Section 54 of the Arka Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita explicitly addresses situations where a victim,

particularly one with a physical disability like blindness, may face difficulty in identifying the accused.
This provision allows for the utilization of any comfortable means for identification. The test
identification parade (TIP) was a necessary procedural step in this case due to the victim's visual
impairment, which rendered traditional means of identification challenging.

Section 7 of the Arka Sakshya Adhiniya highlights the relevance and admissibility of facts pertaining
to identification of the accused and properties in a court of law. While the legislation does not
mandate the presence of the suspect during the identification parade, it does underscore the
importance of accurate identification in criminal investigations.

The case law, exemplified by the decisions in Khalak Singh v. State of M.P. and Rajesh Sarkari and
another v. State of Haryana, emphasizes the significance of identification parades as a means to test
witness statements and establish substantive evidence. These precedents affirm the weight and
validity of identification evidence in criminal proceedings.

The purpose of the TIP in this case was crucial due to the victim's physical disability, which limited
her ability to identify the accused through conventional means. As demonstrated during the TIP, the
victim's proficiency in identifying individuals by their voices was corroborated by her repeated
identification of the accused.

The TIP's results, wherein the accused was identified thrice, underscore the reliability and mental
acuity of the victim. This strengthens the credibility of the evidence provided by the victim regarding
the identification of the accused, emphasizing the importance of the TIP in securing accurate
evidence in the absence of alternative identification methods

Issue 2

The conduct of the test identification parade (TIP) was carried out in adherence to section 7 of arka
Sakshya Adhiniyam . The TIP was authorized by a judicial magistrate, conducted in a controlled
environment, and supervised by legal authorities, ensuring compliance with procedural
requirements.

The TIP was conducted with appropriate safeguards to protect the rights of the accused. Non-
suspects were selected to resemble the accused in various physical attributes, and the identification
process was recorded to ensure transparency and prevent manipulation. These measures were
aimed at safeguarding the fairness and integrity of the identification procedure.

The conduct of the TIP did not violate the respondent's fundamental rights as guaranteed by the
Constitution. The right to a fair trial, protection against self-incrimination, and other fundamental
rights were respected throughout the identification process. The respondent had the opportunity to
challenge the legality of the TIP through legal channels, thus ensuring due process.
The respondent voluntarily participated in the TIP and was provided with the opportunity to decline
participation if they chose to do so. The absence of coercion or compulsion ensures that the
respondent's right against self-incrimination was upheld during the identification process.

The TIP was conducted with due regard to the respondent's presumption of innocence. The
identification process aimed to corroborate the victim's testimony and gather evidence, but it did
not prejudge or determine the respondent's guilt. The presumption of innocence remains intact
throughout the judicial proceedings until proven otherwise beyond a reasonable doubt.

The conduct of the TIP was subject to judicial oversight and review. The authorization for the TIP was
granted by a judicial magistrate, and the identification process was conducted under their
supervision. Any issues or concerns regarding the legality or fairness of the TIP could have been
addressed through legal recourse, including judicial review.

In conclusion, the conduct of the TIP did not breach the respondent's fundamental rights. The
identification process was conducted in accordance with legal procedures, with adequate safeguards
to protect the rights of the accused. The respondent's participation was voluntary, and their
presumption of innocence was upheld throughout the process. Therefore, the allegations of
fundamental rights violation are unfounded, and the TIP was conducted in a manner consistent with
constitutional principles and legal requirements.

Case - In Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma v. State (NCT of

Delhi), MANU/SC/0268/2010 : (2010) 6 SCC 1, this Court noticed the importance of
TIP and logic behind it. It is the practice not borne out of procedure but out of prudence. In this case,
this Court has exhaustively examined the entire case law on the subject. It was observed:

254. Even a TIP before a Magistrate is otherwise hit by Section 162 of the Code. Therefore to say
that a photo identification is hit by Section 162 is wrong. It is not a substantive piece of evidence. It is
only by virtue of Section 9 of the Evidence Act that the same i.e. the act of identification becomes
admissible in court. The logic behind TIP, which will include photo identification lies in the fact that it
is only an aid to investigation, where an Accused is not known to the witnesses, the IO conducts a
TIP to ensure that he has got the right person as an Accused. The practice is not borne out of
procedure, but out of prudence. At best it can be brought Under Section 8 of the Evidence Act, as
evidence of conduct of a witness in photo identifying the Accused in the presence of an IO or the
Magistrate, during the course of an investigation.

Mukesh Singh vs. The State (NCT of Delhi) (24.08.2023 - SC) : MANU/SC/0929/2023

Matru v. State of U.P. [MANU/SC/0141/1971 : (1971) 2 SCC 75:

1971 SCC (Cri) 391] identification tests do not constitute substantive evidence. They are
primarily meant for the purpose of helping the investigating agency with an assurance that their
progress with the investigation into the offence is proceeding on the right lines. The identification
can only be used as corroborative of the statement in court. (See Santokh Singh v. Izhar Hussain
[MANU/SC/0165/1973 : (1973) 2 SCC 406: 1973 SCC (Cri) 828]) The necessity for holding an
identification parade can arise only when the Accused are not previously known to the witnesses.
The whole idea of a test identification parade is that witnesses who claim to have seen the culprits at
the time of occurrence are to identify them from the midst of other persons without any aid or any
other source. The test is done to check upon their veracity. In other words, the main object of
holding an identification parade, during the investigation stage, is to test the memory of the
witnesses based upon first impression and also to enable the prosecution to decide whether all or
any of them could be cited as eyewitnesses of the crime. The identification proceedings are in the
nature of tests and significantly, therefore, there is no provision for it in the Code and the Evidence
Act. It is desirable that a test identification parade should be conducted as soon as after the arrest of
the Accused. This becomes necessary to eliminate the possibility of the Accused being shown to the
witnesses prior to the test identification parade. This is a very common plea of the Accused and,
therefore, the prosecution has to be cautious to ensure that there is no scope for making such an
allegation. If, however, circumstances are beyond control and there is some delay, it cannot be said
to be fatal to the prosecution.

