Draft:Test identification parade
A test identification parade (TIP) or a police lineup is an identification process via which witnesses identify the culprits.[1] The whole idea of a TIP is to ensure that the accused is correctly identified by the witness without the help of any other source and to prevent false identifications.[2] This becomes redundant in cases wherein the accused is already known to the witness.
Legal Provisions regarding Test Identification Parade
In India, Section 54 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS)[3] governs the identification of an arrested person and replaced Section 54A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC)[4] from 1 July 2024. The relevance of facts establishing the identity of a person or thing is addressed by Section 7 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA),[5] which replaced the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.[6]
Section 54 lays down the procedure for identification of arrested persons which provides that the arrested person shall subject himself to the identification process. On the request of the officer in charge of a police station, the court having jurisdiction may direct the arrested person to submit to identification by another person or persons. It additionally provides that if the person identifying the arrested person is mentally or physically disabled, the identification process must take place under the supervision of a Judicial Magistrate, who shall take appropriate steps to ensure that the witness identifies the arrested person using methods with which they are comfortable. The identification process must also be recorded through audio-video electronic means.[3]
Section 7 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 states that facts that help establish the identity of a person or thing involved in a case can be considered relevant, but only to the extent needed to establish their identity.[5]
Procedure for Conducting Test Identification Parade:
During an identification parade, the person(s) to be identified by a witness should be kept out of the witness's sight until the identification exercise begins. Where several witnesses are to participate, they should be kept separate so that one witness does not influence another. Additionally, the accused should change positions after each witness has completed the identification.[7] Any change in position or dress should be recorded in the proceedings.[8]
It is important to maintain a healthy ratio between suspects and non-suspects during a TIP.[9] If applicable Prison Manuals or official guidelines prescribe a ratio regarding the composition of the parade, it is mandatory for the officer-in-charge to adhere to those rules/guidelines during the TIP.[9]
During the TIP, it is a sine qua non that individuals who are not suspects should belong to the same age group and possess similar physical characteristics (such as size, weight, color, facial hair, scars, marks, bodily injuries, etc.) to those of the suspects. If a suspect has distinguishing features, persons with similar features should be included in the parade.[10] The overseeing officer should document these physical features before commencing the TIP process. This gives credibility to the TIP and ensures that the TIP is not just an empty formality.[9]
Undue delay in conducting a TIP has a serious bearing on the credibility of the identification process.[9] It is important to conduct the TIP as soon as possible, even though there is no fixed timeline for the same. Delay may affect the credibility of the identification process, particularly where it creates a possibility that the witnesses may have seen the accused before the TIP. To this effect, the Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that the possibility of witnesses seeing the accused by itself can be a decisive factor for rejecting the TIP.[9]
The procedure for conducting a TIP may vary according to the applicable rules and practice in the relevant jurisdiction. If the applicable procedure requires a Judicial Magistrate to conduct or supervise the identification proceedings, the Judicial Magistrate should document and sign the proceedings. Any statements made by the identifying witness during the Test Identification Parade (TIP) must be included in the records, including any identification, mistakes, objections or irregularities. Additionally, if any accused raises a valid objection during the identification parade, it should also be recorded. If the applicable rules require the proceedings to be prepared or transmitted to the concerned court, those requirements should be followed. If the applicable rules require a certificate, it should be attached and signed by the conducting Magistrate.[8]
The Supreme Court has held that TIPs form part of the investigative process and are conducted as part of the investigating agency's statutory prerogatives. There is no statutory provision authorizing the accused to pray for placing him in the test parade.[11]
Evidentiary value of Test Identification Parade:
A Test Identification Parade (TIP) does not constitute substantive evidence. It is an investigative procedure primarily conducted for the purpose of helping the investigating agency to check if the investigation is proceeding on the right path.[12]
TIPs are also used to corroborate the testimony of a witness identifying the accused during trial proceedings, since identification of an accused for the first time at trial is, by its very nature, inherently weak.[13] However, such corroboration is a matter of prudence, and may not be required where the court finds a particular witness highly credible and reliable.
