Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
In criminal trials, eyewitness identification can make or break a case. But what happens when police skip the Test Identification Parade (TIP) and instead share details about the accused with witnesses? A common scenario arises: no TIP was conducted, police gave information about accuse person. This practice often renders court identification unreliable, especially for strangers, tipping the scales toward the benefit of doubt for the accused. This blog delves into the legal nuances under Indian law, drawing from judicial precedents to explain why such lapses undermine justice.
While this post provides general insights based on case law, it is not legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for specific cases.
A Test Identification Parade (TIP) is a procedural safeguard during investigation, not mandated by statute like the CrPC or Evidence Act but followed as a rule of prudence. Its primary goal is to test a witness's memory without external influence, particularly when the accused is unknown to them. As courts have noted, TIPs belong to the stage of investigation by Police – It assures that investigation is proceeding in right direction – It is a rule of prudence which is required to be followed in cases where accused is not known to witness or complainant. Gireesan Nair VS State of Kerala - 2022 8 Supreme 178
Under Section 9 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, TIP serves as corroborative evidence for court (dock) identification, which is the substantive proof. Identification parades belong to the stage of the investigation of crime and there is no provision which compels the investigating agency to hold or confers a right on the accused to claim a TIP. Anju @ Chand Khan VS State of Madhya Pradesh - 2022 0 Supreme(SC) 701 However, Test identification parade primarily strengthens the prosecution’s case as it acts as a circumstance corroborative of identification in Court. Anju @ Chand Khan VS State of Madhya Pradesh - 2022 0 Supreme(SC) 701
Key purposes include:- Allowing witnesses to identify offenders from a lineup without tutoring.- Providing assurance to investigators that they're on the right track. Second, to satisfy the investigating authorities that the suspect is the real person whom the witnesses had seen in connection with the said occurrence. Gireesan Nair VS State of Kerala - 2022 8 Supreme 178- Preventing prior exposure that could taint memory.
Failure to hold a TIP does not make court identification inadmissible per se. Failure to hold a test identification parade would not make inadmissible the evidence of identification in court. The weight that is attached to such identification is a matter to be determined by the Court in the circumstances of that particular case. Anju @ Chand Khan VS State of Madhya Pradesh - 2022 0 Supreme(SC) 701
However, for strangers first identified in court after a delay—without TIP or prior FIR description—it's often deemed unsafe. Thus, it would not be safe to place reliance on the identification of this appellant for the first time in court by these witnesses after an inordinate delay of more than two years from the date of the incident, especially when the identification in court is not corroborated either by the previous identification in the test identification parade or any other evidence. Dana Yadav VS State Of Bihar - 2002 6 Supreme 508 Ordinarily, if an accused is not named in the first information report, his identification by witnesses in court, should not be relied upon, especially when they did not disclose name of the accused before the police. Dana Yadav VS State Of Bihar - 2002 6 Supreme 508
Courts emphasize prompt TIP post-arrest to avoid tutoring: A TIP should ordinarily be conducted soon after the arrest... so as to preclude a possibility of the accused being shown to the witnesses before it is held. Anju @ Chand Khan VS State of Madhya Pradesh - 2022 0 Supreme(SC) 701
The real danger emerges when police provide information, show photos, or allow station viewings before TIP or court. This defeats TIP's purpose, making subsequent identifications suspect. Police disclosing or showing the accused (via photos, station viewing, or information) prior to TIP eliminates its value and casts serious doubt on subsequent court identification, as it defeats the test of memory without tutoring.
If identification in TIP has taken place after accused is shown to witnesses, then not only is evidence of TIP inadmissible, even identification in a court during trial is meaningless. Gireesan Nair VS State of Kerala - 2022 8 Supreme 178 Even TIP in police presence may be inadmissible under Section 162 CrPC. Gireesan Nair VS State of Kerala - 2022 8 Supreme 178
Examples from cases:- Station identification before TIP: Suresh Kori was also candid as he accepted in his cross-examination that he had identified the perpetrators at the police station the day after the incident. In this background, the identification of the appellant in the test identification parade... has been challenged. Anju @ Chand Khan VS State of Madhya Pradesh - 2022 0 Supreme(SC) 701- Photos shown pre-TIP: The purported test identification parade which was held ten days thereafter, in our opinion, looses all significance... By showing the photographs of the suspects, whom they intended to place in the T.I. parade, made it farcical. Ravi @ Ravichandran VS State Rep. By Inspector of Police - 2007 3 Supreme 781Ravindra Alias Ravi Bansi Gohar: Kishore Amarsingh Maheshkar VS State Of Maharashtra - 1998 6 Supreme 203- Witnesses seeing accused pre-TIP: In riot cases, Witnesses had opportunity of seeing accused before conduct of TIP – TIP was a mere formality and no value could be attached to it. Gireesan Nair VS State of Kerala - 2022 8 Supreme 178
Such actions vitiate the process: Now, if the identity of the accused was already in the knowledge of the police or the witnesses, then we only wonder, where would the question of conducting the identification parade arise? Udayakumar VS State of Tamil Nadu - 2023 3 Supreme 27
Additional precedents reinforce these principles. In dacoity cases, unexamined TIP magistrates or IOs weaken evidence: Neither B.D.O. nor Magistrate who conducted the TIP has been examined. Govind Paswan VS State of Bihar - 2025 Supreme(Pat) 1443GOVIND PASWAN vs The State of Bihar - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Pat) 1794 Poor lighting claims without corroboration, plus non-examined witnesses, led to acquittals.
In public property damage riots, vitiated TIPs due to prior sightings meant conviction couldn't stand: As only evidence for convicting appellants is evidence of eyewitnesses in TIP and when TIP is vitiated, conviction cannot be upheld. Gireesan Nair VS State of Kerala - 2022 8 Supreme 178
Conversely, if accused refuse TIP, courts may proceed on other evidence, but reliability remains key. Ramjan alias Pagla VS State (GNCT of Delhi) - 2022 Supreme(Del) 1942
Not all cases collapse without TIP:- Known accused: No TIP needed if named in FIR or previously known. If an accused is well known to the prosecution witnesses from before, no test identification parade is called for. Dana Yadav VS State Of Bihar - 2002 6 Supreme 508 If the suspect is known to the witness or victim... no identification evidence is necessary. Prakash VS State of Karnataka - 2014 0 Supreme(SC) 1289- Strong corroboration: Credible witnesses plus circumstantial evidence (motive, recovery) may suffice. The rule of prudence is subject to the exception when the Court considers it safe to rely upon the evidence of a particular witness without such, or other corroboration. Anju @ Chand Khan VS State of Madhya Pradesh - 2022 0 Supreme(SC) 701- Explained delays: But unexplained delay + prior info heightens doubt.
In sum, when no TIP was conducted and police gave information about the accused, courts typically view identification evidence skeptically, often granting the accused the benefit of doubt absent strong proof. Staying vigilant on these procedures ensures fair trials.
#TIPLegal, #CriminalLawIndia, #CourtIdentification
It is to be noted that TIP was conducted on 17.11.2016 while the date of occurrence is allegedly 28.06.2016, so, there is a gap of about more than four months in which TIP had been conducted. Here, it is pertinent to note that appellant Arun Kumar Singh was not put on TIP. ... On 28.06.2016, at about 4:30 a.m. he got information on telephone that truck was being looted near Jamchua and he proceeded there and a person near Bathandih told him that two trucks were standi....
Like the informant in Rose, the tipster here gave similar information to dispatch in a comparable context. ... The information in the tip was short but specific. It gave the make, model, and color of the car. It gave the road where the car was parked and the cross streets. And it described the illegal activity that was seen—the car’s occupants were giving drugs to “transients.” ... When police receive an anonymous tip and relay that #H....
Second, to satisfy the investigating authorities that the suspect is the real person whom the witnesses had seen in connection with the said occurrence. ... Even a TIP conducted in the presence of a police officer is inadmissible in light of Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Chunthuram vs. State of Chhattisgarh, (2020) 10 SCC 733 and Ramkishan Mithanlal Sharma vs. ... However, he said that he asked the suspects at the end of the parade if they had any objection to the manner in which the TIP#....
