The Supreme Court recently acquitted an accused after noting that the witness who identified the accused during the Test Identification Parade (TIP) was not examined during the trial.
Emphasizing the evidentiary value of TIP, the Court held that unless the witness who identified the accused or an article in the TIP is examined during trial, the TIP report—which may otherwise be useful for corroboration or contradiction—loses its evidentiary significance. The rationale behind this principle is that without the witness being subject to cross-examination, it cannot be ascertained on what basis the identification was made. The Court also highlighted the possibility of the accused being shown to the witness before the TIP or the witness being tutored. Thus, a TIP report, without the supporting testimony of the identifying witness, cannot sustain an identification by another witness.
A bench comprising Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice Manoj Misra heard the case, where the Appellant had been convicted by the Trial Court and the High Court for dacoity and offences under the Arms Act. The prosecution alleged that the Appellant stopped a moving bus at gunpoint and robbed the passengers.
The TIP was conducted in the presence of three witnesses, none of whom were examined during the trial. Setting aside the conviction, the judgment authored by Justice Misra observed that the TIP lost its relevance due to the absence of key witnesses in trial proceedings. Consequently, it was impossible to determine the basis on which they identified the accused.
“In the present case, although it was established through PW-7 (the Naib Tehsildar who conducted the TIP) that the TIP took place and the appellant was identified by two out of three witnesses, these three witnesses were not examined during trial. Therefore, the TIP report, which could have been used to either corroborate or contradict them, holds no evidentiary value,” the Court held.
Granting the benefit of the doubt to the Appellant, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction.
Case Title: Vinod @ Nasmulla v. State of Chhattisgarh
