In Cases Without Test Identification, Witness Identifying Accused For First Time During Trial After Many Years Raises Doubts : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently acquitted an individual accused of kidnapping a girl because the prosecution failed to conduct the test identification parade (“TIP”).

The bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and AG Masih was hearing the case where no TIP was conducted and the witness had identified the accused for the first time after a substantial gap of eight years.

The accused was initially convicted for the offence committed under Section 366 IPC (Kidnapping from lawful guardianship), however, maintaining the conviction, the High Court altered the conviction to Section 361 IPC (Kidnapping from Lawful Guardianship).

Noting that the victim was 19 years old at the date of the incident, the Court set aside the High Court's decision to convict the Appellant under Section 361. However, it found another aspect of 8 (eight) years of delay in the identification of the accused by the witness.

The Court said that though there's no bar for the witness to identify the accused for the first time in the witness box, the identification of the accused by the witness without conducting TIP after a substantial gap makes the prosecution's case doubtful.

“Furthermore, no identification parade has been conducted in the present matter. While identification by a witness in a given case for the first time in witness box would be permissible, the substantial gap of approximately eight years raises serious concern regarding identification. If no identification parade of the unknown accused persons took place, their identification in the Trial Court, for the first time, would cast a serious doubt on the veracity of the prosecution's case.”, the Court observed.

The Court reasoned that the long delays can affect the memory of witnesses and the quality of evidence, leading to doubts about the fairness of the trial process.

Accordingly, the appeal was allowed.

Case Title: VENKATESHA & ORS. VERSUS STATE OF KARNATAKA

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 116

Click here to read/download the judgment

Appearance:

For Appellant(s) Mr. Shekhar G. Devasa, Sr. Adv. Mr. Manish Tiwari, Adv. Mr. Thashmishtha Mothanna, Adv. Mrs. Sudha Gupta, AOR

For Respondent(s) Mr. Avishkar Singhvi, A.A.G. Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR Mr. Vivek Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Naved Ahmed, Adv.