Section -9 IEA
TIP Test Identification Parade with all anology
- Facts necessary to explain or introduce a fact in issue or relevant fact,
- which support or rebut an inference suggested by a fact in issue or relevant fact,
- which establish the identity of any thing or person whose identity is relevant,
- fix the time or place at which any fact in issue or relevant fact happened,
- which show the relation of parties by whom any such fact was transacted, are relevant in so far as they are necessary for that purpose.
- The question is, whether a given document is the will of A.
The state of A’s property and of his family at the date of the alleged will may be relevant facts.
- A sues B for a libel imputing disgraceful conduct to A; B affirms that the matter alleged to be libellous is
The position and relations of the parties at the time when the libel was published may be relevant facts as introductory to the facts in issue.
The particulars of a dispute between A and B about a matter unconnected with the alleged libel are irrelevant, though the fact that there was a dispute may be relevant if it affected the relations between A and B.
- A is accused of a crime.
The fact that, soon after the commission of the crime, A absconded from his house, is relevant, under section 8, as conduct subsequent to and affected by facts in issue.
The fact that, at the time when he left home, he had sudden and urgent business at the place to which he went, is relevant, as tending to explain the fact that he left home suddenly.
The details of the business on which he left are not relevant, except in so far as they are necessary to show that the business was sudden and urgent.
- A sues B for inducing C to break a contract of service made by him with A, C, on leaving A’s service, says to A –– “I am leaving you because B has made me a better offer.” This statement is a relevant fact as explanatory of C’s conduct, which is relevant as a fact in issue.
- A, accused of theft, is seen to give the stolen property to B, who is seen to give it to A’s wife. B says as he delivers it––“A says your are to hide this.” B’s statement is relevant as explanatory of a fact which is part of the transaction.
- A is tried for a riot and is proved to have marched at the head of a mob. The cries of the mob are relevant as explanatory of the nature of the transaction.
Test Identification Parade
Heera v. State of Rajasthan 2007 Cr.L.J. 3514- In this case some principles for holding TIP-
- TIP don’t constitute substantive evidence.These are used for corroboration purposes.
- The main object of holding an identification parade during investigation stage into test the memory of witness.
- TIP should be conducted as soon as after the arrest of the accused.
- Appriciation of TIP will depend upon trustworthiness of witnesses.
Whether conduction of TIP is necessary?
Case Law- Ravi Kapoor v. State of Rajasthan, 2012 (9) SCC 284
TIP is not mandatory and nor it can be claimed by accused or suspect as a matter of right.
Dock Identification (Identification in Court)
Kanta Prasad v. Delhi Administration AIR 1958 SC 350
Failure to hold an identification parade doesn’t make evidence of identification before thje court inadmissible.
Ram Nath Naik v. State 1995 2255
Identification for the first time during trial is inherently of a veryu week character which loses much of its value without prior Test Identification Parade.
Witness failing to identify accused in court
Yakoob Abdul RaZak Memon v. State of Maharashtra ( 2013)13 SCC1
Witness deposed before the court after a lapse of two and a half years after the incident,Failed to identity the accused.
The SC observed that it was plausiable that memory could have faded. However, during the identification parades, which was conducted soon after the incident the witness identified the accused accurately.Witness corroborate the evidence of other witnesses.Non identification is not fatal for prosecution.
Whether Accused person has a right to demand identification parade
Sheo Shankar Singh v. State of Jharkhand ( 2011) 3 SCC 654
In this case accused alleges witness never seen accused person before and demanded TIP. It was held that TIP belongs to the stage of investigation. There is no provision in Cr.PC for Demand by accused for TIP
Tek Chand v. State AIR 1965 Punj 146
It was held that though accused cannot compel the prosecution for TIP but normally it is desirable that TIP should be held if so desired by accused.
Effect of presence of police officer
Ram Kishan v. State, AIR 1955 SC 104 – It was held that where an TIP is conducted by police, the evidence of such identification either of the property or of the person is hit by sec. 162 Cr.PC
Proush Kumar v.King AIR 1951 cal 475
It was held that no police officer should be present in the vicinity where TIP is being conducted. Police officer should not accompany identifying witness even for sometime to prior TIP.
Can accused person refuse to attend TIP?
Pargam Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 14 SCC 619
Where the ple that accused person refused to participate in TIP. Accused plead that his face is already shown to witness at police station. This plea was first time raised before supreme court only. It was held that plea is not sustainable. It should have been raised at trial court.
State of Haryana v. Surender ( 2007) 11 SCC 281
It was held that where accused person refused to attend in TIP. The evidence of witness identifying accused in court can be relied upon.
What is Evidentary Value of TIP?
R. Shaji V. State of Kerela (2013) 14 SCC 266
It was held that it is not a substantive piece of evidence. It can be used for corroboration or contradiction purposes.
Can Sole TIP be used for purpose of Conviction?
Ramesh Kumar Soni v. State of M.P., 1997 Cr.L.J. 3418 MP
Conviction Can be based on sole evidence of TIP. When the court concludes that the testimony of identifying witness was beyond suspicion.
What other things can be used for purpose of TIP u/s 9 of IEA?
R V. Tolsons ( 1864) 4F & F 103
It was held that Photographs, sketches and photo-fits of crime may be admissible.
What is Evidentary Value of Sniffer Dogs?
Gade Laxmi Mangraju v. State of AP 2001 Cr.LJ 3317 It was held that it is week type of evidence and court should not bother about it.
Section -9 IEA