Mukesh Singh vs. The State (NCT of Delhi) (24.08.2023 - SC) : MANU/SC/0929/2023

In another case of Pramod Mandal v. State of Bihar MANU/SC/0765/2004 : 2004

(13) SCC 150, placing reliance on the case of Anil Kumar (supra), this Court observed that it is
neither possible nor prudent to lay down any invariable rule as to the period within which a Test
Identification Parade must be held, or the number of witnesses who must correctly identify the
accused, to sustain his conviction. These matters must be left to the Courts of fact to decide in the
facts and circumstances of each case. If a rule is laid down prescribing a period within which the Test
Identification Parade must be held, it would only benefit the professional criminals in whose cases
the arrests are delayed as the police have no clear clue about their identity, they being persons
unknown to the victims. They therefore, have only to avoid their arrest for the prescribed period to
avoid conviction. Similarly, there may be offences which by their very nature may be witnessed by a
single witness, such as rape. The offender may be unknown to the victim and the case depends
solely on the identification by the victim, who is otherwise found to be truthful and reliable. What
justification can be pleaded to contend that such cases must necessarily result in acquittal because
of there being only one identifying witness? Prudence therefore demands that these matters must
be left to the wisdom of the courts of fact which must consider all aspects of the matter in the light
of the evidence on record before pronouncing upon the acceptability or rejection of such
identification.

31. The identification parades are not primarily meant for the Court. They are meant for
investigation purposes. The object of conducting a test identification parade is two-fold. First is to
enable the witnesses to satisfy themselves that the accused whom they suspect is really the one
who was seen by them in connection with the commission of the crime. Second is to satisfy the
investigating authorities that the suspect is the real person whom the witnesses had seen in
connection with the said occurrence.
32. Therefore, the following principles regarding identification parade emerge: (1) an identification
parade ideally must be conducted as soon as possible to avoid any mistake on the part of witnesses;
(2) this condition can be revoked if proper explanation justifying the delay is provided; and, (3) the
authorities must make sure that the delay does not result in exposure of the accused which may lead
to mistakes on the part of the witnesses.

MULLA AND ANOTHER V. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH .

Case Summary

The appellants were apprehended for detaining four individuals, demanding a ransom of Rs
10,000 each, and threatening their lives. The High Court confirmed the death sentence
imposed on the appellants, dismissing their appeals.

Case Details

 No eyewitness to the alleged incident; Accused persons are not named in the FIR.
 Delay in conducting the test identification parade (TIP); Prosecution failed to
establish motive for the incident.
 Even if the Court accepts the prosecution case, imposition of death sentence is not
warranted.
 No one was examined on the side of the accused as defence witness.
 The accused persons are not named in the FIR and it merely mentions “unknown
persons”.

Evidence Presented

 PW 2 identified three miscreants, namely, Guddu, Mulla and Tulla, who were present
in the court.
 Dr. Sudarshan, PW 7 asserted that this injury could have been caused by the butt of a
gun.
 The other reliable witness examined on the side of the prosecution is PW 3 Harnam.
 The next witness relied on by the prosecution is PW 4 Smt Kiran.
 Medical evidence supports the case of prosecution.

Legal Considerations

 The evidence of test identification is admissible under Section 9 of the Evidence Act,
1872.
 Failure to hold test identification parade does not make the evidence of identification
in court inadmissible.
  It was held that no time-limit could be fixed for holding a test identification parade.

Final Decision

Despite the nature of the crime, the mitigating circumstances can allow us to substitute the
death penalty with life sentence. The punishment of life sentence in this case must extend to
their full life, subject to any remission by the Government for good reasons. For the
foregoing reasons and taking into account all the aggravating and mitigating circumstances,
we confirm the conviction, however, commute the death sentence into that of life
imprisonment. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Important para

41) Now, let us consider the arguments of the learned amicus curiae on the delay in
conducting the test identification parade. The evidence of test identification is admissible
under Section 9 of the Evidence Act, 1872. The identification parade belongs to the stage of
investigation by the police. The question whether a witness has or has not identified the
accused during the investigation is not one which is in itself relevant at the trial. The actual
evidence regarding identification is that which is given by witnesses in court. There is no
provision in CrPC entitling the accused to demand that an identification parade should be held
at or before the inquiry of the trial. The fact that a particular witness has been able to identify
the accused at an identification parade is only a circumstance corroborative of the
identification in court.

Adam Tirky Vs. The State of Orissa

Facts:

The appellant was convicted under Sections 457 and 376 IPC for an incident involving the gang rape
of a woman.The victim identified the appellant as one of the perpetrators based on her recognition
of his voice during the incident.The victim reported the incident promptly to the authorities and
named the appellant as one of the offenders.

Issues:

The main issue related to TIP in this case is whether the identification of the appellant by the victim
during the incident was reliable and admissible as evidence in court.

The defense argued that the identification was unreliable due to factors such as darkness during the
incident and the victim's admission that she couldn't clearly see the faces of the assailants.

Judgment:

The court rejected the defense's argument and upheld the reliability of the victim's identification.It
emphasized that the victim had recognized the appellant by his voice, which was a plausible means
of identification given that the appellant was known to her previously.The court also highlighted that
the victim promptly reported the incident and named the appellant as one of the perpetrators
without any apparent motive to falsely implicate him.