Test Identification Parade Only A Rule Of Prudence; Dock Identification Is Substantive Evidence: J&K&L High Court

The Division Bench comprising Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Rajesh Sekhri emphasised that TIP serves only as a rule of prudence to corroborate in-court testimony, and that courts may, in appropriate circumstances, safely rely solely on dock identification without insisting upon a prior TIP.

The Court's observations came while adjudicating a petition arising out of a criminal case in which the accused had challenged the reliance placed by the trial court upon dock identification in the absence of a formal Test Identification Parade.

The petitioners argued that TIP was mandatory whenever the accused were previously unknown to the witnesses and that the omission to hold such a parade fatally affected the prosecution's case. This challenge brought the larger question of the evidentiary value of dock identification versus TIP directly before the High Court.

Tracing the facts leading to the petition, the Bench recorded that the prosecution had relied upon eye witnesses who identified the accused for the first time during trial. The defence asserted that without a prior TIP, the witnesses' courtroom identification was unreliable and incapable of sustaining conviction. The petitioners pressed for interference, contending that the failure of the investigating agency to organise a TIP rendered the evidence inherently suspect.

The Court, however, undertook a detailed examination of the law under Section 9 of the Indian Evidence Act, governing facts necessary to establish identity, and reiterated that what ultimately matters is the sworn testimony delivered in the courtroom. In a significant observation that forms the fulcrum of the judgment, the Bench observed,

“Test Identification Parade is a corroborative piece of evidence, whereas evidence of dock identification is substantive evidence. The fact which establishes the identity of an accused is relevant under Section 9 of the Evidence Act. As such, as a general rule, the substantive evidence of a witness is the statement made in the court.”

Elaborating further, the Bench clarified that TIP is not an indispensable legal requirement but rather a prudential safeguard. It emphasised,

“Test Identification Parade is considered a safe rule of prudence, to look for corroboration of the sworn testimony of the witnesses in the court as to the identity of the accused. This rule of prudence, however, is subject to exceptions.”

The Court held that where the testimony of particular witnesses inspires confidence, is corroborated by surrounding circumstances or other oral evidence, and withstands cross-examination, the trial court is competent to accept such dock identification without any supporting TIP. In such cases, the absence of a parade is not fatal to the prosecution.

The Bench thus reasoned,

“In appropriate cases, the trial court can accept the evidence of dock identification, without insisting upon a Test Identification Parade.”

Applying these principles to the case at hand, the Court concluded that the petitioners had failed to demonstrate that the witness's in court identification was inherently doubtful or that the absence of a TIP had caused prejudice. The Bench accordingly declined to interfere, holding that the trial court had correctly appreciated the evidentiary framework governing identification of accused persons.

Case Title: Arvind Verma & Anr Vs State of J&K

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment