Dock Identification Of Accused For First Time In Court Without Test Identification Parade Not Fatal To Prosecution Always : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has observed that dock identification of the accused in the absence of the Test Identification Parade (TIP) would not be fatal to the prosecution's case if the accused was sufficiently described in the complaint or was arrested on the spot immediately after the occurrence of the crime.

A bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale upheld the conviction of two individuals who were accused of committing an offence of kidnapping with the demand of ransom.

The accused person argued against the conviction stating that the dock identification by the witness for the first time in court, years after the incident, without a preceding TIP, does not inspire confidence.

Rejecting such as argument, the judgment authored by Justice Varale relying on Ronny @ Ronald James Alwaris Etc v. State of Maharashtra, (1998) 3 SCC 625 observed that since the witness had noted the distinctive features of the accused persons, coupled with the fact their arrest happened on spot immediately after the crime occurrence, then the failure to hold the TIP can't be fatal to the prosecutions' case.

“…where the witness had a chance to interact with the accused or that in a case where the witness had an opportunity to notice the distinctive features of the accused which lends assurance to his testimony in court, the evidence of identification in court for the first time by such a witness cannot be thrown away merely because no test identification parade was held.”, the court observed relying on Ronny @ Ronald James Alwaris Etc (supra).

“In the case at hand, the incident took place in broad daylight (6:30 am). The young girls (PW.2 and PW.3) had a clear, unobstructed opportunity to observe the physical features of the kidnappers during the traumatic confrontation that lasted several minutes, which included physical pushing and verbal exchange in Punjabi. They provided accurate physical descriptions to the police immediately.”, the court reasoned while rejecting the Appellant's argument.

In terms of the aforesaid, the appeal was dismissed.

Also From Judgment: Lack Of CDR From Rural Telephone Exchange In 2003 Not Material : Supreme Court Upholds Conviction In Kidnapping Case

Cause Title: HARJINDRA SINGH ETC. VERSUS THE STATE OF U.P.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 598

Click here to download judgment