SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL,

PUNE

LAW OF EVIDENCE
INTERNAL-II
Name: Neha Vijay Pilay
PRN: 14010125148
Course: BA. LL.B (Hons.)
Faculty: Dr. Ashish Deshpande
Adv. Sweetha Iyengar
Case 1: State of Maharashtra v. Sukhdev Singh (1992) 3 SCC 700
Case 2: Rony alias Ronald James Alwaris v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1998 SC 1251
Q1: Discuss the key obvservations of the Supreme Court of India in the above judgments.
A1: In the case of Sukhdev Singh1, the Supreme Court made important observations pertaining
to Test Identification Parade (TIP) which is stated in the Indian Evidence Act, 18722 and
conditions to be proved before the court acts upon the opinion evidence of the handwriting
expert. The key observations discussed here are only pertaining to the TIP. In this case, the TIP
was not held promptly and there were no reasons recorded for the investigating officer’s failure
to do so. Due to this the identity of the persons could not be accurately corroborated and hence
could not be relied upon. Direct evidence when it comes to identification of persons comprises
of identification for the first time after lapse of considerable time in the court and identification
through TIP. In the case at hand, accused were complete strangers and the witnesses just had
a fleeting glimpse of the person identified; they had no particular reason to remember the
persons concerned. Moreover, the appearance of the persons had changed since the time the
offence was allegedly committed by them. Since the TIP was not held promptly and necessary
precautions for ensuring the credibility were not taken, the assurance required for the court
to act was not provided. The court held that in such conditions, it would be extremely risky to
place implicit reliance on identification made for the first time in court after a long lapse of
time and of persons whose appearance had changed. The court thus did not rely on the TIP in
this case.
In the case of Ronald James Alwaris3 the issue was with respect to the effect of identification
of the appellants by the witnesses for the first time in court without a TIP. In this case, the
witness was a friend of the deceased. The witness had an opportuniy to interact with the accused
while entering the place of incident. Since the witness was sure of the accused, no TIP was
conducted and the accused was identified by the witness for the first time in court. The court
held that a TIP is conducted to test the memory of the witness to recapitulate what he has
seen earlier and to ascertain whether it can be used as reliable corroborative vidence of the
witnes identifying the accused at his trial in court. Usually, if a witness identifies the accused
in court for the first time after a long time, the probatic value of such uncorroborated evidence
become minimal to an extent that it is unsafe to rely on such piece of evidence. But if a witness
has known the accused earlier in circumstances which lend assurance to identification by

1
State of Maharashtra v. Sukhdev Singh, 1992 (3) SCC 700.
2
Section 9 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
3
Ronald James Alwaris v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1998 (SC) 1251.
him in court and if there is no inherent improbability or inconsistency, there is no reason why
his statement in the court about the identification of accused should not be relied upon as any
other acceptable but uncorroborated testimony.
Q2. Is TIP considered as a substantive piece of evidence or not?
A2: Provision pertaining to TIP enables the police to seek permission of the court for
identification of the accused and the court may determine the manner of identification.
However, the police is not bound to hold identification parade. Substantive evidence is the
evidence in the court of law on oath. It has been held time and again that TIP is not considered
as a substantial evidence but only has corroborative value,4 whereas identification of an
accused in the court of law is substantive evidence.5 The general rule is that the evidence of
identification of the accused before the court of law should not ordinarily form the basis of
conviction until and unless it is corroborated by previous identification in the TIP or through
some other evidence, although there may be some exceptions to this rule, such as where the
accused was a relative of the witness6 or when the witnesses already know who the accused
are.7 TIP is not a sine qua non in every case and when conducted, it only assures that the
investigatory process is progressing on the right lines.8 It has also been held by the courts that
photo identification of accused and TIP are only aids to the investigation conducted by the
investigating officer to ensure he has caught the right person as the accused and these do not
form substantive evidences.9 Results of a TIP are not considered to be substantive piece of
evidence, yet it may be used for the purpose of corroboration; for believing that a person
brought before the court is the real person involved in the commission of the crime. However,
the TIP, even if held, cannot be considered in all the cases as trustworthy evidence on which
the conviction of the accused can be sustained. It is a rule of prudence which is required to be
followed in cases where the accused is not known to the witness or the complainant.10
Q3: Discuss whether identification must always be preceded by TIP to make identification
relevant. Support your answer with case laws.
A3: TIP is meant to test the veracity of the witness and his capacity to identify unknown
persons. The purpose is to test and strengthen trustworthiness of substantive evidence of a

