LI Network
Published on: 17 August 2023 at 09:06 IST
The Kerala High Court has emphasized that the non-conduct of a Test Identification Parade (TIP) is fatal when the accused is identified by an occurrence witness who is unfamiliar with them. The court set aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court and the appellate court on the accused, stating that the prosecution witness failed to propose how they identified the accused during the accident at the dock during cross-examination before the police.
Justice A. Badharudeen, a Single Judge Bench, noted that when the witness identifies an unfamiliar accused at the dock and has not provided a statement to the police regarding the accused’s identity and how that identification was imprinted in their mind with certainty, non-conduct of a TIP becomes fatal in such cases.
Senior Advocate S. Sreekumar represented the Petitioner, while PP M.P Prasanth appeared for the Respondent.
In this case, the accused was driving a tanker lorry in a reckless manner, causing it to collide with an Activa Scooter ridden by Babu and a pillion rider named Anandu. Babu died, and Anandu sustained injuries. The accused was charged with offences under Sections 279, 337, and 304A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), as well as Section 134(a) read with Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act (M.V Act). The Magistrate Court convicted and sentenced the accused.
The Bench noted that identification of the accused at the dock during trial, in cases of direct evidence, is inherently weak due to its nature.
“The purpose of a prior test identification is to test and strengthen the trustworthiness of that evidence. Thus, a test identification parade (TIP) is considered a safe rule of prudence generally to seek corroboration of the sworn testimony of witnesses in court regarding the identity of the accused, who are strangers to them, through earlier identification proceedings,” the Bench added.
However, the Bench clarified that this rule of prudence has exceptions. For instance, if the court is convinced by a particular witness on whose testimony it can rely without further corroboration.
The Bench emphasized that while the failure to conduct a TIP wouldn’t render the identification evidence inadmissible if the identification is wholly reliable, the TIP is generally a rule of prudence to be used during the investigation stage.
“Identification parades do not constitute substantive evidence; the substantive evidence is the identification testimony in court, and the test identification parade provides corroboration to the court’s identification,” the Bench stated.
Consequently, the Bench acquitted the accused.
Case Title: Pauly v. State of Kerala