Thereafter Prem Singh telephoned PW2 Pawan Singh and gave him information of the incident. PW2 thereafter lodged the FIR at 2 AM on that very day. It was registered under Section 307 IPC. Subsequently, during the course of investigation, Section 393 IPC was also added. ... As regards delay in TIP, alleged incident took place in the intervening night of 6th and 7th February, 2007 and name of accused came in light on 20th April, 2007, yet the TIP could be conducted on 30.5.2007 i.e. almost 110 days after ....
However, no person at all were mixed in the TIP conducted vide Ex.P-3, Ex.P-7 & Ex.P-9, except the persons who had to identify and the accused persons (A-1 to A-5). ... Similar is the position with the TIP conducted vide Ex.P-9 where Navin @ Dadu (PW-3) has identified A-1 to A-5, but no other person mixed has been named or body structure has been stated in the Kaifiyat column. 17. ... In that view of the matter, Dilip (PW-1) in TIP (Ex.P-3), Ishwar (PW-2) in #HL_START....
The trial court and the High Court have relied on the TIP conducted by PW-4. ... It is however submitted that, if the evidence of Malarvizhi (PW-4), the then Judicial Magistrate who conducted the TIP is examined, the same would show that the TIP was totally fallible and as such, the conviction could not have been recorded on the basis of such a TIP. ... Even a TIP conducted in the presence of a police officer is inadmissible in ligh....
Even a TIP conducted in the presence of a police officer is inadmissible in light of Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ( Chunthuram v. State of Chhattisgarh (1998) 5 SCC 103 where it was held that if identification in the TIP has taken place after the accused is shown to the witnesses, then not only is the evidence of TIP inadmissible, even an identification in a court during trial is meaningless. ... PW-10 stated that the T.I.P was conducted in the jail in the prese....
It is well settled that TIP is only a part of Police investigation. The identification in TIP of an accused is not a substantive piece of evidence. ... In fact, the Pulsar bike which has been recovered on pointing out of accused no.1 does not belong to the appellant but was purchased by a person named ‘Satish’ from the showroom and this person ‘Satish’ has never been questioned by the police or produced as a prosecution witness during the trial. ... After considering the peculiar facts....
During the course of investigation on the basis of suspicion his name has came to fore, so-called TIP was conducted but neither B.D.O. nor Magistrate who conducted the TIP has been examined. ... He also stated that during dacoity he did not identify anyone even during TIP. He is the person who is claiming to identify the dacoits in the light of lantern. ... At para-4 he has stated that on the basis of notice sent by police he came to identify the dacoits and in jail h....
During the course of investigation on the basis of suspicion his name has came to fore, so-called TIP was conducted but neither B.D.O. nor Magistrate who conducted the TIP has been examined. ... He also stated that during dacoity he did not identify anyone even during TIP. He is the person who is claiming to identify the dacoits in the light of lantern. ... At para-4 he has stated that on the basis of notice sent by police he came to identify the dacoits and in jail h....
In his cross-examination he stated that three public persons lifted the deceased from the ramp and took her to the hospital in an auto but he did not recognize them. He further stated that he was not called for TIP of any of the accused person by the police. He saw one boy standing near her and when he asked as to what had happened, he told me that a mobile had burst.
However as the accused refused, no TIP was conducted.
He denied that he saw the accused at any other place. He has further stated that the police did not inform him about TIP.
It is submitted that in the present case no TIP was conducted by the police. (2) The identification of accused persons has not been established inasmuch as no Test Identification Parade (TIP) proceedings was conducted. It is submitted that even PW3 deposed that “at the time of incident, the place of occurrence was dark and rainy”; (iv) PW4 also deposed that “because 14 years have passed, they could not be able to tell correctly”. It is submitted that even before the Learned trial Court, the prosecution witnesses very categorically stated that they could not identify the acc....
This can be used as a piece of corroborative evidence and this alone cannot be the basis to record conviction in a case. In Matru alias Girish Chandra v. The State of Uttar Pradesh, (1971) 2 SCC 75 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that identification test is primarily meant for the purpose of helping the investigating agency with an assurance that their investigation of an offence is proceeding on the right lines and in Malkhansingh v. State of M.P., (2003) 5 SCC 746 it has been held that there is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure which obliges the investigating agency to hold....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
