Test Identification Parade has been in common use for a really long time in India. The object is to place the suspect of crime with other individuals for identification. Test Identification Parade is the process that involves identifying the accused from a gaggle of similar-looking people by the eyewitnesses. Test Identification Parade is usually held when the accused is in custody. Based on the honesty; authenticity and clarity of the eyewitness, Test Identification Parades are considered as one of the foremost reliable sorts of eyewitness identification. The purpose is to find out whether or not the suspect or accused is the criminal of the heinous crime. The rationale of Test identification Parade is to substantiate the identity of the accused and to assist the police in their investigation.
Keywords :- Test Identification Parade, Crime, Identification, Accused, Eyewitness.
Test Identification Parade may be a useful gizmo within the investigation and with the proper procedure it is often accepted as evidence within the court of law as corroborative or as a confirmation. The purpose is primarily to check and strengthen the prevailing substantial evidence of the witness in court. If the witness cannot name the accused and may only identify him on the idea of his physical appearance then the Test can’t be taken into consideration. Test identification parade is used as how to seem at the truthfulness of the witness and his ability to identify unknown persons. The confirmative or the substantive value of Test Identification Parade is definite and its use of test of Identification Parade as substantial evidence or primary evidence is discarded. The test identification has only corroborative and secondary value as evidence.
Section 54A of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and Section 9 of the Indian Evidence Act,1872 deals with Test Identification Parades. There is nothing mentioned in the Code of Criminal Procedure which accommodates the investigating agency to hold or gives a right to the accused to demand a parade. These parades are essentially governed by Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Also, in the case of Rajesh and Anr. Vs. State of Haryana, the honourable court held that refusal to undergo Test Identification Parade cannot be the basis for conviction.
Test Identification Parades are held at the instance of the investigating agency. It is used to determine whether the suspect or accused is innocent or guilty of the heinous crime. Its purpose is to find out the veracity of the witness claiming to have seen the accused at the time of the offence.
In the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Suresh it was observed that the object of conducting a Test Identification Parade has two objects – First is to enable the witness to satisfy themselves that the prisoner whom they suspect is actually the one who was seen by them during the commission of the crime and second is to satisfy the investigating officer that the accused is the one that the witness has seen.
In the case of Rajesh and Anr. Vs. State Of Haryana, it was observed that the prosecution who were claiming to be an eye witness were not present when the crime took place. And also when the appellant refused to undergo Test Identification Parade because they knew each other prior the case.
The parade is a crucial part of the investigation for the prosecution and also for the accused but it cannot be considered as important substantial or a primary evidence and also conviction cannot be founded on the sole reason of test identification parade, the witness identification in the court is required in order to convict. And the same person who is identified in the parade is identified in the court also, it does not really change any extra value.
TEST IDENTIFICATION PARADE- NOT A SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE :-
Test Identification Parade is not a substantive or a primary evidence because it only assures that the investigation is progressing on right lines. The parade conducted at the investigation cannot be considered as important or a primary evidence and also conviction cannot be founded on the only reason of Test Identification Parade, the witness identification in the court is required so as to convict. And the same person who is identified in the parade is identified in the court also, it does not really change any extra value. In the case of, State of Andra Pradesh. Vs. K. Venkata Reddy , the Honourable Supreme Court of India passed the judgement that the evidence given by a witness in the court of law is substantive testimony while the identification made by the witness in the TIP is merely confirmatory of the testimony made before the court of law.
Also, if one refuses to undergo the Test Identification Parade then the guilt of the suspect could not be based on the refusal and if it is taken into consideration then it would have a secondary importance. In the case of Rajesh and Anr. Vs. State of Haryana, the Honourable Court held that ‘the identification in the course of a TIP is intended to lend assurance to the identity of the accused. The finding of guilt cannot be based purely on the refusal of the accused to undergo an identification parade.’ In the present case, the appellants or accused, Rajesh Sarkari and Ajay Hooda have been convicted, along with a co-accused, Pehlad Singh alias Harpal, for an offence mainly under section-302 of the Indian Penal Code, and had been sentenced to imprisonment for life. The accusation was for the commitment of murder of Sandeep, the son of the complainant, by firing shots at him. Resentful, the accused filed appeals and in this particular appeal, new facts were brought into light. It was absolutely seen that there were many inconsistencies in the depositions of the prosecution. In the last half of the judgement, the problem of TIP was addressed. The prosecution submitted that “an adverse inference should be drawn against the appellants for refusing to submit themselves to a TIP”. The appellants argued that the refusal to undergo TIP was borne out of the actual fact that the deceased and the accused knew each other before the occurrence of the event.
Taking all the facts into consideration, the SC stated that “the identification in the course of a TIP is intended to lend assurance to the identity of the accused. The finding of guilt cannot be based purely on the refusal of the accused to undergo an identification parade.” Hence, a refusal to undergo a Test Identification Parade assumes secondary importance and a corroborative importance if at all, and cannot survive independently in the absence of it being a substantive or a primary piece of evidence.
Rajesh Govind Jagesha Vs. State Of Maharashtra, during this case, the judicature has given this consideration based on the facts that though there was a delay in the Test Identification Parade, the primary evidence of all the accused proved the guilt and common intention of all the members involved in the crime and the counsels argument that the person was not identified according to the description cannot be accepted because all the opposite evidence prove otherwise that the accused are guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
Over the 100’s of years, a test identification parade was active in India, and it really helps make the investigation faster and solving the cases sooner but it is not a considerable evidence and just a secondary evidence. To conclude the part, Test Identification helps the investigation agencies and a crucial part of investigation but not a primary evidence in court.
- Code of Criminal Procedure, (Section 54A, Section 162).
- Indian Evidence Act, (Section 9).
- Rajesh @ Sarkari v. The State Of Haryana, (2019) 1648 SC 36 (India).
- State Of Maharashtra v. Suresh, 1999 (5) BOMCR 184 (India).
- State of Andra Pradesh v. K. Venkata Reddy, 1976 AIR 2207 (India).
- Rajesh GovindJagesha v. State Of Maharashtra (1999) 8 SCC 428 (India).
Rajesh @ Sarkari v.The State Of Haryana, (2019) 1648 SC 36 (India).
State Of Maharashtra v. Suresh, 1999 (5) BOMCR 184 (India).
 See Id at 1.
State of Andra Pradesh v. K. Venkata Reddy, 1976 AIR 2207 (India).
 See Id at 1.
 See Id at 1.
 See Id at 1.
Rajesh GovindJagesha v. State Of Maharashtra (1999) 8 SCC 428 (India).