How reliable is a Test Identification Parade of a suspect criminal?

[Anonymous]

What is the reliability of the Test Identification Parade conducted during investigation of a criminal case to identify the suspect or accused persons? Can an accused person be convicted in a case merely if he was identified during this identification parade?

[Dr. Ashok Dhamija]

The Supreme Court has held that 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.

In this regard, some relevant observations of the Supreme Court in various cases decided by it can be summarised as below:

• 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.
• 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 there is no provision for it in the Criminal Procedure Code and the Evidence Act.
• It is desirable that a test identification parade should be conducted as soon as possible 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 allegation. If, however, circumstances are beyond control and there is some delay, it cannot be said to be fatal to the prosecution.
• The substantive evidence is the evidence of identification in court. Test identification is only a corroborative evidence.
• Apart from the clear provisions of Section 9 of the Evidence Act, the position in law is well settled by a catena of decisions of Supreme Court. The facts, which establish the identity of the accused persons, are relevant under Section 9 of the Evidence Act.
• As a general rule, the substantive evidence of a witness is the statement made in court. The evidence of mere identification of the accused person at the trial for the first time is from its very nature inherently of a weak character. The purpose of a prior test identification, therefore, is to test and strengthen the trustworthiness of that evidence.
• It is accordingly considered a safe rule of prudence to generally look for corroboration of the sworn testimony of witnesses in court as to the identity of the accused who are strangers to them, in the form of earlier identification proceedings. This rule of prudence, however, is subject to exceptions, when, for example, the court is impressed by a particular witness on whose testimony it can safely rely, without such or other corroboration.
• The identification parades belong to the stage of investigation, and there is no provision in the Cr.P.C. which obliges the investigating agency to hold, or confers a right upon the accused to claim a test identification parade. They do not constitute substantive evidence and these parades are essentially governed by Section 162 of the Cr.P.C.
• Failure to hold a test identification parade would not make inadmissible the evidence of identification in court. The weight to be attached to such identification should be a matter for the courts of fact. In appropriate cases it may accept the evidence of identification even without insisting on corroboration.
• The absence of test identification in all cases is not fatal and if the accused person is well known by sight it would be waste of time to put him up for identification. Of course if the prosecution fails to hold an identification on the plea that the witnesses already knew the accused well and it transpires in the course of the trial that the witnesses did not know the accused previously, the prosecution would run the risk of losing its case.
• It is no doubt 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.
• In a case, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the accused even when the witness while deposing in court did not identify the accused out of fear, though he had identified him in the test identification parade.
• It is well settled that substantive evidence of the witness is his evidence in the court but when the accused person is not previously known to the witness concerned then identification of the accused by the witness soon after his arrest is of great importance because it furnishes an assurance that the investigation is proceeding on right lines in addition to furnishing corroboration of the evidence to be given by the witness later in court at the trial. From this point of view it is a matter of great importance both for the investigating agency and for the accused and a fortiori for the proper administration of justice that such identification test is held without avoidable and unreasonable delay after the arrest of the accused. It is in adopting this course alone that justice and fair play can be assured both to the accused as well as to the prosecution.
• But the position may be different when the accused or a culprit who stands trial had been seen not once but for quite a number of times at different point of time and places which fact may do away with the necessity of a TI parade.

These observations of the Supreme Court with regard to Test Identification Parade are general in nature and they have to be applied appropriately in the factual matrix of each individual case.

Replying to the second part of your question, it can be said that it may not be proper to convict an accused merely on the basis of a test identification parade since it is not considered as a substantive evidence and is only a corroborative piece of evidence. Generally, some other substantive evidence is needed to convict the accused, in addition to the identification tests.

     

---

Dr. Ashok Dhamija is a New Delhi based Supreme Court Advocate and author of law books. Read more about him by clicking here. List of his Forum Replies. List of his other articles. List of his Quora Answers. List of his YouTube Videos.

[Author]

Posts