ADDRESS OF MS. SHILPI SINGH, LD. SECRETARY (LIT.

), DSLSA

ON

TEST IDENTIFICATION PARADE

INTRODUCTION:

A very good morning to everyone. It is indeed a pleasure and an

honor to be a part of this training programme, along with the

respected dignitaries present here.

The criminal justice system of India was envisaged and brought in

firstly to safeguard the rights of individuals, secondly to curb and

punish the criminals, and thirdly to ensure that the society is evolved

into a better place to leave in. Whenever a case is brought before

Police, the first question that requires consideration is whether or

not offence is committed, if yes, then the next question is who is the

Test Identification Parade Page 1

author of the offence. In order to ascertain the author of the crime,

Police makes use of various investigative procedures, including Test

Identification Parade.

RELEVANT LEGAL PROVISIONS:

Section 9 Indian Evidence Act, 1872:

Facts necessary to explain or introduce relevant facts. —Facts

necessary to explain or introduce a fact in issue or relevant fact, or

which support or rebut an inference suggested by a fact in issue or

relevant fact, or which establish the identity of anything or person

whose identity is relevant, or fix the time or place at which any fact

in issue or relevant fact happened, or which show the relation of

parties by whom any such fact was transacted, are relevant in so far as

they are necessary for that purpose. 

Test Identification Parade Page 2

Section 54A of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:-

Identification of person arrested- Where a person is arrested on a

charge of committing an offence and his identification by any other

person or persons is considered necessary for the purpose of

investigation of such offence, the Court, having jurisdiction, may on the

request of the officer in charge of a police station, direct the person so

arrested to subject himself to identification by any person or persons in

such manner as the Court may deem fit.

IDENTITY OF ACCUSED:

Identity of accused is important in criminal trial. If the accused

disputes his identity, the burden heavily lies on the prosecution to

prove his presence at the scene of offence. Accused may also put

forward the false plea of alibi. To establish the identity of the accused

Test Identification Parade Page 3

the investigating officer can take recourse of Test Identification

Parade. Identification parade is necessary to help the investigation

officer to concentrate his focus and ambit of suspicion to a few only,

which eliminates waste of time and energy, and to specify the

investigating officer regarding the identity of suspects/accused,

identity of stolen property.

The identification of person and property may include their identity

during the course of investigation, in test of identification parade and

the identification during the trial. With regard to the probative value,

the identification during the trial has more evidentiary value when

compared with the former.

During the course of investigation, witnesses may say that they will

identify the culprits, if they were shown to them; they will identify

the properties, if the properties are produced before them.

Test Identification Parade Page 4

Therefore, the necessity of holding of test of identification parade

during the investigation is necessary to test the memory and veracity

of the witness does arise. Test of identification parade is integral part

of investigation.

PURPOSE:

In the case of State of Maharashtra v. Suresh, it was observed that

the object of conducting a Test Identification Parade has two objects

 First is to enable the witness to satisfy themselves that the

prisoner whom they suspect is actually the one who was seen

by them during the commission of the crime

 Second is to satisfy the investigating officer that the accused is

the one that the witness has seen.

PROCEDURE:

Test Identification Parade Page 5

As per the Bureau of Police Research and Development, the following

set of guidelines may be considered while holding a TIP:

1. TIP shall be held without delay

2. The accused person shall be concealed from the witness. His

photographs shall not be published in the print media or exhibited

before the TIP takes place.

3. The proceedings shall be solely conducted and supervised by a

Judicial Magistrate without the interference of the police personnel.

In the absence of the Magistrate, TIP shall be conducted by two

respectable persons from the locality not known to the accused.

4. The accused shall be made to stand in line with others of similar

height, built and age.

Test Identification Parade Page 6

5. Thereafter, the suspects assembled together shall be shown to the

witnesses by turn and the witness shall be asked to identify the

accused from the lot.

6. The accused along with the others shall be shuffled from time to

time.

7. A complete record of the identifying process shall be maintained in

the Case Diary.

8. No witness shall be allowed to communicate or confer with the

other witnesses.

9. The jailor shall prohibit any change in the appearance of the

accused and he shall be in the same attire he was in at time of his

arrest.

Test Identification Parade Page 7

10. If the witness is injured, the Investigating Officer shall obtain in

writing from the medical attendant that he is fit to identify the

accused.

11. The accused may at times be identified by photograph. A TIP shall

be undertaken once this accused is apprehended.

12. A certificate signed by the magistrate stating that he took

necessary precautions shall be mandatory.

RELIABILITY:

The reliability of the witness’s opinion depends entirely on the

reliability of the visible features of the first image which were

actually seen and mentally recorded by him (which in turn depends

on the extent to which he was paying attention, his physical and

psychological powers of perception at that time and his memory)

together with the reliability of his comparison of the stored image

Test Identification Parade Page 8

with the visible features of the second image. Identifying witnesses

may focus on broad impressions or features which stimulate their

own subjective preferences rather than on the multitude of specific

physical details, so markedly different facial characteristics between

the offender and the accused may go unnoticed while vague

similarities may be given undue weight. According to Sir John

Woodroff & Syed Amir Ali, the appreciation of the evidence of

eyewitness depends upon:

– The accuracy of the witness’s original observation of the events

which he described, and

– The correctness and extent of that he remember and his veracity.

HOLDING TIP : WHETHER COMPULSORY?

Test Identification Parade Page 9

S.K. Hasib v. State of Bihar, (1972) 4 SCC 773 - Identification

parades are ordinarily held at the instance of the investigating officer

for the purpose of enabling the witnesses to identify either the

properties which are the subject-matter of alleged offence or the

persons who are alleged to have been concerned in the offence. Such

tests or parades belong to the investigation stage and they serve to

provide the investigating authority with material to assure

themselves if the investigation is proceeding on right lines. It is

accordingly desirable that such test parades are held at the earliest

possible opportunity. Early opportunity to identify also tends to

minimise the chances of the memory of the identifying witnesses

fading away by reason of a long lapse of time. But much more vital

factor in determining the value of such identification parades is the

effectiveness of the precautions taken by those responsible for

holding them against the identifying witnesses having an opportunity

Test Identification Parade Page 10
of seeing the persons to be identified by them before they are

paraded with other persons and also against the identifying

witnesses being provided by the investigating authority with other

unfair aid or assistance so as to facilitate the identification of the

accused concerned.

The practice of TIP is not borne out of procedure, but out of

prudence. It is pertinent to note that the holding of TI parade is not

compulsory. Where the witnesses were well acquainted with the

accused and the incident was also widely covered by media, it was

held that non-holding of TI parade was not fatal to the prosecution

case. As to when an identification parade may be necessary was

explained by the Supreme Court in Jadunath Singh v. State of

U.P., that “ Of course, if the prosecution fails to hold an identification

parade on the plea that the witnesses already knew the accused well

Test Identification Parade Page 11

and it transpires in the court of trial that the witnesses did not know

the accused previously, the prosecution would run the risk of losing

its case. It seems to us that if there is any doubt in the matter, the

prosecution should hold an identification parade”.

In a case, where identification parade was held after an inordinate

delay of about five weeks from the arrest of the accused, the

explanation for the delay was not trustworthy. Plea as to the non-

availability of a Magistrate in a city like Bombay though the

investigating agency was not obliged to get the parade conducted

from a specified Magistrate was not accepted. It was held that the

accused was entitled to benefit of doubt.

Thus, the identification parades belong to the stage of investigation,

and there is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure which

obliges the investigating agency to hold, or confers a right upon the

accused to claim a test identification parade. They do not constitute

Test Identification Parade Page 12

substantive evidence and these parades are essentially governed by

Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Failure to hold a test

identification parade would not make inadmissible the evidence of

identification in court. The weight to be attached to such

identification should be a matter for the courts of fact.

EVIDENTIARY VALUE:

It is well settled that the substantive evidence is the evidence of

identification in court and the test identification parade provides

corroboration to the identification of the witness in court, if required.

However, what weight must be attached to the evidence of

identification in court, which is not preceded by a test identification

parade, is a matter for the courts of fact to examine. Where the

witness states before the court that, he identified the accused at the

TIP and the magistrate corroborates the witness, then there is no

Test Identification Parade Page 13

difficulty. But, the problem begins when the witness states

that, (a) he did not identify the accused at the TIP, but is able to

identify the accused in the court; or, (b) he did identify the accused at

the TIP, but is unable to identify the accused in the court; or, (c) he

did not identify the accused at the TIP, nor is able to identify the

accused in the court. The question for consideration which arises

here is this: Can the magistrate give evidence of the TIP which was

held by him and during which the accused was identified by the

witness?

The purpose of TIP is to enable the witness who claims to have seen

the commission of the crime, to identify the accused/suspect out of

the several persons lined up by the I.O. in the presence of

judicial/executive magistrate. The TIP takes place in the presence of

magistrate and it is the magistrate who prepares the record of the

Test Identification Parade Page 14

TIP proceedings. It is for the witness to point out the

accused/suspect out of the several persons and it is for the

magistrate to corroborate the identification by the witness of the

accused/suspect. Thus, in situations (a) and (c), there is nothing for

the magistrate to corroborate, and it is only in situation (b) that a

magistrate can corroborate the identification of the accused/suspect

by the witness. 

In Rabinder Kumar Pal v. Republic of India, the Hon’ble Supreme

Court of India held that, photo identification of accused and TIP are

only aides to the investigation conducted by the investigating officer

(‘I.O.’ for short) and these do not form substantive evidences. 

TIP is not substantive evidence; it only assures that the investigatory

process is progressing on right lines. TIP is a part of the investigatory

process under Section 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. In

Test Identification Parade Page 15

Ram Nath Mahto v. State of Bihar, the Supreme Court upheld the

conviction of the appellant even when the witness while deposing in

Court did not identify the accused out of fear, though he had

identified him in the TIP. The Court here relied upon the evidence of

the Magistrate, who had conducted the TIP.

A statement identifying someone as the offender may be admissible

as a dying declaration, or as a part of the Res Gestae, or as a previous

inconsistent statement, provided the conditions for admissibility of

evidence under those principles are satisfied.

In a recent case, Raju Manjhi v. State of Bihar, (2019) 12 SCC 784,

it was held that Test identification parade is not substantive evidence.

Its purpose is only to help the investigating agency ascertain as to

whether the investigation in the case is heading in the right direction

or not. There is no provision in CrPC which obliges the investigating

Test Identification Parade Page 16

agency to hold or confer a right on the accused to claim a test

identification parade. Absence to hold it would not make

inadmissible the evidence of identification in court.

Elucidating the scope of TIP, Arijit Pasayat, J. in the case of Abdul

Waheed Khan @ Waheed v. State of Andhra Pradesh, held :

“The whole idea of a TIP is that witnesses who claim to have seen the

culprits at the time of occurrence are to identify them from the midst

of other persons without any aid or any other source. The test is done

to check upon their veracity. In other words, the main object of

holding an identification parade, during the investigation stage, is to

test the memory of the witnesses based upon first impression and

also to enable the prosecution to decide whether all or any of them

could be cited as eye-witness of the crime.”

Test Identification Parade Page 17

DELAY IN HOLDING TIP:

Many times TIP gets delayed due to the non-availability of the

magistrate; the delay in holding TIP must be accounted for

satisfactorily, for example, in the case of, Rajesh Govind

Jogesh v. State of Maharashtra, the explanation tendered by the I.O.

that no magistrate was available in Bombay for 5 (five) weeks for

supervising the TIP was held to be not a satisfactory explanation by

the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India; whereas, in another

case, Murarilal Jivaram Sharma v. State of Maharashtra, delay of 2

(two) months in holding TIP was held to be sufficiently explained

where the I.O. although kept writing to the magistrate for holding TIP

but the magistrate was not able to spare time due to his pre-

occupations. Delays in holding TIP can reduce the credence that can

be attributed to the evidence obtained vide the TIP route.

