Test Identification Parade (TIP)…

✅ Test Identification Parade (TIP)

📌 Statutory Basis

• Section 54, BNSS (54A CrPC) – Police officer may seek court’s permission to conduct TIP of accused.
• Section 7, BSA (9 IEA) – Evidence of TIP is considered as part of identification evidence.

📌 Principles of TIP
Rajesh v. State of Haryana, 2020 SC

1. To ensure witnesses identify offender without tutoring.
2. Belongs to investigation stage; not a right of accused.
3. Should be held soon after arrest.
4. Court usually seeks corroboration of in-court identification.
5. Weight depends on case circumstances.

📌 Necessity & Purpose of TIP

• Tests veracity of witness & capacity to identify unknown persons.
• Meant primarily for investigation purposes.
• Tests memory of witnesses to decide whether they can be cited as eyewitnesses.
  ◾ Case Law
• Ramanathan v. State of Tamil Nadu, 1978 SC – TIP helps establish whether accused is actual perpetrator.
• Ram Babu v. State of U.P, 2010 SC – Tests credibility and trustworthiness of witnesses.
• Hare Kishan Singh v. State of Bihar, 1988 SC – If witness fails to identify in TIP, later in-court identification is useless.
• Har Nath Singh v. State of M.P, 1970 SC – TIP has dual purpose:

1. To confirm involvement of previously unknown person.
2. To corroborate witness testimony in court.

📌 Whether TIP is Essential?

• Not necessary if witnesses already know the accused.
• Not mandatory even if accused demands it.
  ◾ Case Law
• State of U.P. v. Sukhpal Singh, 2009 SC – TIP not needed when accused already known.
• Dana Yadav v. State of Bihar, 2002 SC – Same principle.
• R. Shahji v. State of Kerala, 2013 SC – If accused already known + media coverage → TIP not essential.
• Surendra Narain v. State of M.P, 1998 SC – Even on demand, TIP not mandatory.

📌 Precautions & Procedure

1. Conducted under Magistrate’s supervision.
2. No police presence.
3. Conduct immediately after arrest to preserve memory.
4. Accused placed with 4–6 dummies of similar features.
5. Witness identifies accused without external aid.

📌 Delay in TIP

• TIP should be conducted ASAP to avoid fabrication.
• Delay not fatal if satisfactorily explained.
  ◾ Case Law
• Md. Kalam v. State of Rajasthan, 2008 SC – Delay not fatal if justified.

📌 Evidentiary Value of TIP

• TIP is not substantive evidence, only corroborative.
• Substantive evidence = identification in court.
  ◾ Case Law
• Heera v. State of Rajasthan, 2007 SC – TIP is part of investigation, not substantive.
• George v. State of Kerala, 1998 SC – TIP corroborates witness testimony.
• Malkhan Singh v. State of M.P, 2003 SC – TIP is weak evidence.
• Chunthuram v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2020 SC – TIP in police presence = barred u/s 162 CrPC (now s.181 BNSS).

📌 Modern Identification Methods
1. DNA Identification
Kathi David Raju v. State of A.P, 2019 SC – DNA direction requires basis from investigation. Not for fishing inquiries.
Sunil v. State of M.P, 2017 SC – Non-conduct of DNA test doesn’t always weaken prosecution case.

2. Voice Identification
Ritesh Sinha v. State of U.P, 2019 SC – Magistrate can direct accused to provide voice sample even without consent.