4
C. Muniappan v. State of Tamil Nadu AIR 2010 SC 3718.
5
State of Andhra Pradesh v. VK Venkata Reddy (1976) 1 SCC 463.
6
State of Himachal Pradesh v. Prem Chand (2002) 10 SCC 518.
7
Ramesh Kumar v. State of Punjab (1993) CriLJ 1800 (SC).
8
Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
9
Rabinder Kumar Pal v. Republic of India (2011) 2 SCC 490.
10
Chinee v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2010) 8 SCC 191.
witness in court.11 Identification of an accused in the court of law is substantive evidence,
whereas, evidence of identification in TIP though is primary evidence but is not substantive
one, and the same can be used only to corroborate the identification of the accused by the
witness in the court of law. It is interesting to note that, if TIP is not conducted and the witness
identifies the accused for the first time in the court of law, then, the evidence regarding
identification in the court of law does not ipso facto becomes inadmissible and cannot be
discarded on the ground that it was not preceded by TIP. In case of Heera v State of Rajasthan,12
the court observed that TIP should be conducted as soon as after the arrest of the accused is
made to eliminate the possibility of the accused being shown to the witnesses prior to the
TIP. The evidence of mere identification of the accused person at the trial for the first time is
from its very nature inherently of a very weak character. The purpose of a prior TIP is to test
and strengthen the trustworthiness of that evidence.13 It is accordingly considered a safe rule
of prudence to generally look for corroboration of the sworn testimony of witness in court
as to the identity of the accused who are strangers to them, in the form or earlier identification
proceedings.14 Thus identification must always be preceded by TIP in order to make the
identification relevant.
Q4: Discuss whether TIP can be the basis of conviction with reference to the Nirbhaya rape
case.
A4: As stated above with the help of several case laws, TIP is not a substantive evidence in
itself and is only used to corroborate evidence to verify whether the investigation is being
carried out on the right track. In the Nirbhaya rape case, just ten days prior to the offence being
committed, the Supreme Court of India set aside a death penalty and acquitted an accused on
the grounds that TIP had not been conducted. Even in the Nirbhaya case, the magistrate in
this case had erred by not insisting that a TIP be done when four of the accused refused to
be a part of any identification parade. In this case, a TIP was all the more important since the
incident took place at night and the lights inside the bus had been switched off. The Magistrate
in such a sensitive case should have taken care to ensure that everything that needed to be done
was done in order to deliver justice to the victim and her family. Instead the Magistrate
recorded the refusal of the accused to participate in TIP and gave them a certificate for the
same. Criticizing the TIP that was held, it was urged by the counsel for appellants that refusal

11
Ram Babu v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 2010 SC 2143.
12
Heera v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2007 SC 2425.
13
Kanta Prasad v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1958 SC 350.
14
Rameshwar Singh v. State of Jammu & Kashmir AIR 1972 SC 102
to participate may be considered as circumstance but it cannot by itself lead to an inference of
guilt.
However, there have been cases where conviction was made on the basis of TIP, like in the
case of Ram Nath Mahto v. State of Bihar15 where a dacoity with murder was committed. The
witness recognized the dacoit during TIP but refused to do so during the trial. An observation
was made wherein the witness was trembling with fear as the accused stared at him. The
Magistrate noted that the TIP was conducted in a successful manner and the evidence of the
TIP amounted to a substantive evidence. Moreover, it was supported by remarks of trial court
regarding demeanor of identifying witnesses and conviction based on such identification was
considered to be appropriate by the Supreme Court.
Thus, conviction based on the facts and circumstances of the case can be made on the basis
of identification made through the TIP.
Q5: Discuss the precedent laid down in regard to TIP in Malkhansingh v. State of Madhya
Pradesh (2003) 5 SCC 746.
A5: This case was pertaining to the offence of rape and the issue was whether the punishment
of conviction and sentence were not sustainable on ground that no TIP was conducted, which
was answered in negative. In this case, it was considered that on account of the traumatic and
tragic experience of the prosecutrix, faces of the appellants must have got imprinted in her
memory without any chance of her making mistake about their identity. She was considered
to be a reliable witness and the said identification required no corroboration. The court held
that it is true that much evidentiary value cannot be attached to the identification of the
accused in court where identifying witness is a total stranger who had just a fleeting glimpse
of the person identified or who had no particular reason to remember the person concerned, if
the identification is made for the first time in court. The present case was not one where the
identifying witness had only a fleeting glimpse of the appellants on a dark night. She also
had reason to remember their faces and other characteristics as they had committed a
heinous offence on her body. The court also held that TIP belongs to the stage of investigation
and that there is no provision which confers a right upon the accused to claim a TIP. These
parades are essentially governed by Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Failure to hold a TIP would not make inadmissible the evidence of identification of the court
and the weight that must be attached to the evidence of identification in court, which is not
preceded by a TIP is a matter for the courts of fact to examine.

15
Ram Nath Mahto v. State of Bihar, AIR 1996 SC 2511.
The court held that implicit reliance can be placed on the identification made by her and there
was no further corroboration required.