Failure to hold a test identification parade would not make inadmissible the evidence of identification in court.[14] The weight to be attached to such identification should be a matter for the courts of fact, which may, in appropriate cases, accept identification evidence even without corroboration.[13] However, where an accused refuses to participate in a TIP without sufficient justification, the court may draw an adverse inference against the accused.[15]
Test Identification Parade vis-a-vis Article 20(3)
In the case of Mukesh Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi)[11] the Supreme Court held that after the introduction of Section 54A in the CrPC (the predecessor of Section 54 of the BNSS), an accused is under an obligation to stand for identification parade.[4] The Court held that the accused cannot refuse to participate in the Test Identification Parade (TIP) by claiming coercion or force, as the accused is not required to make a statement or provide evidence; rather, it is the witness who identifies the accused. Therefore, Article 20(3) of the Constitution, which protects a person from being compelled to be a witness against themselves, does not apply to participation in a TIP.[11]
Types of Identification
Identification by photographs:
Apart from identification through a police line-up, identification is also done by photographs, to which the same provisions of law apply. It is a relatively inexpensive and easy-to-use method. In fact, the Supreme Court has held in Laxmi Raj Shetty v. State of T.N.,[16] that identification by photographs may take the place of a test identification parade.
The manner of conducting a photo identification parade is similar to that of a test identification parade. The officer-in-charge will show the witness a set of photographs, which should include the photograph of the suspect along with photographs of non-suspects who are similar in appearance to the suspect. The witness’ identification should then be recorded and submitted. It is important to note that the suspect’s photo should not have been published in print or electronic media previously.[17]
As with test identification parades, there are regional variations in photo identification as well. For example, the State of Odisha specifically lays down that video clippings, CCTV footage(s), recording(s) pertaining to the accused’s movements can be used for identification, just like a photograph.[18] The Union Territory of Puducherry[17] states that in case of photo identifications, a regular identification parade should be held after the accused has been arrested.
Identification of Property:
Property identification parades[19] must be held in the court of the magistrate where the property is stored. Each item of property must be displayed separately for the parade, mixed up with at least four other similar items. Before calling the witnesses to identify the property, the investigating officer must ask them to describe the identification marks of their property. The witnesses must be called one by one and, after leaving, must not be allowed to communicate with the witnesses who have not yet been called.
Regional Variations with respect to the Conduct of Test Identification Parade
Various states in India such as Maharashtra,[20] Odisha,[21] Punjab,[22] Tamil Nadu,[23] and Andhra Pradesh,[24] along with other States[25] have adopted supplementary guidelines for the conduct of identification parades. These guidelines operate alongside the statutory framework under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and contain procedural requirements that may vary between jurisdictions, as elaborated below.
For example, while the State of Maharashtra[26] mentions that a ratio of 1:6 between suspect(s) and non-suspects has to be maintained during identification parades, the Union Territory of Puducherry[27] prescribes a ratio ranging from 1:5 to 1:10. On the other hand, the State of Nagaland[28] prescribes a ratio of 1:8 to 1:10 in the case of a single suspect. If there is more than one suspect, its rules require the suspects to be paraded along with 20 to 30 non-suspects. The State of Andhra Pradesh[29] does not prescribe any such ratio for the parade.
All the States prescribe that only authorized personnel are allowed to be present during parade and that the witness should not be allowed to see the suspect before the commencement of the parade. The Rules and Orders of High Court of Punjab & Haryana[30] even state that if a parade has to be conducted, the suspect should be produced with his face covered and this fact has to be recorded in the remand order.
As far as it relates to prescribing an officer to oversee the procedure, the States of Maharashtra[31] and Uttar Pradesh[32] that categorically place on record that Judicial Magistrates ought not to be associated with Test Identification Parades. Most other states lay down that the Magistrate nominated by the Chief Judicial Magistrate should be in-charge of the Parade.
All States require the Magistrate in-charge to submit the report of the parade to the jurisdictional court in the manner provided for in their respective manuals.
International Approaches to Identification Procedure
Throughout history, numerous cases exist in which individuals were wrongly convicted primarily on the grounds of eyewitness identification evidence. To prevent the miscarriages of justice, the Court of Appeal of England and Wales in R v Turnbull [1977] QB 224 (CA)[33] issued guidelines on how to deal with cases involving disputed identification. These guidelines are known as the ‘Turnbull guidelines'.[34] The Turnbull guidelines apply only when the case against the accused depends wholly or substantially on the correctness of the identification and when that identification is in dispute. Some of the important factors determining reliability of the identification include the conditions in which the witness observed the person, such as visibility and lighting, the distance between the witness and the person observed, the duration of the observation, and whether the observation was fleeting or made under difficult conditions.[35][33] Where the identification evidence is of poor quality, the judge should direct an acquittal unless there is other evidence supporting the correctness of the identification.[33][34]
In England and Wales, these judicial safeguards operate alongside Code D of the Codes of Practice issued under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, which regulates police identification procedures, including identification parades, video identification and group identification. Code D also provides for other forms of identification, including fingerprints, footwear impressions and DNA comparison.[36]
Comparable judicial safeguards concerning the reliability of eyewitness identification have also developed in other common-law jurisdictions, including New Zealand[37], Canada[38] and Australia[39].
References
- ↑ ↑ Rules and Principles of Identification under Criminal Justice System, Sarvesh Kumar Sahni, SCC Online Blog, [last accessed on 07/11/2023]
- ↑ Abdul Waheed Khan v. State of A.P., (2002) 7 SCC 175.
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, s 54, [last accessed on 11/09/2026].
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, s 54A.
- ↑ 5.0 5.1 Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, s 7, [last accessed on 11/09/2026].
- ↑ Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, s 170, [last accessed on 11/09/2026].
- ↑ Rule 1775(8), Pondicherry - Criminal Rules of Practice, [last accessed on 13/09/2026].
- ↑ 8.0 8.1 Conduct of Test Identification Parades for suspects and property recovered during investigation by Sri C.N. Murthy, Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Kadapa, [last accessed on 11/09/2026]
- ↑ 9.0 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4 Gireesan Nair v. State of Kerala, (2023) 1 SCC 180.
- ↑ Rajesh Govind Jagesha v. State of Maharashtra, (1999) 8 SCC 428.
- ↑ 11.0 11.1 11.2 Mukesh Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1061.
- ↑ Matru v. State of M.P., AIR 1971 SC 1050.
- ↑ 13.0 13.1 Malkhansingh v. State of M.P., (2003) 5 SCC 746.
- ↑ Prakash v. State of Karnataka, (2014) 12 SCC 133.
- ↑ Manu Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2010) 6 SCC 1.
- ↑ Laxmi Raj Shetty v. State of T.N., (1988) 3 SCC 319.
- ↑ 17.0 17.1 Rule 1776, Note, Pondicherry - Criminal Rules of Practice, [last accessed on 13/09/2026].
- ↑ CB Circular No. 08/2019, Identification of accused by conducting Photo Test Identification Parade - Odisha, [last accessed on 07/11/2023].
- ↑ Rule 1779, Note, Pondicherry - Criminal Rules of Practice [last accessed on 13/09/2026].
- ↑ Criminal Rules of Practice - Maharashtra, [last accessed on 07/11/2023]
- ↑ CB Circular No. 08/2019 - Identification of accused by conducting Photo Test Identification Parade - Odisha, [last accessed on 07/11/2023].
- ↑ Rules and Orders by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, [last accessed on 07/11/2023].
- ↑ Criminal Rules of Practice, 2019 - Madras, [last accessed on 07/11/2023].
- ↑ Rules and Orders by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, [last accessed on 13/09/2026]
- ↑ Pondicherry - Criminal Rules of Practice; Sikkim - Criminal Rules of Practice; Rajasthan - Criminal Rules of Practice; Uttar Pradesh - Criminal Rules of Practice, [last accessed on 13/09/2026].
- ↑ Rule 3(v), Identification Parades, Circular No. PRO-2460/16653-IX, dated 16.08.1963 - Criminal Rules of Practice - Maharashtra, [last accessed on 07/11/2023].
- ↑ Rule 1773, Pondicherry - Criminal Rules of Practice, [last accessed on 13/09/2026].
- ↑ Rule 182, Nagaland Police Manual Part-V 2, [last accessed on 13/09/2026].
- ↑ Rule 34(2)(a), Rules and Orders by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, [last accessed on 13/09/2026].
- ↑ Rule 4(xiii), Rules and Orders by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, [last accessed on 13/09//2026].
- ↑ Rule 1, Identification Parades, Circular No. PRO-2460/16653-IX, dated 16.08.1963 - Criminal Rules of Practice - Maharashtra, [last accessed on 07/11/2023].
- ↑ C.L. No. 70/Adm. (B), dated 7th May, 1974, General Rules (Criminal), 1977 - Uttar Pradesh, [last accessed on 07/11/2023].
- ↑ 33.0 33.1 33.2 R v Turnbull, [1977] QB 224 (CA).
- ↑ 34.0 34.1 Turnbull guidelines: The Turnbull Guidelines and Mistaken Identification at Criminal Trials - claims.co.uk, [last accessed on 07/11/2023].
- ↑ Evidence that tends to prove the identity of a person - Oxford Reference , [last accessed on 13/09/2026].
- ↑ Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984: PACE Codes of Practice - GOV.UK , [last accessed on 13/09/2026].
- ↑ Evidence Act 2006, ss 45, 126 - New Zealand Legislation, [last accessed on 13/09/2026].
- ↑ R v Hibbert, 2002 SCC 39.
- ↑ Dhanhoa v The Queen, [2003] HCA 40.