrested. An eyewitness, who had briefly seen one robber without
the mask during the crime, identifies Mr Anup in the TIP. Mr Anup claims that
the identification is flawed because he alleges that he was shown to the
witness before the parade, and the police improperly influenced the process.
o Legal analysis:
The fact that the witness saw the robber without a mask and then
later in TIP identified Mr Anup lends a prima facie link between the
crime-scene perception and the TIP identification.
The TIP was conducted. That is favourable to the prosecution.
However, the defence allegation of pre-showing (i.e.,
confrontation/preview of the accused before TIP) and police influence
introduces a significant question of reliability. Indian law emphasises
that the witness must have sufficient opportunity to observe the
offender at the time of the crime (lighting, distance, duration, whether
mask was removed) as well as a fair identification procedure. Drishti
Judiciary+1
The identification in court must be linked to the earlier perception and
the TIP. The court will scrutinise the TIP report: how many persons
were shown, whether foils (similar looking persons) were used,
whether police intervened, whether the suspect stood out, etc. CDN
BBSR+1
o On the admissibility question: The identification of Mr Anup in the TIP is
admissible as evidence for corroboration of the in-court identification. But it
cannot by itself convict him. The court must be satisfied that the TIP was
properly conducted and that the witness’s in-court identification is reliable.
o If the defence’s allegations of pre-showing or undue influence are
established, the TIP may be vitiated or its evidentiary value severely
diminished. In that situation the prosecution must rely on other evidence to
support identification.
o Thus: The legal significance is that the TIP is a “rule of prudence” and not a
mandatory pre-condition; the identification of Mr Anup would be admissible,
but subject to the court’s evaluation of fairness, procedure, opportunity of
observation, and link to court evidence.
Part II: Guidelines/Principles Governing the Conduct of TIP & Consequences of Violation
1. Key Guidelines / Good Practice
Indian jurisprudence and commentary set out various guidelines (though many are
not codified as statutory rules, they reflect standards of fair procedure):
o Immediately after the offence (or as soon as possible) when memory is fresh.
Long delays reduce reliability. Redalyc+1
o The investigating officer should record in the case-diary the description by the
witness of the accused: lighting conditions, distance, duration of observation,
any distinguishing features, whether mask was removed. Drishti Judiciary+1
o The suspect(s) should be mingled with a sufficient number of other persons
(foils) of similar description so that the identification is not suggestive. The
witness should not know who the accused is. CDN BBSR
o The police officer should not lead the witness, coach the witness, or show
undue attention to one person. The witness should make the identification
freely. Legal Bites+1
o A magistrate or independent person should supervise the TIP. The presence
of an independent supervisory officer helps credibility. SSRN
o A detailed TIP report should be made: date/time, full list of persons lined up
with identifying numbers, the witness’s statement, any remarks, etc.
o The suspect should not be forced to participate in TIP, but after statutory
provisions (e.g., under Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, formerly Section
54A) he may be directed to do so. SCC Online
2. Principles from Case Law
o The Court in State of Maharashtra v. Suresh (1999) emphasised that
identification in court is substantive evidence, whereas TIP is not substantive
but only corroborative. Indian Kanoon+1
o The Court in Shyam Singh v. State of Rajasthan (2015) reaffirmed that while
the absence of a TIP does not automatically lead to acquittal, failure to
conduct TIP raises serious issues of reliability when the witness first identifies
the accused in court after a long delay. Indian Kanoon+1
o It is held that irregularity in the TIP does not automatically render it useless;
the court may still rely on court identification and other evidence. For
example, the Jharkhand High Court held that even if TIP had some defects,
the in-court identification could still be reliable. SCC Online
o However, a TIP becomes of nil value if the witness who made the
identification is not examined at trial. Court Book
3. Consequences of Violating the Guidelines
o If the procedure is vitiated (e.g., suspect alone shown, pre-showing of
suspect, witness coached, long delay, no foils, witness not examined in court),
the TIP’s reliability is compromised. The court may treat it as weak or discard
it altogether.
o The absence of TIP does not automatically result in acquittal. The court will
evaluate the totality of evidence, including in-court identification, motive,
recovery of property, etc. But the weaker the identification link, the higher
the burden on prosecution to establish identity. Indian Kanoon+1
o When TIP is properly conducted and witness identifies the accused in court,
TIP strengthens the case and supports the prosecution’s identification link.
o Courts may treat procedural irregularities as matters affecting weight rather
than automatic exclusion. The key is whether the ultimate identification is
reliable.
o If the witness who identified in TIP is not produced for cross-examination, TIP
and its report may be struck out. Court Book
Conclusion
In sum, a TIP is a valuable investigative tool and a supportive piece of evidence in criminal
trials for establishing identity of an accused. In the facts before us, the TIP identifying Mr
Anup is admissible in the sense that it can be used to corroborate the in-court identification
by the eyewitness, provided the TIP was conducted fairly, promptly, with a proper line-up of
foils, and the witness had a real opportunity to observe the robber (briefly without a mask).
However, because Mr Anup challenges the TIP alleging pre-showing and police influence, the
court must rigorously scrutinise the TIP’s record, assess the witness’s opportunity of
observation, lighting, mask-removal etc., and then determine whether the identification is
reliable. If found reliable, the identification of Mr Anup may significantly support conviction;
if found unreliable or vitiated, prosecution must depend on additional evidence. The
guidelines governing TIP – including promptness, independence of supervision, presence of
foils, no police prompting, detailed reporting – are critical. Violation of these standards does
not automatically nullify the TIP, but it weakens its value and may affect the viability of the
identification evidence in court.
Conclusion
To conclude: A Test Identification Parade is a valuable investigative and corroborative process
aimed at assisting the identification of an accused whose identity is relevant to the
proceedings. Under Section 7(4) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, facts
establishing identity are relevant and hence a TIP is legally admissible as a relevant fact.
However, it is not substantive evidence by itself — the substantive proof remains the in-
court identification by a witness at trial.
In the case of Mr Anup, his identification during the TIP is admissible and can form part of
the prosecution’s evidence. But the court must carefully examine the fairness of the TIP
procedure: whether there was pre-showing, suggestion, undue delay, or other irregularities.
If the TIP is deemed properly conducted and the in-court identification is credible, then the
identification of Mr Anup may strongly support a conviction. But if significant irregularities
exist, the TIP’s value is greatly diminished and the prosecution must rely on other
corroboration. An irregular or delayed TIP does not automatically lead to acquittal, but it
does call for greater caution in evaluation of the total evidence. Ultimately, the probative
value of the TIP (and identification of Mr Anup) will depend on the entire factual matrix —
witness’s opportunity of observation, conditions at crime scene, mask removal, lighting,
duration of exposure, recovery of stolen property, CCTV evidence, the TIP report, and the in-
court test.
