Test Identification Parade (TIP) Conducted by Executive Magistrates - Multiple sources confirm that TIPs are conducted by Executive Magistrates (e.g., PW-17 F.R., PW-44 Sureshbhai Vishwanath Dave, PW-15 Ramesh) as a procedural step to identify accused persons during investigations. The process involves drawing panchnamas, receiving requests via official communication, and conducting the parade in the presence of witnesses or Panchas Sources: STATE OF GUJARAT VS ABDULHAMID ABDULKADIR SHEIKH - Gujarat, Parasram Bandhe, S/o. Shatru Bandhe VS State of Chhattisgarh, through District Magistrate-Rajnandgaon, District (Revenue & Civil) Rajnandgaon (C. G. ) - Chhattisgarh, Bachan Singh, S/o. Sh. Onkar Singh VS State of Jammu and Kashmir - Jammu and Kashmir, INKAR00000095530, STATE OF GUJARAT V/s MITHU UMAR SINDHI - Gujarat, State Of Gujarat VS Mithu Umar Sindhi - Gujarat, State of Gujarat VS Raju Alias Pahelvan Alias Ibrahim Azmuddin Luhar - Gujarat.
Authenticity and Reliability of TIPs - Several sources highlight concerns regarding the genuineness of TIPs. For instance, in some cases, the element of surprise was compromised because witnesses had prior knowledge of the accused, or the accused were seen earlier, undermining the parade's purpose. Hostile witnesses or procedural lapses, such as casual conduct by Magistrates or improper selection of dummies, further diminish the reliability of TIPs as substantive evidence Sources: STATE OF GUJARAT VS ABDULHAMID ABDULKADIR SHEIKH - Gujarat, Parasram Bandhe, S/o. Shatru Bandhe VS State of Chhattisgarh, through District Magistrate-Rajnandgaon, District (Revenue & Civil) Rajnandgaon (C. G. ) - Chhattisgarh, Bachan Singh, S/o. Sh. Onkar Singh VS State of Jammu and Kashmir - Jammu and Kashmir, INKAR00000095530, State Of Gujarat VS Mithu Umar Sindhi - Gujarat, State of Gujarat VS Raju Alias Pahelvan Alias Ibrahim Azmuddin Luhar - Gujarat, INGUJ00000042094.
TIPs as Corroborative, Not Substantial Evidence - Courts have emphasized that TIPs serve as corroborative evidence rather than direct proof of guilt. The absence of a TIP, especially when the accused was previously identified or seen by witnesses, does not automatically invalidate identification evidence. The weight of such evidence depends on the circumstances and procedural correctness of the TIP Sources: Bachan Singh, S/o. Sh. Onkar Singh VS State of Jammu and Kashmir - Jammu and Kashmir, STATE OF GUJARAT VS ABDULHAMID ABDULKADIR SHEIKH - Gujarat, INGUJ00000042094.
Procedural Irregularities and Hostile Witnesses - Several judgments point out procedural deficiencies, such as the Magistrate's casual approach, failure to match descriptions, or witnesses turning hostile, which cast doubt on the TIP's credibility. Such irregularities can lead courts to treat TIP evidence with caution or disregard it altogether Sources: INGUJ00000042094, State of Gujarat VS Raju Alias Pahelvan Alias Ibrahim Azmuddin Luhar - Gujarat, STATE OF GUJARAT VS ABDULHAMID ABDULKADIR SHEIKH - Gujarat.
Judicial View on TIPs - Courts have held that the absence of a TIP, especially when the accused was previously seen by witnesses, does not necessarily impair the evidence's admissibility but warrants cautious evaluation. Proper conduct of TIPs enhances their probative value, but their failure does not automatically lead to acquittal if other evidence exists Sources: Bachan Singh, S/o. Sh. Onkar Singh VS State of Jammu and Kashmir - Jammu and Kashmir, STATE OF GUJARAT VS ABDULHAMID ABDULKADIR SHEIKH - Gujarat.
Analysis and Conclusion:Test Identification Parades conducted by Executive Magistrates are a recognized procedural step in criminal investigations to identify accused persons. However, their evidentiary value depends heavily on procedural correctness, maintaining the element of surprise, and unbiased conduct. Courts acknowledge TIPs as corroborative, not conclusive, evidence. Procedural lapses, prior knowledge of witnesses, or hostile witnesses diminish their reliability. Therefore, while TIPs can strengthen a case, their absence or procedural flaws do not automatically invalidate identification evidence, but such evidence must be scrutinized carefully before forming the basis for conviction.
