Test Identification Parade

The primary purpose of a test identification parade is to determine whether the suspect is the actual perpetrator.

The concept behind conducting these identification procedures is to allow witnesses who assert they saw the culprits during the incident to pick them out from a group of other individuals without assistance from any external sources.

What is Test Identification Parade?

A test identification parade, is a procedure commonly used in criminal cases to identify the accused in a court of law. Witnesses play a crucial role in this process as it’s their responsibility to recognise the accused among a group of individuals presented in the parade.

The main purpose of this procedure is to assess whether the witness can accurately identify the accused from a group of people. This helps establish the witness’s reliability in identifying an unknown person in relation to the context of the crime.

Law enforcement frequently employs this method to verify the witness’s credibility, especially in cases where the witness has never encountered the accused except at the crime scene.

Purpose of Test Identification Parade

In the case of Ramkishan vs Bombay State [AIR 1955 SC 104], it was established that, during the investigation of a crime, the police are required to conduct identification parades. These parades serve the purpose of enabling witnesses to identify either the properties that are the focus of the offence or the individuals involved in the crime.

A test identification parade has the following key dimensions:

• It aims to assure the investigating authorities that a specific person, previously unknown to the witnesses, may have been involved in the commission of the crime or that a particular property was linked to the offence.
• It is also designed to provide evidence that supports and corroborates the testimony given by the concerned witness in a court of law.
• Additionally, it serves the interests of the accused by helping to eliminate the possibility of false implication.

Law Governing the Test Identification Parade

Section 9 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and Section 54A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, govern the procedure and legality of the Test Identification Parade.

Section 9 of the Evidence Act allows for the admissibility of the identification of the correct accused and related properties as relevant facts in a court of law. However, it does not make it mandatory for the accused to participate in the Test Identification Parade conducted by the investigating officer. This means that the accused cannot be compelled to take part in the identification process.

To address this issue, Section 54A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, comes into play. This section states that if the identification of an accused by a witness is deemed necessary for the investigation of an offence for which the accused has been arrested, the court with jurisdiction may, upon the request of the officer in charge of a police station, direct the arrested accused to undergo identification by one or more witnesses in a manner deemed appropriate by the court. In other words, the court has the authority to require the accused to participate in a Test Identification Parade.

It’s important to note that when the police conduct the test identification, they are bound by the provisions of Sections 161 and 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C). This is because the act of identifying by bodily gestures is considered equivalent to making statements to the police, as established in the Ramkishan case [AIR 1955 SC 104]. However, this restriction does not apply when a Magistrate conducts the test identification proceedings.

When Test Identification is Necessary?

Test Identification is necessary in cases where the victim or witness did not know the accused before the occurrence. In such situations, conducting a Test Identification Parade helps in the process of identifying the perpetrator.

When Test Identification is Not Necessary?

Conversely, Test Identification is not necessary when the accused is well known to the witnesses. If the witnesses are already familiar with the accused, there may be no need for a formal identification parade. It’s worth noting that Test Identification Parades are not always essential and their necessity can vary based on the circumstances of the case.

Evidentiary Value of Test Identification Parade

Indeed, Test Identification is generally considered not to be a substantive piece of evidence in legal proceedings. This is based on the following key points:

(a) The witness is required to identify the accused once again in court. The identification made during a Test Identification Parade is essentially a preliminary or pre-trial identification and must be reiterated during the trial.

(b) The evidence obtained from a Test Identification Parade is admissible under Section 9 of the Indian Evidence Act, but it can only be used to corroborate the substantive evidence presented by witnesses in court regarding the identification of the accused. In other words, the primary value of the Test Identification Parade lies in supporting and strengthening the witness’s testimony during the trial.

The earlier identification made by the witnesses during the Test Identification Parade is not considered to have independent value. It is the testimony and identification made by the witness in the court that holds substantive value.

These principles are supported by legal precedents, such as the case of Sampat Tatyada Shinde vs State of Maharashtra (AIR 1974 SC 791) and certain guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in Harbal Sheikh vs State (1991 Cr.L.J. 1258(1263)). In summary, Test Identification Parades serve as a tool to reinforce the reliability of witness identification but are not, on their own, considered substantive evidence.

Practical Steps for Conducting Test Identification Parades

Here are the practical steps for conducting Test Identification Parades:

• Verify Jurisdiction: Start by verifying if there are any reciprocal arrangements or circulars issued by the Honorable District Court regarding the jurisdiction to conduct test identification parade for that particular Police Station.
• Issue Summons: Issue summons to the witnesses, requiring their presence at the test identification parade.
• Coordinate with Jail Authorities: Address a letter to the jail authorities to make the necessary arrangements for the test identification parade, including securing the suspects.
• Seek Permission: Address a letter to the Honorable I ADJ (Additional District Judge) seeking permission to conduct the test identification parade and leave the headquarters for this purpose.
• Sec.161 Cr.P.C Statements: Insist on the filing of Section 161 Cr.P.C statements from the investigating officer along with a requisition for the test identification parade.
• Gather Personnel: Take a stenographer, if possible, equipped with a typewriter and an attender to assist with the proceedings.
• Record Statements: At the jail, record the statements of the witnesses separately. Also, record the statements of the suspects.
• Select Participants: Choose non-suspects for the lineup as well.
• Choose a Suitable Location: Select a suitable location with enough space to keep the witness who makes the identification separate from the other witnesses.
• Remove Unnecessary Personnel: Send away jail personnel or any additional police officers who are not directly involved in the proceedings.
• Consider Distinguishing Features: If there are distinguishing features among the suspects, select non-suspects who have similar features.
• Suspects’ Choice: Inform the suspects that they can choose their own positions within the lineup and can change their positions or dress if they wish. Note any changes in their position or dress immediately in the proceedings.
• Documentation: Get the proceedings typed in the jail itself.
• Transmit Records to Court: After completing the test identification parade, transmit the records to the concerned court for further legal processing.

These steps are essential to ensure that the Test Identification Parade is conducted accurately and in accordance with legal procedures. Proper documentation and adherence to protocols are crucial to maintain the integrity of the identification process in a legal context.

Precautions to be Taken While Conducting Test Identification

Test Identification Parades are subject to specific considerations and guidelines to ensure their reliability and effectiveness in legal proceedings. Here are some important points related to test identification parade:

Special Peculiarities

Test identification parade may lose its value if the person being identified has distinct characteristics or peculiarities that set them apart from others in the lineup. Magistrates conducting test identification parade should personally ensure that any visible marks or characteristics on the accused, which could aid in their identification, are covered and then mix the accused with others who share similar marks. Failing to take these precautions can discredit the identification evidence. [Dana Yadav vs State of Bihar – 2002 (2) ALD (Crl.) 729 SC; 2004 (2) ALD (Crl.) 83]

Test Identification Parade for Properties

There are specific guidelines for conducting test identification parades related to properties. According to Rule 35 of A.P. Criminal Rules of Practice, test identification for properties should be conducted in the Court of the Magistrate where the properties are stored.

Use of Statements during Test Identification Parade

Statements made by witnesses during test identification parade, conducted under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., have no substantive value. They can be used for the purpose of corroborating (under Section 157) or contradicting (under Sections 145 and 155) the Indian Evidence Act.

Omission to State Description of Culprits in FIR

If the First Information Report (FIR) does not contain a description of the culprits, test identification may not be as useful. The accuracy and reliability of test identification parade can be affected in such cases. [Manepalli Anjaneyulu vs State- 1999 Cr.L.J.4375 (D.B)]

Delay

Conducting the identification process promptly is essential. An early opportunity to identify the accused tends to minimise the chances of the witness’s memory fading due to a long lapse of time. This helps maintain the reliability of the identification.

Exception for Test Identification Parade

Exceptionally, Test Identification Parades may not be necessary in certain situations and this exception has been clarified by various judgments from the Supreme Court of India:

In State of H.P. v. Prem Chand, the Supreme Court held that a test identification parade is not required when the witness already knows the accused and can identify them in the court of law. If there is a pre-existing familiarity with the accused, a formal test identification parade may not be essential.

The Supreme Court in Ramesh Kumar v. State of Punjab reaffirmed the principle established in the Prem Chand case, emphasising that test identification parade is unnecessary when the witness is already acquainted with and can identify the accused in the courtroom.

In the case of State of A.P. v. V.K. Venkata Reddy, the Supreme Court ruled that the testimony of a witness in a court of law holds the substantive value and the identification of the accused in the test identification parade serves only to confirm the testimony presented in court.

The Supreme Court in Dana Yadav v. State of Bihar reiterated its position, emphasising that the primary purpose of test identification parade is to provide corroboration for the court identification of the accused. Test Identification Parade is viewed as a supporting mechanism for the identification made during the trial.

Landmark Judgments on Test Identification Parade

The Supreme Court of India has issued several significant rulings regarding Test Identification Parades, further clarifying the legal framework and procedures:

Hare Kishan Singh v. State of Bihar

The Supreme Court held that when a witness has failed to identify the accused at the test identification parade, the court identification of the accused by the witness becomes unreliable. In such cases, the court identification may be considered useless and it can weaken the prosecution’s case.

Kishore Prabhakar Sawant v. State of Maharashtra

The Supreme Court ruled that when the accused is apprehended red-handed at the crime scene, there is no need for a Test Identification Parade. In such instances, the circumstances of the arrest provide sufficient evidence.

Kiwan Prakash Pandurang Mokash v. State of Maharashtra

The Supreme Court held that if the accused refuses to participate in a Test Identification Parade, an adverse inference of guilt can be drawn against the accused under Section 54A of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

Suraj Pal Singh v. State of Haryana

The Supreme Court clarified that the accused cannot be compelled to participate in a Test Identification Parade. If the accused chooses not to undergo the test identification parade, they do so at their own risk.

State of Maharashtra v. Suresh

The Supreme Court emphasised that Test Identification Parades are primarily held for the benefit of the investigation, rather than being conducted solely for court purposes. Test Identification Parade serves as a tool to assist in establishing the identity of the accused.

These judgments provide essential guidance on various aspects of Test Identification Parades, including their reliability, necessity and the consequences of the accused’s participation or non-participation in the test identification parade. They contribute to the legal framework and understanding of test identification parade in Indian jurisprudence.

Conclusion

A Test Identification Parade is a legal procedure used to verify the accuracy of a witness’s identification of a suspect in a criminal investigation. During this, a group of individuals, including the suspect (referred to as the accused), is presented to the witness. The witness is then asked to identify the person they believe to be the perpetrator.

Test Identification Parades are typically conducted by law enforcement under the guidance of a magistrate. The primary goal is to determine whether the witness can correctly identify the accused without any external influence. The witness’s identification during this may serve to corroborate their testimony in court but is not considered substantive evidence on its own.