Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

Recently, the bench of Justice Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Mehta observed the importance of conducting a Test Identification Parade (TIP) for recovered articles and stressed the need for a strong evidentiary chain in criminal trials.  

• The Supreme Court held this in the matter of Thammaraya and Another v. The State of Karnataka (2025). 

What was the Background of Thammaraya and Another v. The State of Karnataka ? 

• The case involves three accused persons - Manoj (A-1), Thammaraya (A-2), and Basappa (A-3). 
• Manoj (A-1) was the nephew of Shrishail, who was a liquor merchant. 
• The prosecution alleged that Manoj had developed an illicit relationship with Shrishail's wife. 
• As a consequence of this relationship, Manoj allegedly conspired to eliminate Shrishail and enlisted the help of Thammaraya and Basappa. 
• On 24^th August, 2001, Manoj took Shrishail in his Indica car (MP-09/HB-7769) under the pretext of visiting a doctor in Sholapur, Maharashtra. 
• The prosecution alleged that all three accused persons strangulated Shrishail with a nylon rope and abandoned his body between Konnur cross to Domnal cross of Bijapur on National Highway No. 13. 
• The accused persons allegedly removed the deceased's clothes and disposed of his nude body near Tungabhadra dam at Hospet. 
• To cover up the crime, Manoj filed a false complaint with Solapur Police claiming they were victims of a dacoity where Shrishail was abducted by unknown persons. 
• During the investigation Manoj confess his crime. 
• The offences charged were under Sections 302 (murder) and 201 (causing disappearance of evidence) read with Section 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Court noted that the entire case hinged on circumstantial evidence, requiring stringent proof standards. 
• The prosecution must establish that all circumstances point conclusively to the guilt of the accused and exclude all other hypotheses. 
• The Court observed that the gap between "may be guilty" and "must be guilty" is significant in criminal jurisprudence. 
• Regarding the surviving accused (A-2 and A-3), the Court observed that the only circumstantial evidence was the recovery of certain articles. 
• The Court found serious deficiencies in how the Investigating Officer proved the disclosure statements and subsequent recoveries:  
  • Failed to record exact words of the accused's statements 
  • Did not exhibit the disclosure statements 
  • Failed to establish clear connection between accused and recovered articles 
  • Did not seal the recovered articles 
  • Omitted to conduct Test Identification Parade (TIP) 
• The Court determined that the investigating agency's failure to conduct TIP for recovered articles constituted negligence and dereliction of duty. 
• The Court concluded that the chain of circumstantial evidence was incomplete and insufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. 
• Each factual element (facta probantia) must be connected through proven circumstances to establish guilt (factum probando). 

What is Test Identification Parade (TIP)? 

• Test Identification Parade (TIP) is a method of establishing identity received under Section 9 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (now Section 7 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023), which deals with facts necessary to explain or introduce relevant facts. 
• The primary purpose of TIP is to test the witness's veracity in identifying an unknown person from among several people, whom the witness had seen during the commission of an offence. 
• TIP serves dual purposes: to satisfy investigating authorities about a person's involvement in the crime, and to furnish corroborative evidence supporting the witness's testimony in court. 
• The procedural requirements for TIP include:  
  • Must be conducted by a Judicial Magistrate, preferably in jail 
  • Police officers must not participate in the identification proceedings 
  • Accused must be mixed with similar-looking people 
  • Witnesses must be kept separate and out of view 
  • Detailed records of witness statements and proceedings must be maintained 
  • Magistrate must issue a certificate after completion 
• TIP is not substantive evidence but serves as corroborative evidence to either support or contradict the witness's testimony given in court. 

What is Circumstantial Evidence? 

• Circumstantial Evidence is a form of indirect evidence originating from the Roman legal system, based on the principle that "Men may tell lies, but circumstances do not," where a chain of circumstances is used to prove a fact, unlike direct evidence which conclusively proves facts. 
• he definition of evidence can be found in Section 2 (1) (e) of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA).  
  • The BSA includes statements given electronically and the electronic or digital records within the ambit of evidence.   
• Evidence is classified into two categories:  
  • Oral evidence (statements made by witnesses before court) 
  • Documentary evidence (including electronic records produced for court inspection) 
• Evidence in India is broadly classified into:  
  • Direct Evidence (conclusively proves facts) 
  • Indirect/Circumstantial Evidence (uses chain of circumstances) 
• Circumstantial Evidence requires a complete chain of circumstances that conclusively points to the guilt of the accused, leaving no reasonable ground for any other conclusion. 
• The Supreme Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) established five golden principles for conviction based on circumstantial evidence, which serve as the foundational framework for evaluating such evidence in criminal cases. 

What are the Principles Laid Down in the Case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984)? 

• Following are the five principles that help in establishing guilt in case of circumstantial evidences: 
  • The circumstances indicating guilt must be fully and conclusively established, not merely suggested or probable, marking a clear legal distinction between "must be proved" and "may be proved." 
  • The proven facts must be consistent only with the hypothesis of the accused's guilt and incapable of explanation by any other rational hypothesis. 
  • The circumstances must be conclusive in nature and tendency, leading to a definitive inference of guilt. 
  • The evidence must exclude all reasonable possibilities except that of the accused's guilt, leaving no room for alternative explanations. 
  • The chain of evidence must be complete and unbroken, leaving no reasonable doubt of the accused's guilt and demonstrating that in all human probability, only the accused could have committed the act.