Test Identification Parade Page 18

Moreover, in Lal Singh v. State of UP, it was held that: “Though it is

desirable to hold the TIP at the earliest possible opportunity, no hard

and fast rule can be laid down in this regard. If the delay is inordinate

and there is evidence probablising the possibility of the accused having

been shown to the witnesses, the Court may not act on the basis of such

evidence. Moreover, cases where the conviction is based not solely on

the basis of identification in court, but on the basis of other

corroborative evidence, such as recovery of looted articles, stand on a

different footing and the court has to consider the evidence in its

entirety.”

TIP CONDUCTED BY POLICE

There is no bar to the TIP being conducted by the police, however, the

evidentiary value of it will be largely affected and it would no longer

be used to substantiate the testimony at the trial principally because

Test Identification Parade Page 19

any statement recorded by the Investigating Officer during the TIP

shall be inadmissible in evidence. It is for this reason that the TIP

must be conducted by a Magistrate in adherence with section 164 of

the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

REFUSAL TO SUBMIT TO TIP: FATAL FOR ACCUSED?

 It seems to us that it has been clearly laid down by this Court,

in Parkash Chand Sogani v. State of Rajasthan, that the absence of

test identification in all cases is not fatal and if the accused person is

well-known by sight it would be waste of time to put him up for

identification. Of course if the prosecution fails to hold identification

on the plea that the witnesses already knew the accused well and it

transpires in the course of the trial that the witnesses did not know

the accused previously, the prosecution would run the risk of losing

its case. It seems to us that if there is any doubt in the matter the

Test Identification Parade Page 20

prosecution should hold an identification parade specially if an

accused says that the alleged eyewitnesses did not know him

previously. It may be that there is no express provision in the Code of

Criminal Procedure enabling an accused to insist on identification

parade but if the accused does make an application and that

application is turned down and it transpires during the course of the

trial that the witnesses did not know the accused previously, as

pointed out above the prosecution will, unless there is some other

evidence, run the risk of losing the case on this point.

Prakash v. State of Karnataka [Prakash v. State of Karnataka,

(2014) 12 SCC - Even so, the failure of a victim or a witness to

identify a suspect is not always fatal to the case of the prosecution.

The identification of the accused either in a test identification parade

or in court is not a sine qua non in every case if from the

Test Identification Parade Page 21

circumstances the guilt is otherwise established. Many a time, crimes

are committed under the cover of darkness when none is able to

identify the accused. The commission of a crime can be proved also

by circumstantial evidence.’  Mohd. Anwar v. State (NCT of Delhi),

(2020) 7 SCC 391 - The refusal to participate in the TIP proceedings

and the lack of any reasons on the spot, undoubtedly establish the

appellant's guilty conscience and ought to be given substantial

weight

Taking all the facts into consideration, the SC stated that “the

identification in the course of a TIP is intended to lend assurance to

the identity of the accused. The finding of guilt cannot be based

purely on the refusal of the accused to undergo an identification

parade.” Hence, a refusal to undergo a Test Identification Parade

assumes secondary importance and a corroborative importance if at

Test Identification Parade Page 22

all, and cannot survive independently in the absence of it being a

substantive or a primary piece of evidence.

TIP & SELF INCRIMINATION:

Article 20(3) reads as-

“No person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a

witness against himself.”

Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India is not violated by

compelling an accused to stand up and show his face for the purpose

of identification. It does not amount to giving of testimony as to the

final facts. He can also be ordered to disclose any scar or mark on his

body for the purpose of identification.

State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad, (1962) 3 SCR 10 and M.P.

Sharma v. Satish Chandra [(1954) SCR 1077]

Test Identification Parade Page 23

Broadly stated the guarantee in Article 20(3) is against “testimonial

compulsion”. It is suggested that this is confined to the oral evidence

of a person standing his trial for an offence when called to the

witness stand. We can see no reason to confine the content of the

constitutional guarantee to this barely literal import. So to limit it

would be to rob the guarantee of its substantial purpose and to miss

the substance for the sound as stated in certain American decisions.

