Test Identification Parade - Inadequacy of  -

(2018)2 SCeJ 1296 : SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

AUGUST 03, 2018

 

Test Identification Parade - Inadequacy of  - Though it is a case of the prosecution that the dacoits were armed with a gun, the country made pistol, lathis and bamboos etc., but none of these weapons were recovered from the accused persons except a piece of dhoti, blouse and nose stud, other articles alleged to have been stolen by the dacoits were not recovered - Accused were not subjected to T.I.P. -  In this context we may note that in cases like present one T.I.P. acquires significance and lack of conduction of the same cannot be ignored - It is well settled that non-conduction of T.I.P. may not itself be fatal to the prosecution case but certainly it must be weighed in by the Court while considering the facts and circumstances of each case – Criminal Trial.

DOWNLOAD

  • Criminal trial - Test Identification Parade - No doubt, law with regard to the importance of TIP is well settled that identification in court is a substantive piece of evidence and TIP simply corroborates the same - Prosecution witness identified the accused-appellants in court for the first time, during trial, in the year 1997-98 and the incident occurred in the year 1995 -  After considering some undisputed facts like occurrence of incident at night, at a place with improper lighting and all the accused-appellants were not known to the forest officers, except one present at the place of incident, there should have been TIP conducted at the instance of the investigating officer - Therefore, the identification of the accused-appellants by the prosecution witness for the first time after a gap of more than 2 years from the date of incident is not beyond reasonable doubt, the same should be seen with suspicion. (2016)3 SCEJ 202
  • Criminal trial - Test identification parade  Incident of 12.8.1995 - When the incident of firing occurred in the circumstances wherein much time was not available for the eye-witnesses to clearly see the accused -  In such a situation, it was of much more importance that the Test Identification Parades were to be conducted without any delay - The first Test Identification Parade was held after about 1= months of the incident and the second Test Identification Parade was conducted after more than a year of the incident -  Even if it is taken into account that A12 was arrested after a year and within one month thereafter the test Identification Parade was conducted, still it is highly doubtful whether the eye-witnesses could have remembered the faces of the accused after such a long period - Accused was arrested by the first week of September, 1996 and the Test Identification Parade was conducted on 4.10.1996 -  It is too large a gap for the witness to have remembered the face of the accused - Though the incident took place in broad daylight, the time for which the eye-witnesses could see the accused was not sufficient for them to observe the distinguishing features of the accused, especially because there was a commotion created after the firing and everyone was running to shelter themselves from the firing.  (2016)3 SCEJ 351
  • Criminal Trial - Test identification parade  PW stated that in the Test Identification Parade he had identified four persons out of 10-12 persons standing in the row  - Special Executive Officer deposed that he conducted 2 Test Identification Parades on the same day - In the first Parade, he placed A1 and one more accused who died later and in the second, he placed A3 and A4 for identification - At no point of time, 4 accused were put together for identification for PW to identify out of the whole group - Also, PW1 stated that he had seen the deceased receiving a bullet injury on his forehead but as per the postmortem report, there was no injury on the forehead of the deceased as he had been attacked from behind -Makes the testimony of PW even more vulnerable. (2016)3 SCEJ 351