Source:   Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

The Supreme Court in matter of P. Sasikumar v. The State Rep. By The Inspector of Police has emphasized the criticality of Test Identification Parades (TIP) in criminal trials, stating that the identification of an accused in court, especially when the accused is a stranger to the witness and no TIP has been conducted, cannot be relied upon as strong evidence for conviction.  

• This directive aims to ensure fair and accurate identification processes, preventing potential misidentifications and emphasizing the need for cautious judicial scrutiny in such cases. 

What was the Background of P. Sasikumar v. The State Rep. By The Inspector of Police? 

• The case involves the brutal murder of a 14-year-old girl inside her house on 13th November 2014. 
• Two accused were charged - Accused No. 1 (Yugadhithan) and Accused No. 2 (P. Sasikumar, the appellant in this case). 
• The prosecution's case was largely based on circumstantial evidence, as there were no direct eyewitnesses to the murder. 
• 13th November 2014 ~7:15 PM: The victim's father (PW-1) returned home to find his daughter bleeding profusely.  
• He saw a man wearing a helmet coming down the stairs. 
• PW-5 (a neighbor) claimed to have seen two men enter the victim's house around 6:30-6:40 PM - one wearing a helmet and one wearing a green monkey cap. 
• November 15, 2014: Both accused were apprehended by police. 
• Recoveries were made based on the accused's statements, including weapons, clothes, and vehicles. 
• Identification issues:  
  • PW-1 and PW-5 had not seen the appellant (Accused No. 2) prior to the incident. 
  • They claimed to have seen him wearing a green monkey cap, which covered most of his face. 
  • No Test Identification Parade (TIP) was conducted by police. 
  • The witnesses identified the accused in the hospital while they were in police custody. 
  • Later, they identified the accused in court during the trial. 
• The Trial Court convicted both accused under various sections of the IPC, including Section 302 (murder). 
• The High Court upheld the conviction of the appellant (Accused No. 2). 
• The appellant challenged his conviction in the Supreme Court, primarily on grounds of doubtful identification. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Supreme Court emphasized the necessity of a Test Identification Parade (TIP) when the accused is unfamiliar to the witness. It highlighted that without a TIP, identification in court cannot serve as reliable evidence for establishing guilt. 
• The court observes that in cases where no TIP has been conducted and the accused is a stranger to the witness, the trial court must exercise utmost caution before accepting dock identification as conclusive evidence. 
• The Court pointed out that the absence of a TIP in the present case amounted to a critical flaw in the police investigation. This omission cast doubt on the reliability of the dock identification of the accused during trial. 
• The court states that in criminal cases, the burden of proving the identity of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt lies with the prosecution. The Court found that the prosecution failed to meet this burden in the absence of a TIP. 
• The Court distinguished the present case from prior rulings, noting that insufficient corroboration and doubts about the appellant's identity precluded conviction based on unreliable evidence. 
•  The bench comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Prasanna B Varale concluded that the doubt regarding the appellant's identity warranted acquittal, underscoring the principle that doubt must benefit the accused. 

What is Test Identification Parade (TIP)? 

About: 

• The role of the witness is very important in establishing the identity of the accused. One of the methods of establishing the identity is the Test Identification Parade (TIP) which is received under Section 9 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA). 
• In Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 this provision is given under Section 7. 

Section 7 of BSA: 

• This section deals with the facts necessary to explain or introduce relevant facts. 
• It states that the 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. 

Purpose of TIP: 

• The idea of the parade is to test the veracity of the witness on the question of his capability to identify from among several people an unknown person whom the witness had seen in the context of an offence. 
• It has two major purposes: 
  • To satisfy the investigating authorities, a certain person not previously known to the witnesses was involved in the commission of the crime. 
  • To furnish evidence to corroborate the testimony which the witness concerned tenders before the Court. 

Mode of TIP: 

• Identification parades shall be conducted by a Judicial Magistrate at the Jail as far as possible. 
• While making arrangements for the parade, the Police Officers should completely efface themselves, leaving it to the Magistrate to conduct the actual identification proceedings. 
• When a witness says that he can identify the accused persons or others connected with the case under investigation, the Investigating Officer shall record in the case diary their description in detail, noting the following points: 
  • Their descriptions 
  • The extent of prevailing light at the time of the offence (daylight, moonlight, flashing of torches, burning kerosene, electric or gas lights). 
  • Details of opportunities of seeing the accused at the time of the offence and anything outstanding in the features or conduct of the accused which impressed him (identifier). 
  • The distance from which he saw the accused. 
  • The extent of time during which he saw the accused. 
• When a parade has to be held for the identification of a person or persons by a witness such person or persons shall be carefully kept out of the view of the witnesses and mingled with a considerable number of other people of a like class. 
• The Magistrate or other persons conducting the parade should satisfy himself or themselves that no Police Officer takes part in the actual identification proceedings. 
• Statements made by the identifying witness during the identification parade should be recorded in the proceedings. Even if a witness makes a mistake, it should be recorded. 
• After the completion of the identification parade and the drawing up of the proceedings, a certificate must be issued which is signed by the Magistrate who conducted the Parade. 

Evidentiary Value of TIP: 

• A TIP is not a substantive piece of evidence in law and can only be used for corroborating or contradicting evidence of the witness concerned as given in the Court. 

Case Laws: 

• In Ramkishan v. State of Bombay (1955), the Supreme Court held during investigation, the police are required to conduct identification parades. These parades serve the purpose of enabling witnesses to identify either the properties that are the focus of the offence or the individuals involved in the crime. 
• In George v. State of Kerala (1996), the Supreme Court held that the admissibility of the identification of the accused in the Court is not affected for want of evidence of earlier identification in the TTP. 
• Jayan v. State of Kerala (2021), the court stated that if there was sufficient corroboration to the testimony of the witness then the testimony of a witness who has identified the accused in the Court cannot be discarded merely because the Test Identification Parade was not conducted. The Court observed that since the identity of the appellant was in doubt and there was no sufficient corroboration to the witness testimony, thus the appellant could not be convicted based on very doubtful evidence as to the appellant's identity.