If Witness Had Opportunity To See Accused Before TIP, Test Identification Proceedings Not Reliable : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Monday (November 17) acquitted a man accused of murdering an elderly man during a robbery. The Court discarded the sole eyewitness's identification of the accused, made nearly eight years after the incident, noting that it could not inspire confidence because of her weak eyesight and subsequent improvements in testimony.

“Once her identification of the accused-appellant in Court is discarded, no substantive evidence remains on record to connect the accused with the crime.”, observed a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, pointing out that the dock identification was unreliable as it was undertaken years after the incident, having substantial improvements and material contradictions in the eyewitness's testimony.

“We may note that the possibility of identification of the accused-appellant by Smt. Indra Prabha Gulati (PW-18) in Court, after a lapse of nearly eight and a half years from the incident, is extremely unlikely. In her testimony, the witness candidly admitted that her distance vision was weak and that she could not see objects at a distance without spectacles. It is also borne out from the record that even at the time of the incident, she was aged about 73 years and was infirm. She was not wearing spectacles at the time of her deposition via video conferencing. In this background, her purported identification of the assailant after such a long lapse of time, that too over video conferencing, does not inspire confidence.”, the court observed.

Further, the Court doubted whether the eyewitness had even participated in the TIP, while declaring the Test Identification Parade (“TIP”) to be invalid, noting that the accused's photographs were already shown to the sole eyewitness before the TIP, highlighting that “where the witnesses have had an opportunity to see the accused prior to the holding of the TIP, the evidentiary worth of such proceedings stands considerably diminished.”

“It is the duty of the prosecution to establish beyond doubt that right from the time of arrest, the accused was kept baparda to rule out the possibility of his face being seen before the identification proceedings are conducted. If the witnesses have had any opportunity to see the accused before the TIP – whether physically or through photographs – the credibility and sanctity of the identification proceedings would stand seriously compromised.”, the court added.

The Court also rejected the prosecution's argument that the accused's refusal to take part in the TIP would draw an adverse inference against him. The judgment authored by Justice Mehta observed:

“the prosecution version that efforts made to subject the accused to TIP failed on account of their refusal, stands refuted. While the refusal of the appellant to participate in the TIP may, prima facie, invite an adverse inference, mere such inference cannot support the theory of identification when the very authenticity of the TIP is under a serious cloud of doubt. When it stands established from the record that the TIP attempted by the prosecution was fundamentally flawed, and a doubt is created that the identifying witness herself may not even have been present to participate therein, the very foundation of the identification proceedings falls flat to the ground.”

Noting that the entire chain of circumstances remained unlinked, the Court allowed the appeal and ordered the release of the Appellant-accused, who was in jail for about 15 years.

Cause Title: RAJ KUMAR @ BHEEMA VERSUS STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1113

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Ajay Marwah, AOR Mr. Swaroopanand Mishra, Adv. Mr. Mrigank Bhardwaj, Adv. Mr. Parkhar Singh, Adv.

For Respondent(s) :Mr. Vikramjeet Banerjee, A.S.G. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Mr. Shubhendu Anand, Adv. Ms. Priyanka Das, Adv. Ms. Dacchita Shahi, Adv. Ms. Arushi Singh, Adv. Ms. Sunanda Shukla, Adv.