NAME: Sushmitha.

S
REG NO: 21BLA1112
SUBJECT: Law of Evidence
SUBMITTED TO: Prof. Arjun
DATE: 20/07/23
TEST IDENTIFICATION PROCESS
IN
LAW OF EVIDENCE

Abstract:
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872, holds a pivotal role in shaping the principles and procedures
governing evidence in India's legal system. One of the critical aspects of this act is the test
identification process, which plays a crucial role in establishing the authenticity and admissibility of
evidence in court proceedings. This abstract explores the intricacies of the test identification process
under the Indian Evidence Act, shedding light on its significance and impact on justice delivery.

The test identification process is designed to ensure the reliability of eyewitness identification of
accused individuals in criminal cases. Eyewitness testimony often carries substantial weight in the
determination of guilt or innocence, making it imperative to subject such identification to rigorous
scrutiny.

This abstract highlights the key components of the test identification process, including the various
stages and safeguards in place. It examines the process through which eyewitnesses are confronted
with a lineup or array of individuals, and the procedures followed to minimize suggestive influences
that could lead to inaccurate identifications.

The Indian Evidence Act emphasizes the need for conducting test identifications fairly and
impartially, protecting the rights of the accused while upholding the pursuit of truth. It explores the
principles of fairness, caution, and objectivity that underpin this process, ensuring that the
identification is free from bias or coercion.

Moreover, the abstract delves into landmark Indian judicial decisions that have shaped and refined
the test identification process over the years. By examining key cases, it highlights how the judiciary
has balanced the need for probative evidence with safeguarding the rights of the accused.

The test identification process, as elucidated in the Indian Evidence Act, serves as a critical tool for
ensuring the accuracy and integrity of eyewitness identification in criminal trials. This abstract offers
insights into the legal framework and principles that guide the process, providing a comprehensive
understanding of its significance within the Indian legal context.
Introduction:
The law of evidence is an integral pillar of the legal system, shaping the foundation upon which cases
are built and justice is sought. In any court proceeding, the admissibility and relevance of evidence
play a pivotal role in determining the outcome. This 1intricate web of rules and tests ensures that
only pertinent and reliable information is presented before the court, contributing to the search for
truth and the fair administration of justice.

Within the vast realm of evidence law, several tests serve as critical gatekeepers to the courtroom.
The relevance test acts as the first filter, sifting through the evidence to assess its logical connection
to the facts at hand. Beyond relevance, the hearsay test delves into the realm of out-of-court
statements, examining whether they fall within exceptions to the hearsay rule or if they must be
excluded. The best evidence rule, in turn, safeguards the integrity of documentary evidence,
requiring the presentation of original or highest-quality materials to establish the veracity of
content.

As the human element of testimony comes into play, the competency test becomes essential in
gauging the credibility and reliability of witnesses. Their ability to perceive, remember, and
communicate events can significantly influence the weight given to their accounts. To ensure
authenticity, the authentication test verifies the origin and genuineness of evidence, safeguarding
against manipulation or tampering.

Navigating the complexities of character evidence, the court scrutinizes its admissibility based on the
purpose for which it is offered. Furthermore, certain communications find sanctuary under the
privilege test, safeguarding the confidentiality of 2confidential relationships.

Lastly, the exclusionary rule serves as a fundamental principle of justice, excluding evidence that has
been unlawfully obtained, ensuring that constitutional rights are upheld.

This exploration of the various tests and rules in the law of evidence unveils the intricate tapestry
that governs the courtroom proceedings, serving as a beacon of truth and justice. By delving into
each test's nuances, we gain insight into the mechanisms by which evidence is assessed and its
profound impact on the pursuit of justice.

Principles:
To ensure a fair and reliable test identification, several key principles are followed. Law enforcement
officials carefully select foils who resemble the suspect in various physical characteristics, such as
age, race, height, and build. This reduces the likelihood of a suggestive lineup. Cautioning the
Witness: Before the lineup, the witness is cautioned that the perpetrator may or may not be
present, and they should not feel compelled to make an identification if they are uncertain. The
lineup is conducted by officials who do not know the identity of the suspect or who is the target in
the lineup. This reduces the risk of inadvertent suggestion or influence. Detailed records are
maintained during the process, documenting any comments or reactions made by the witness during
the identification. In some cases, a sequential presentation of foils is used, where the witness views

1 very complicated or detailed

2 attorney-client or doctor-patient
each individual separately rather than all at once. This can further reduce the likelihood of a
mistaken identification.

The results of the test identification process are carefully scrutinized during trial proceedings. Judges
and juries consider the fairness of the lineup, the confidence expressed by the witness during the
identification, and any other relevant factors when assessing the reliability of the identification
evidence.

Test of Credibility
From circumstance to circumstance and case to case, the accuracy of identification by identifiers in
terms of the test identification parade varies. The date, seriousness of the crime, the 3perpetrator's
behaviours, and the traumatic experience that transpired at the time such an event occurred leave
permanent marks on the victim's psyche and serve as identifiers, proving who did the deed. Keep in
mind that the moment, location, and quantity of participants all matter. The victim might have had
enough light if the incident occurred in an open area during the day to plainly identify the suspect,
particularly whether the person's face was concealed.

When a person covers their face or other body parts, identification is not deemed sufficient because
the classifier cannot recognise the person. According on the facts of the case, we think the court will
decide whether or not to hold the parade. In the 4Raman Bhai Narayan Bhai Patel case , the
incident happened in broad daylight, and the judges determined that because of this, the
perpetrator would be easily remembered and identified by witnesses. Based on identification by the
Test Identification Process, a conviction was obtained.

The Supreme Court of India decided that a TIP should only be used to identify the defendant and
confirm the court in the case of 5Dana Yadav v. State of Bihar. If the suspect's identity is not
mentioned before the initial investigation or police, it is often not used.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India ruled in Anil Kumar v. U.P. State that TIP retention was not
required and the defendant had no legal basis for arguing that her TIP should be retained. Although
the failure to apprehend TIP right away is not deadly, every effort should be taken to do so as soon
as possible in order to protect witnesses from the defendant's practical jokes. Regarding the test
identification parade, the identifier's identification's reliability differs from case to case and
circumstance to circumstance. Time, the seriousness of the criminal's deeds, and such terrible
experiences leave a lasting mark on the victim's or identifier's mind, causing them to vividly recall
the perpetrator.

Everything is taken into consideration, including the time of day the act was performed, the location,
and the number of participants. If it happened in broad daylight in an open area, it may have been
possible for the victim to plainly identify the perpetrator. It also matters if the perpetrators had their
faces covered, among other things.

Steps:
3 a person who carries out a harmful, illegal, or immoral act
4 Judgement 1999 Supp(5) SCR 41
5 Judgement 2002 Supp(2) SCR 363
 1. Selection of Foils: The law enforcement officials conducting the identification parade
carefully select a group of foils who closely match the physical characteristics of the suspect.
These individuals should resemble the suspect in terms of age, race, build, and other
identifying features.

2. Notice to Accused: The suspect must be informed of their right to participate in the
identification parade and have the option to refuse to participate. If the suspect agrees to
participate, they are made aware that the process is not an admission of guilt.

3. Cautioning the Witness: Before the identification process begins, the witness is cautioned
that the suspect may or may not be present in the lineup and that they should not feel
compelled to make an identification if they are uncertain.

4. Conducting the Lineup: The witness is then presented with the lineup of the suspect and
foils. The lineup can be conducted in various formats, such as a physical lineup, a
photographic lineup, or a video lineup, depending on the available resources and
circumstances.

5. Non-Participation of Officials: Those conducting the lineup should not indicate to the witness
who the suspect is or provide any cues that could influence the identification.

6. Record Keeping: A detailed record is maintained throughout the process, noting any
comments or reactions made by the witness during the identification.

7. Multiple Viewings (Optional): In some cases, witnesses may be given the option to view the
lineup multiple times. This can provide additional insight into the reliability of the
identification.

8. Post-Identification Statement: After the witness makes an identification or declines to

identify anyone, their statement regarding the identification is recorded for future
reference.

Constitutionality Of Test Identification Parade

According to 6Article 20(3) of the Constitution, a magistrate's order forcing a person to attend a test
identification parade does not infringe that person's fundamental rights. Identification of the
accused at 7TIP by a third party other than the accused. His mere presence or physical display cannot
be taken into consideration as providing any affirmative volitional evidential conduct.

The requirement that an accused person stand up and reveal his face for identification purposes
does not also constitute a violation of Article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution. Giving testimony to
the conclusive facts is not what it amounts to. He may also be required to reveal any scars or other
identifying features on his body. During the course of the inquiry, witnesses may testify that if the
perpetrators were seen to them or the properties were shown to them, they would be able to
identify them. Therefore, it becomes necessary to hold an identification parade test during the
investigation to check the witness's recall and sincerity.

6 no person accused of an offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself

7 Test identification process
An essential component of the investigation is the identification parade test. They are pertinent in
light of the admissibility of the identification parade test thanks to Section 9 of the Indian Evidence
Act. In 8Budhasen V. State of A.P, the Hon. Supreme Court of India was happy to rule that the T.I.P.
has two goals: confirming the identity of the witness before trial and establishing the identify of the
accused.

TIP examines the witnesses' recollection as well.

In general, an accused person cannot seek TIP as a matter of right, but they must always accept it if
it is made. According to the ruling in 9Lajjaram v. State, 1955, if the prosecution denies the accused's
request for identification, it faces the danger of having the credibility of the eye witnesses called into
question.

Identification proof is very persuasive to fact-finders. One would assume that if someone saw a
stranger commit a crime, they would be able to recall that person's face. After all, we recognise and
recall faces on a daily basis. However, more than four decades of study have shown that this
presumption is incorrect; there is unambiguous proof that witnesses frequently have difficulty
correctly identifying a stranger perpetrator's face. Although eyewitness testimony can be a
significant and effective piece of evidence, in many nations, mistakes in eyewitness identification are
a major factor in erroneous convictions.

Identification evidence is the piece of evidence that needs special consideration because it is
similarly powerful and potentially unreliable to confession evidence. Witnesses are routinely asked
to name people they have just briefly and frequently in unclear circumstances seen. In a criminal
trial, the sole issue that must be resolved is frequently who committed the crime. Even though
mistakes of identity frequently happen in good faith, the consequences for the defendant can be
very significant, necessitating utmost prudence when dealing with such evidence. The risks
associated with identification evidence are addressed by a judge's directive, just like with evidence
of the defendant's lies, but there are additional safeguards that apply when the identification was
made through a formal process carried out under police supervision, like an identification parade.

In a world where everything is written down, law is predicated on a procedure that all parties are
aware of and follow. A four-step process that involves acquisition, identification, evaluation, and
admission happens almost without conscious thought. We discover a new set of issues when we try
to use digital evidence in this manner.

Salient features
Video Identification: The advent of powerful computer systems that combine video pictures from a
standardised library of moving video clips has made it possible for video parades to substantially
replace live parades in most countries today. In Britain, two different IT systems—VIPER10 and
PROMAT11—are widely used to offer video identification. Every system has its own image database.

Forensic identification: Post-conviction 12DNA testing is typically used to reveal faulty eyewitness

8 1970 AIR 1321, 1971 SCR (1) 564

9 AIR 1955 All 671, 1955 CriLJ 1547
10 Video Identification Parade Electronic Recording

11 Profile Matching

12 Deoxyribonucleic acid
identifications and erroneous convictions. However, DNA evidence has either been lost in the vast
majority of criminal cases or, more frequently, never existed in the first place. This obviously
presents a serious issue for the innocent person who was found guilty solely due to eyewitness
testimony.

Voice Identification: The voice itself could be a problem in a criminal case because it could be a
personal trait that helps identify a criminal. Thus, it makes sense that the term "ear-witness" has
become popular in recent years to describe a witness who heard something rather than seeing it.

Previous identification: Evidence of a previous identification of the accused by that witness may be
presented in criminal proceedings when a witness identifies the accused as the person who
committed the alleged crime. This evidence may be presented by the witness 52 or by any other
person who witnessed the previous identification, such as a police officer who conducted a formal
identification procedure such as a video identification or an identification parade, or a court reporter
who observed the previous identification.

Facets Of Test Identification Parade:

Evidence from sniffer dogs: The Supreme Court ruled in 13Abdul Razzak v. State of Maharashtra
that dog tracking evidence is permissible but typically has little weight. The likelihood of a
miscommunication between the dog and its owner is hot on its heals. It is impossible to rule out the
risk of misrepresenting or drawing the wrong conclusions from dog conduct.

Identification by finger print: It is generally agreed upon in science that numerous fixed and typical
varieties of ridges on fingertips are easily discernible, and that the likelihood that two people would
have the same mix of these marks is quite remote. Therefore, the strongest evidence of a person's
identification is their finger prints, and this evidence is acceptable.

Joint Test Identification Process (TIP): It was determined in Sheikh Sintha Madhar alias Jaffar alias
Sintha v. State that there is no unalterable regulation stating that the two accused individuals
cannot be included in the same test identification parade. The validity of the Test Identification
Parade is unaffected in any way by the Joint Test Identification Parade.

Criticism:
Despite its importance in the law of evidence, the test identification process has faced criticism and
skepticism from various quarters due to several inherent limitations and concerns.
The test identification process in the law of evidence, though significant, has faced criticisms due to
inherent limitations and concerns. One of the primary criticisms revolves around the unreliability of
eyewitness testimony, as studies have shown that memory inaccuracies and suggestive influences
can lead to mistaken identifications. Despite efforts to conduct identifications fairly, the potential for
suggestive cues by law enforcement during the process remains a concern. The lack of standardized
procedures and varying practices across jurisdictions add to the complexity of the issue. Moreover,
witness confidence, often persuasive to judges and juries, may not always correlate with the
accuracy of identifications. Racial and ethnic biases in eyewitness identifications have been
documented, raising questions about fairness and equity in the process. Additionally, the impact of
post-event information and inadequate documentation poses challenges in reviewing and assessing

13 1987 (3) BomCR 467, (1987) 89 BOMLR 408

the reliability of identifications later in legal proceedings. Addressing these criticisms requires
ongoing research, training, and improvements in the administration of the test identification process
to enhance its reliability and minimize the risk of wrongful convictions. Incorporating corroborative
evidence and advancements in forensic technologies can further strengthen the overall evidence
presented in criminal cases. It centers around its potential for unreliability and susceptibility to
biases. Eyewitness identifications, upon which the process heavily relies, have been shown to be
fallible due to memory decay, suggestibility, and stress during the crime. Suggestive influences by
law enforcement officials during the identification procedure can further taint the process, leading
to wrongful identifications and potential miscarriages of justice. Inconsistencies in the
administration of the process across jurisdictions and the lack of standardized procedures raise
concerns about the overall fairness and credibility of identifications. Moreover, research has
highlighted the existence of racial and ethnic biases in eyewitness identifications, affecting minority
defendants disproportionately. The issue of witness confidence adds complexity, as confident
identifications may not always equate to accuracy. Overall, these criticisms underscore the need for
ongoing research, training, and improvements to enhance the reliability and fairness of the test
identification process in the pursuit of more just and equitable outcomes in criminal trials.

Conclusion
In conclusion, the test identification process stands as a vital mechanism in the law of evidence,
particularly in criminal proceedings, where eyewitness identification can profoundly impact the
course of justice. By subjecting eyewitness identifications to rigorous scrutiny and adhering to key
principles of fairness and objectivity, the process aims to bolster the reliability and accuracy of such
evidence.

The importance of the test identification process lies in its ability to safeguard against wrongful
convictions by minimizing the risk of suggestive influences and potential errors in identifications. It
protects the rights of the accused by providing them notice and the option to participate voluntarily,
ensuring a fair and transparent procedure.

Moreover, the process plays a pivotal role in guiding judicial decisions, as the reliability of
eyewitness identifications significantly influences the weight given to such evidence during trial. By
relying on credible identifications, the legal system can uphold the principles of fairness and equity,
contributing to the delivery of just outcomes.

Furthermore, a well-conducted test identification process enhances public confidence in the criminal
justice system. When the public perceives that identifications are handled with integrity and
professionalism, they are more likely to trust the legal system's ability to seek the truth and protect
individual rights.

The test identification process also serves as a valuable tool for law enforcement in narrowing down
suspects and focusing investigations effectively. Its role in identifying potential perpetrators
contributes to the pursuit of justice and strengthens the law enforcement's ability to bring the guilty
to account.

However, it is essential to remain vigilant in refining and improving the test identification process
continually. Advances in scientific research and understanding human memory and perception can
further inform and enhance the reliability of eyewitness identifications.
In summary, the test identification process embodies the commitment to seeking truth, protecting
individual rights, and maintaining the integrity of the criminal justice system. By adhering to its
principles, the legal system can bolster the credibility of eyewitness identifications and contribute to
a fair and equitable administration of justice in society.

Suggestions
Improving the test identification process in the law of evidence is vital to enhance the credibility and
reliability of evidence presented in court. To achieve this, a series of measures can be implemented.
First and foremost, establishing a strict chain of custody procedure is crucial, ensuring a clear record
of everyone who handles the evidence from collection to presentation. Proper labeling and
meticulous documentation of relevant information, such as collection date, time, location, and
collector's name, must be enforced to establish evidence authenticity. Secure storage facilities
should be employed to prevent unauthorized access or tampering. Leveraging technology, such as
digital documentation and barcoding, can facilitate efficient evidence tracking. Comprehensive
training for investigators and forensic experts should be provided to ensure adherence to best
practices. Additionally, considering independent verification for critical evidence and following
recognized standards and guidelines will further bolster the process. Regular review, feedback
collection, and continuous improvement efforts will foster a robust and reliable test identification
process, bolstering the integrity of the justice system.

Refrences:
1. https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-10860-test-identification-parade-an-
evaluation-through-judicial-pronouncements-its-utility-and-
veracity.html#:~:text=A%20conviction%20was%20committed%20based,be%20identified%2
0in%20the%20court.
2. https://districts.ecourts.gov.in/sites/default/files/Third%20Topic_1.pdf
3. https://theleaflet.in/test-identification-parade-an-explainer/