34 Yrs On, Rajasthan HC Sets Aside Rape Conviction Citing Failure To Conduct Test Identification Parade, Asks State To Properly Instruct IOs

Rajasthan High Court directed Director General of Police, Jaipur and the Principal Secretary, Department of Home, for issuing instructions and guidelines to all the Police Investigating Officers of Rajasthan to conduct the Test identification Parade (“TIP”) of the accused with the victim in cases where the accused was not known to the victim.

The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand was hearing an appeal against a 1991 conviction order of the Sessions Court passed in a rape case in which it was found that the victim did not know the accused before or even at the time of commission of the offence, and no TIP was conducted by the Investigating Agency.

The Court highlighted that the names of the accused were given by the victim only based on the names that her relatives had told her after the commission of the offence. It was opined that in absence of a TIP, relying solely on the victim's testimony regarding accused's identification, when there was no other link to connect the accused with the incident, was wholly unsafe.

“The appellants are not some renowned personalities, who could be identified on the ground that prosecutrix was told about their names by her mother-in-law and brother-in law. When the victim was not aware about the names of the appellants, then how she figured their names in her statements, such factual aspect of the matter is fatal to the case of the prosecution.”

The Court also pointed out the situation where to pacify and/ or avoid public revolt against the police for non-detection of such crimes, investigating agencies implicate a person who could not be connected with the crime by legally acceptable evidence. It was stated that in the present case too, the Investigating Agency had not discharged their duties properly and had “miserably failed to apprehend or book the real culprits”.

It was submitted by the counsel for the accused-appellants that neither of the 3 appellants were known to the victim. Rather, their names were told to her by her brother-in-law after the offence. Furthermore, a few days before the incident, her mother-in-law had also mentioned the names of the accused terming them as persons of criminal nature, but even at that time, the appellants were not present before them.

The Counsel argued that in this light, it was legally obligated to conduct the TIP without which it was not established that the appellants were involved in the offence.

After hearing the arguments, the Court took into account all the records, and affirmed that the appellants were not known to the victim either before or at the time of commission of the offence, and even then no TIP was conducted. It was opined that,

“The idea of holding test identification parade under Section 9 of the Indian Evidence Act is to test the veracity of the witness on the question of capability to identify an unknown person whom the witness may not have seen. If no test identification parade is held, then it will be wholly unsafe to rely on his/her bare testimony regarding identification of the accused…The identification of the accused by the prosecutrix on the basis of telling her their names by her mother-in-law (PW-2) "N" and brother-in-law (PW-3) "B" is worthless.”

In this light, the Court held that since there was no legally acceptable evidence to connect the appellants to the offence, they could not be held guilty. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, and the conviction of the appellants was set aside.

The Court opined that by not conducting the TIP, the investigation agency had not discharged their duties properly and had failed to book the real culprits. In this background, the DGP, Jaipur as well as the Principal Sercrtary, Jaipur, were directed to issue instructions for all investigating agencies to conduct TIP of the accused where the victim did not know him/her.

Title: X v State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 45

Click Here To Read/Download Order