Open Access Research Article
CRITICAL EXAMINATION OF TEST IDENTIFICATION PARADE IN THE NATION USE
Published Paper
Article Details
CRITICAL EXAMINATION OF TEST
IDENTIFICATION PARADE IN THE NATION USE
AUTHORED BY - YASHVI GOYAL
PRN- 1182200125
DIV- B
ABSTRACT
A test identification parade is used
to gauge the witness's credibility and ability to identify it'd people. The test
is typically not necessary to identify the accused if all the witnesses know
the accused and can recognise the accused in moonlight and lantern light. A
test identification parade is primarily intended to validate and strengthen the
witness's already persuasive testimony given in court. It can be used as
corroborated evidence in a court of law if the proper steps are taken. If the
witness is unable to identify the accused and can only do so by looking at him,
the Test cannot be regarded as having been conducted in the case. Ahmad bin
Salam v. State of Andhra Pradesh case, as they were all lined up, the witness
in this case was able to recognise the attacker who struck the victim.
Unquestionably, the test identification parade
has corroborative value, and since it no longer serves as substantial evidence,
its use as such is no longer required. According to a statement made in the
case of State of Himachal Pradesh v. Lekh Raj, "Test identification is
considered a safe principle of judiciousness for authentication of the sworn
testimony of various evidentiary value people appearing as witnesses in court
with regards to the character of the accused," as is further explained in
more detail in the cases section of the paper. It may yet turn out to be
something special. There are exceptions to this general rule, such as when the
court finds a particular witness compelling whose testimony it can rely on
without this or another type of corroboration.
Provisions of the Indian Evidence Act
and the Code of Criminal Procedure
Section 54a of the Code of Criminal
Procedure grants the procedure to send the suspect for a test identification
parade in order to facilitate this process even
though it is not a required step in the process. This enables both the
identification of the accused and the admission of evidence in court.
Section 54A allows the person
suspected of being the subject of the test to be sent for the test when the
appropriate court has the authority to do so by directing the subject or the
police officer to take the necessary action.
Article 20(3) of the Indian
Constitution, which is the test identification parade does not violate the
principle that no one should be forced to testify against themselves, and
taking part in the parade does not constitute testifying.
A conviction cannot be established
solely based on the test identification parade, nor can the parade that was
conducted during the investigation be regarded as significant, supporting
evidence. To find the defendant guilty, the court must instead name the
witness. Furthermore, there isn't really any added value if the same person is
recognized in both the parade and the court.
Whether or not it is necessary, a
test identification parade is necessary.
When Required: Test identification is
used when the accused's identity is in doubt and is required if the victim has
never met the accused before the incident. If the victim reasonably saw the
offender and tells the investigating officer they can identify them, a test
identification parade is held in those circumstances. When the victim is the
victim of a crime, frequently, victims can see the offender and later recognise
him thanks to various factors like body type, height, etc. The parade should
also, whenever possible, be held in front of a magistrate and as close to the
crowd as possible when it is not needed Test identification is not required if
the witness and the defendant are friends and live nearby. The motivation for
test identification is to confirm and evaluate the reliability of that proof.
It is typically believed to be a safe rule of authenticity to look for earlier
identification procedures to support a witness' testimony when they testify in
court to identify an accused person who is a stranger to them. This
authenticity rule has some exceptions, which are noted.
For instance, the investigation may be changed
without any party having the right to object or request a test identification
parade if the court finds additional evidence that it can trust. Test
identification parades are not to be considered substantial evidence as that
term is defined in Section 162 of the Act, and failure to do so would not
affect the outcome of any legal proceedings. the legal admissibility of
evidence. However, in some situations, it might be accepted despite the lack of
supporting data. The test identification parade was deemed to have value and
serve the purpose by the supreme court in Heera v. State of Rajasthan.
IDENTIFICATION PARADE TESTING
PROCEDURE AND PRECAUTIONS:
Procedures: In order
to prevent the
victim from forgetting the specifics, the parade must be held as soon as the
suspect is taken into custody. The magistrate should be present when an
identification parade is held as part of a test, along with the police. Both in
court and during the trial's identification parade, the identifier must be able
to identify the test subjects. Parade identification is not regarded as
reliable evidence by the law. The victim or identifier must have seen the
suspect for a sizable period of time in order to later identify him, the area must be
well-lit, the accused should not have known the witness or victim prior to
committing the crime, and the FIR must be filed with all pertinent information.
The police should leave the area
after making the necessary preparations so that the subject's identifier can do
its job. There shouldn't be any police present besides the magistrate and
identifier. In a test identification parade, a similar person, such as the
accused, must be kept with them at a ratio of no more than one to five and no
more than one to ten. Witnesses are not permitted to be present during the test
identification parade and must stay away from the parade's location. The accused
must adjust position after each witness identification.
THE CREDIBILITY TEST:
The reliability of the identifier's
claim to have identified
An identification parade test's reliability
varies from case to case and situation to situation. The victim or identifier
can still clearly remember the perpetrator because of time, the gravity of the
criminal's actions, and such traumatic experiences. The time of day the act was
committed, the location, and the number of participants are
all taken into account. If it had occurred in broad
daylight and a public space, the victim might have been able to recognise the
offender without a doubt. Among other things, it matters if the perpetrators
covered their faces.
People's faces and other body parts were
covered when they According to the court, when an identification is deemed
inappropriate because the identifier cannot identify the subject or when there
is a significant amount of time between the commission of an act and the test
identification parade, it is decided whether or not the parade should be held
based on the specifics of the case. Ramanbhai Naranbhai Patel was assaulted in
broad daylight in Ramanbhai Naranbhai Patel v. State of Gujarat, and the
court reasoned that since this increased the likelihood that witnesses would
recall and be able to identify the offender, the conviction was based on the
outcomes of an identification parade.
IDENTIFICATION TEST HOLDING PARADE
DELAY AND IRRREGULARITY:
The parade must be conducted in accordance with the suggested
procedure. when the suspect is taken into custody, but on occasion due to
erroneous reasons, the inability to get the identifier, and perhaps even a
magistrate. The investigating officer kept writing to the magistrate in the
case of Muralilal Jivaram Sharma v. State of Maharashtra[vii] despite the
two-month delay and the magistrate's absence due to court-related obligations.
The parade was valid, though, and was taken into
account. The test identification parade's authenticity or truthfulness,
however, is diminished if it is executed slowly. Unusual rulings are also wrong
unless the court accepts their justifications. The test identification parade
should be held as soon as possible, if necessary.
A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF TEN CASES
DECIDED BY THE SUPREME COURT
Bihar State v. Raju Manjhi the verdict in this historic case
was given by Honorable Mr. Justices N. V. Ramana and Mohan M. Shantanagoudar.
The lower court from which the appeal was made was the High Court of Patna. The
truth is that ten to twelve individuals between the ages of twenty and
twenty-six broke into Kamdeo Singh's house one night in 1999 and stole goods.
After receiving a complaint, the police opened an inquiry. The injured were
taken to a hospital after the locations of their injuries were determined. It
was alleged that the lower courts carried on the investigation and stuck to the
plot of the film after questioning numerous witnesses. During the trial
identification parade, any identification was accepted. The prosecution's case
against the accused is not necessarily false, despite what the witnesses claim.
The identification test is only conducted to help the investigation officer
conduct their work more efficiently. After the identification parade, the
investigation stage is attained. Nothing in the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC)
gives the investigating agency the right to hold a hearing or the accused the
right to ask for a trial. Because these parades are not regarded as substantive
evidence, they are essentially governed by Section 162 of the CrPC. The
identification evidence would not be inadmissible in court if there had not
been a test identification parade. It should be up to the courts to make
decisions regarding issues involving such identification. Rajesh Govind
Jogesh v. State of Maharashtra
Sections 302, 504, and 34 of the IPC
have been allegedly violated by the appellants. They are thought to have
murdered the late Joy Kutty in Mumbai's Vashi district. The appellants were
found guilty of violating IPC sections 302 and 34 by the sessions judge. One of
the appellants contested the verdict, claiming that the identification of the
convicts was done improperly because it didn't follow the established process.
The appellants' request for a hearing on their appeal was denied by the high
court.
The respondents saw Joy Kutty running
along the highway following what they believe to have been an attack on him by the appellants using swords and helicopters. He was
taken to the hospital, but later declared dead. The presence of swords and a
chop saw has led the sessions court to conclude that this is a murder case. The
High Court upheld the Sessions Court's decision.
Rajesh Govind Jogesh, one of the appellants,
has insisted time and time again that there is no evidence to support his
involvement in the crime. He has argued that the test identification was
invalid because no one who resembled the appellant was present at the parade
for his identification, which took place after the designated allotment of
time. Long hair, a beard, and other distinguishing features on the second
appellant did not resemble those of the first.[i]
EVIDENTIAL VALUE OF TEST
IDENTIFICATION PARADE
The parade used during the
investigation cannot be regarded as significant, important evidence, nor can a
conviction be obtained solely on the basis of the
test identification parade; a witness must be identified in court in order to be found guilty. Additionally, it doesn't
really add any value if the same person is recognised in both the parade and
the court. The goal of a Test Identification Parade (hereinafter referred to as
the "TIP") is to first persuade the investigating authority—before referring
the case to the court for trial—that the arrested person, who had previously
been unknown to the witness, was actually one of those who committed the crime;
and secondly, to persuade the court that the arrested person was in fact one of
those who committed the crime. The accused who was held accountable is actually the offender.
Provisions of the Indian Evidence Act
and the Code of Criminal Procedure
The Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973's Section 54A, granted the process to send the suspect for a test identification
parade in order to facilitate this process even
though it is not a required step in the criminal justice system. The Indian
Evidence Act, 1872, Section 9, allows both the identification of the accused
and the admission of evidence in court.
Section 54A allows the person
suspected to be sent for an identification parade when the appropriate court
has the authority to do so by ordering that person or the police officer take
part in the parade. the required procedure.
Article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution
of 1949, which prohibits forcing someone to testify against themselves, is not
broken by test identification parades. Participating in a test identification
parade is not the same as testifying.
When it comes to the requirements of
Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India, 1950, giving a thumbprint,
footprint, palm- or fingerprint sample, handwriting sample, or exposing parts
of the body for identification purposes does not qualify as "to be a
witness." State of Punjab v. Ramesh Kumar, AIR (1993), SCC Kathi Kalu
Oghad v. State of Bombay, AIR (1961). Cri. L.J determined that since the
witnesses were already present, there was no need for an identification parade.
who had attacked them was known. In other words, holding TIP is not necessary
if all of the evidence in a case proves the accused's guilt beyond a reasonable
doubt. TIP is not always a requirement for success.
Price of TIP
Test Recognition Proof While
testimony in court counts as substantive evidence, a parade does not. The
Magistrate who oversaw the test parade, however, provided evidence that the
witness recognised the accused at the parade, which was corroborated by the trial
judge's comments, when the witness recognised the accused at the parade but not
in court. The witness's actions during the trial, which showed that he was
terrified and unable to recognise the accused, were sufficient to find the
defendant guilty. Dana Yadav v. State of Bihar, AIR 2002 SCC
In contrast to the identification of
the accused made during a test identification parade, which is only primary
evidence and can only be used to support the identification of the accused made
in court by a witness, the identification of the accused made in court is
substantive evidence.
It's also crucial to keep in mind
that having a TIP is not necessary. In cases where the witnesses knew the
accused well and the incident was widely reported in, it was determined that
the absence of a TIP was not fatal to the prosecution. case. The Supreme Court
outlined the circumstances in which an identification parade may be necessary
in Jadunath Singh v. State of U.P. AIR (1970) SCC. The court noted that
"Of course, if the prosecution fails to hold an identification parade on
the plea that the witnesses already knew the accused well and it transpires in
the court of trial that the witnesses did not previously know the accused, the
prosecution would run the risk of losing its case." If there is any doubt,
we think the prosecution should hold an identification parade.
In State of Maharashtra v. Rajesh
Govind Jagesha, AIR (1999) SCC, an identification parade was held five
weeks after the arrest—this is an excessively long amount of time.[ii]
The accused's explanation for the
delay was unreliable. The argument that a Magistrate in a city like Bombay
might not be available was rejected, even though the investigating agency was
not required to obtain the parade's conduct from a specific Magistrate. It was
decided to give the accused the benefit of the doubt.
Since the identification parades are
a component of the investigation phase, the Code of Criminal Procedure does not
contain any clauses requiring the investigating agency to hold one or granting
the accused the right to request one. Because they don't count as substantial
evidence, these parades are essentially governed by Section 162 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure. There wouldn't be a test identification parade if it did
not rule the identification evidence inadmissible in court. The fact-finding
courts should decide how much weight to give to such identification.