The phrase used in Article 20(3) is ‘to be a witness’. A person can ‘be

a witness’ not merely by giving oral evidence but also by producing

documents or making intelligible gestures as in the case of a dumb

witness (see Section 119 of the Evidence Act) or the like. ‘To be a

witness’ is nothing more than ‘to furnish evidence’, and such

evidence can be furnished through the lips or by production of a

thing or of a document or in other modes. So far as production of

documents is concerned, no doubt Section 139 of the Evidence Act

Test Identification Parade Page 24
says that a person producing a document on summons is not a

witness. But that section is meant to regulate the right of cross-

examination. It is not a guide to the connotation of the word

‘witness’, which must be understood in its natural sense i.e. as

referring to a person who furnishes evidence. Indeed, every positive

volitional act which furnishes evidence is testimony, and testimonial

compulsion connotes coercion which procures the positive volitional

evidentiary acts of the person, as opposed to the negative attitude of

silence or submission on his part. Nor is there any reason to think

that the protection in respect of the evidence so procured is confined

to what transpires at the trial in the court room. The phrase used in

Article 20(3) is ‘to be a witness’ and not ‘to appear as a witness’. It

follows that the protection afforded to an accused insofar as it is

related to the phrase ‘to be a witness’ is not merely in respect of

testimonial compulsion in the court room but may well extend to

Test Identification Parade Page 25
compelled testimony previously obtained from him. It is available

therefore to a person against whom a formal accusation relating to

the commission of an offence has been leveled which in the normal

course may result in prosecution. 

“To be a witness” may be equivalent to “furnishing evidence” in

the sense of making oral or written statements, but not in the larger

sense of the expression so as to include giving of thumb impression

or impression of palm or foot or fingers or specimen writing or

exposing a part of the body by an accused person for purpose of

identification. “Furnishing evidence” in the latter sense could not

have been within the contemplation of the Constitution makers for

the simple reason that — though they may have intended to protect

an accused person from the hazards of self-incrimination, in the light

of the English law on the subject — they could not have intended to

Test Identification Parade Page 26

put obstacles in the way of efficient and effective investigation into

crime and of bringing criminals to justice. The taking of impressions

of parts of the body of an accused person very often becomes

necessary to help the investigation of a crime. It is as much necessary

to protect an accused person against being compelled to incriminate

himself, as to arm the agents of law and the law courts with

legitimate powers to bring offenders to justice. Furthermore it must

be assumed that the Constitution-makers were aware of the existing

law, for example, Section 73 of the Evidence Act or Sections 5 and 6

of the Identification of Prisoners Act (33 of 1920). Section 5

authorises a Magistrate to direct any person to allow his

measurements or photographs to be taken, if he is satisfied that it is

expedient for the purposes of any investigation or proceeding under

the Code of Criminal Procedure to do so: “Measurements” include

finger impressions and foot-print impressions. If any such person

Test Identification Parade Page 27
who is directed by a Magistrate, under Section 5 of the Act, to allow

his measurements or photographs to be taken resists or refuses to

allow the taking of the measurements or photographs, it has been

declared lawful by Section 6 to use all necessary means to secure the

taking of the required measurements or photographs. Similarly,

Section 73 of the Evidence Act authorises the court to permit the

taking of finger impression or a specimen handwriting or signature

of a person present in court, if necessary for the purpose of

comparison.

The matter may be looked at from another point of view. The giving

of finger impression or of specimen signature or of handwriting,

strictly speaking, is not “to be a witness”. “To be a witness” means

imparting knowledge in respect of relevant facts, by means of oral

statements or statements in writing, by a person who has personal

Test Identification Parade Page 28

knowledge of the facts to be communicated to a court or to a person

holding an enquiry or investigation. A person is said “to be a witness”

to a certain state of facts which has to be determined by a court or

authority authorized to come to a decision, by testifying to what he

has seen, or something he has heard which is capable of being heard

and is not hit by the rule excluding hearsay, or giving his opinion, as

an expert, in respect of matters in controversy. 

It is well established that clause (3) of Article 20 is directed against

self-incrimination by an accused person. Self-incrimination must

mean conveying information based upon the personal knowledge of

the person giving the information and cannot include merely the

mechanical process of producing documents in court which may

throw a light on any of the points in controversy, but which do not

contain any statement of the accused based on his personal

Test Identification Parade Page 29

knowledge. For example, the accused person may be in possession of

a document which is in his writing or which contains his signature or

his thumb impression. The production of such a document, with a

view to comparison of the writing or the signature or the impression,

is not the statement of an accused person, which can be said to be of

the nature of a personal testimony. When an accused person is called

upon by the court or any other authority holding an investigation to

give his finger impression or signature or a specimen of his

handwriting, he is not giving any testimony of the nature of a

“personal testimony”. The giving of a “personal testimony” must

depend upon his volition. He can make any kind of statement or may

refuse to make any statement. But his finger impressions or his

handwriting, in spite of efforts at concealing the true nature of it by

dissimulation cannot change their intrinsic character. Thus, the

giving of finger impressions or of specimen writing or of signatures

Test Identification Parade Page 30
by an accused person, though it may amount to furnishing evidence

in the larger sense, is not included within the expression “to be a

witness”. In order to bring the evidence within the inhibitions of

clause (3) of Article 20 it must be shown not only that the person

making the statement was an accused at the time he made it and that

it had a material bearing on the criminality of the maker of the

statement, but also that he was compelled to make that statement.

“Compulsion” in the context, must mean what in law is called

“duress”.

The compulsion in this sense is a physical objective act and not the

state of mind of the person making the statement, except where the

mind has been so conditioned by some extraneous process as to

render the making of the statement involuntary and, therefore

extorted. Hence, the mere asking by a police officer investigating a

Test Identification Parade Page 31

crime against a certain individual to do a certain thing is not

compulsion within the meaning of Article 20(3). 

TIP- BEST PRACTICES:

To conduct the procedure in an appropriate manner, special rooms

for conduct of Test Identification Parade in all the prisons in the State

shall be made. Such rooms shall have one side view glass separating

those lined up for parade, on one hand and witness and the

Magistrate, on the other — Witness and Magistrate should not be

visible to those who are lined up, but, suspect and dummies should

be visible clearly to the witness and the Magistrate. Enclosure in

which the suspect and dummies are lined up shall be illumined and

should also have ante room for them to change their attire.

The Magistrate conducting the Test Identification Parade (TIP) is

directed to take two photocopies of TIP report under his direct

Test Identification Parade Page 32

supervision and after certifying the same, hand over one to I O with

specific directions that contents of such report should not be

divulged to any person till charge sheet under Section 173, CrPC is

filed. Second photocopy shall be retained by the Magistrate as

“confidential” record in a sealed cover for future requirements, if

necessary.

CONCLUSION

As may be deduced from the above, TIP primarily meant for

investigative purposes, reassures the witness that the accused

identified at the TIP is the same person who was spotted at the crime

scene and satisfies the investigative agencies that the suspect under

question is the same person that the witness had discerned on the

day of the fatality.

Further, the Supreme Court through P. Sathasivam, J. in Mulla v.

Test Identification Parade Page 33

State of Uttar Pradesh, delineated the following principles that must

be considered so as to make TIP truly meaningful:

1. TIP should be conducted as early as possible

2. Any delay should be justified

3. The authorities should make sure that the delay does not result in

exposure of the accused which may lead to mistakes on the part of

the witnesses

The judiciary has been particularly careful not to convict in most

cases on the basis of the sole testimony of the witness. Nevertheless,

there may be offences which by their very nature may be witnessed

by a single witness only, one such being rape. Here, the offender may

be unknown to the victim and the case may depend solely on the

identification by the victim, who is otherwise found to be truthful and

reliable, as held in Pramod Mandal v. State of Bihar, 2004 (13) SCC

Test Identification Parade Page 34

150.

“Prudence therefore demands that these matters must be left to

the wisdom of the courts which must consider all aspects of the

matter in the light of the evidence on record before pronouncing

upon the acceptability or rejection of such identification.”

THANK YOU

Test Identification Parade Page 35