PROCEDURE AND HOLDING PRECAUTIONS FOR
PARADE
Procedures: In
order to prevent the victim from forgetting the specifics, the parade must
be held as soon as the suspect is taken into custody. The magistrate should be
present when an identification parade is held as part of a test, along with the
police. The identifier should be able to identify both in the test identification
parade and in court because parade identification is not considered legal
substantial evidence. The FIR must be filed with all pertinent information in
mind, the victim or identifier must have witnessed the crime, and the accused
should not have known the witness or victim prior to committing the offence. In
a well-lit area, observe the person for a while so that you can later identify
him.
Photographic identification: According to Section 22 of the
Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 ("TADA"),
"where a person has been declared a proclaimed offender in a terrorist
case, the evidence regarding his identification by witnesses on the basis of
his photograph shall have the same value as the evidence of the test identification
parade."
The Supreme Court heard arguments in
Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR (1994) SCC, challenging the
constitutionality of Section 22 of the TADA. The Honourable Supreme Court of
India ruled that Article 21's standards for fairness and reasonableness were
violated by Section 22 of the TADA.
IDENTIFICATION BY VOICE: In the trial for the charge of
murder conspiracy in Mohan Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR (2011) SCC, the witness
overheard the defendant yelling at the victim for money and later recognised
the defendant by the defendant's voice. Even prior to the incident, the witness
had some level of familiarity with the defendant. The court regarded the
witness' testimony identifying the defendant by voice as trustworthy evidence.
The police should leave the area
after making the necessary preparations so that the subject's identifier can do
its job. There shouldn't be any police present besides the magistrate and
identifier. The essential component is A person who is similar to the accused must
be kept next to the accused in a test identification parade in a ratio of no
more than one to five and no more than one to ten. Witnesses are not permitted
to be present during the test identification parade and must stay away from the
parade's location. The accused must adjust position after each witness
identification.
The TIP process
A crime is reported to the police.
There may have been some specific descriptions of the suspect. In any case, the
police conduct their inquiry and detain the alleged offender. In order for officers to identify the complainant
among a group of people with similar skin tones and statures, the complainant
is then taken to the police station. If the complainant recognises the witness,
the police will know he is telling the truth and that they are on the right
track.
The magistrate in charge of the Test
Identification Parade (TIP) is instructed to make two photocopies of the report
while still under his direct supervision and to give one to the IO with
instructions that the report's contents be should be kept a secret up until a
charge sheet filed in accordance with Section 173 of the Cr.P.C., 1973. The
magistrate is required to keep the second photocopy as a
"confidential" record in a sealed cover in case it needs to be used again.
For the Test Identification Parade to
be properly conducted, designated areas must be provided in each prison in the
state. These spaces must have a side window that provides a visual barrier
between the witness and the magistrate and the parade participants on the one
hand. The witness and the magistrate shouldn't be visible to those waiting in
queue, but the suspect and the dummies should be easy to see. The location of
the suspect and the dummies must be secure. Additionally, there should be room
for them to change clothes, and the area should be well-lit.
The magistrate is required to testify
in court about the various precautions the magistrate took to ensure that the
witness correctly identified the concerned accused or suspect at the TIP
without assistance from the police after the witness recognises the accused
during the TIP conducted before the magistrate. The trial judge's comments
about the witness's demeanor, which show that the witness was terrified and was
unable to speak, support the magistrate who conducted the TIP's evidence that
the witness did so at the TIP if the witness correctly and unmistakably
identifies the accused at the TIP but not in court. It would be relevant and
sufficient to convict the accused if they were unrecognisable at the trial and
could not be identified. It is a measure of credibility.
Credibility of the identifier's
identity in comparison to the identity used for the test parade, the truth
varies from circumstance to circumstance and case to case. at this time, when a
criminal engages in behavior that matches the severity of the incident and
results in such upsetting events, it gives the victim or identifier a permanent
mark in their minds, indicating that they remember the who unmistakably carried
out the act. Even the hour when the act was done, the place every action, every
person, and every element are involved. If performed throughout the day, it is
visible in the open. Considerations include whether the suspects had their
faces covered, whether there was enough lighting for the victim to clearly
identify the suspect, and other variables. When a person's face or other body
parts are hidden, the identifier is unable to recognise the person, or a
significant amount of time has passed between the act's commission and the test
identification parade, the identification is not deemed appropriate. According
to the courts, this decision is made in light of
the particular circumstances surrounding the case.
In the case of Raman Bhai Narayan Bhai Patel v. State of Gujarat (AIR
(1999) SCC), the assault happened in broad daylight, and the court stated that
when it happened in broad daylight, it could be considered a criminal offence.
A Test Identification Parade was used
to assess conviction on the basis of identification
to see if witnesses could quickly and accurately recall and identify the person
who had committed the act. In the case of Dana Yadav v. State of Bihar (AIR
(2002) SCC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India unequivocally declared that
identification of the accused should not ordinarily be relied upon if the name
of the accused is neither mentioned in the First Information Report nor stated
to the police. TIP's sole objective is to provide the court with support.
In the case of Anil Kumar v. State of
U.P. AIR (2003) SCC, the Hon. Supreme Court of India ruled that holding a TIP
is not necessary and the accused has the ability to
request that TIP be held. Even though there is no fatal consequence if TIP is
delayed, every effort should be made to hold TIP as soon as possible to avoid
the accused showing the witnesses their mischief. TIP should ideally be
conducted as soon as possible to avoid any mistakes on the part of the
witnesses. Before noting the suspects to be identified and the witnesses who will
be doing so, the judicial/executive magistrate charged with conducting the TIP
must become familiar with the case's facts; It is a complete waste of time and
resources for the public to hold a TIP in cases where the prosecution witness
is familiar with the defendant/suspect; Before conducting TIP, the police
officials should ideally contact two trustworthy, independent individuals who
are not related to or connected to them. The judicial/executive magistrate
should explain the facts of the case to these unrelated parties and, as to Who
(suspect) needs to be identified and who (eyewitnesses) hasn't come forward
yet; All police officers and constables must leave the room where the TIP will
take place completely empty. TIP meetings should ideally not take place in a
police station building, but rather in designated spaces in another building.
Before the TIP can start, the accused or suspect must be brought from the
lock-up room. The judicial or executive magistrate must record in the
identification memo that the accused was brought to the room where the TIP was
to be conducted by the appropriate two independent people (panch witnesses).
when the defendant or suspect is brought before the judge or executive as a
result, it is the duty of the judicial/executive magistrate to give the accused
or suspect permission to stand wherever he pleases during the procession. An
accused or suspect has no right to cover his face during the TIP, so it's
important to have enough dummies stand alongside them. Ideally, each accused
should be subjected to identification separately. The judicial/executive
magistrate shall specify in the identification memo the place where the accused
or suspect chooses to stand.
CONCLUSION
Therefore, it is crucial to provide a
general, succinct, and clear explanation of the burden and standard in
situations where the prosecution's case depends solely on the identification of
a single witness. The judge should
typically base his or her decision on the attorneys' submissions, depositions,
and statements, though there may be a few circumstances where it will be
advantageous to conduct a voir dire (an examination of the truth or
admissibility of the evidence). Last but not least, when deciding whether to
exclude identification evidence or how much weight to give it, the court may
take the police's disregard for the law into account. Nobody can be forced to
wait in queue. for TIP, and he does so at his own risk if he chooses not to
submit himself for TIP. Haryana State v. Suraj Pal, AIR (1995) SCC Bail cannot
be denied simply because TIP is still being conducted if the court determines
that, given the facts of a particular case, the accused should be granted bail.
The accused may be granted bail with a few restrictions placed on them, such as
being prohibited from speaking to the media or appearing in public for a while.
To make sure the investigation is going in the right direction, a test like TIP
is a crucial component. It might only be Although it only has corroborative
value, the court-performed identification is still important. Like all
processes, it has flaws and, if used carelessly, could change the verdict and
the course of justice.
The rules for police officers can be
tightened up to ensure that it is done in a morally righteous and impartial
manner. This century-old procedure can be strengthened with minor adjustments
and stricter regulations, which will aid the courts in holding trials quickly
and pursuing the truth.
A minimum number of witnesses is not
required to identify the suspect or offender, and there is no statutory time
frame within which TIP must be carried out.
Article Information
CRITICAL EXAMINATION OF TEST IDENTIFICATION PARADE IN THE NATION USE
Authors: YASHVI GOYAL
- Journal IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Published 2023/07/08
- Issue 7
About Journal
International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis
- Abbreviation IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Access Open Access
- License CC 4.0
All research articles published in International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis are open access and available to read, download and share, subject to proper citation of the original work.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis.