Identifying Suspects: The Procedure and Importance of Test Identification Parades

When a crime is committed by a person unknown to the victim or witnesses, how do investigators confirm they have the right suspect in custody? The courtroom identification of an accused – pointing to someone across a room months after the incident – is inherently fragile. This is precisely where the Test Identification Parade (TIP) becomes indispensable. It is a structured, supervised procedure conducted during investigation that allows witnesses to identify a suspect among a group of people, long before the matter reaches trial. Understanding how TIPs work, what legal framework governs them, and what weight courts attach to them is essential for anyone studying criminal law in India.

What is a test identification parade? 🔗

A Test Identification Parade is a procedure in criminal investigations where an arrested suspect is placed among several other individuals of similar appearance, and witnesses or victims are asked to identify the perpetrator from the group – without any prior indication of who the suspect is. The primary goal is to test the reliability of a witness’s memory and their ability to recognise an unknown accused based on what they observed at the time of the crime.

As noted by Legal Bites, the TIP serves as an evidentiary tool particularly in cases where the accused was previously unknown to the witness. It is not primarily conducted for the benefit of the court but for the benefit of the investigation – to confirm that the inquiry is proceeding in the right direction. The Supreme Court in Hasib v. State of Bihar (1972) clearly stated that TIPs belong to the investigation stage and are aimed at providing the investigating authorities with material to assure themselves that they have the right person.

Legal framework governing TIPs in India 🔗

Historically, Indian law had no specific statutory provision for conducting a TIP. That gap was filled by the 2005 amendment to the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which introduced Section 54A. This provision empowers a court, on the request of the officer-in-charge of a police station, to direct an arrested person to subject themselves to identification by any person or persons in such manner as the court deems fit.

With the enactment of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), the corresponding provision is now Section 54, which retains the essence of the earlier CrPC provision but adds a significant update: the identification process can now be recorded through any audio-video electronic means – a step beyond the earlier requirement of mere videography. For witnesses who are mentally or physically disabled, the Judicial Magistrate conducting the parade must take appropriate steps to ensure the process is conducted using methods with which the witness is comfortable, and such proceedings must be electronically recorded.

The evidentiary basis for TIPs rests on Section 9 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (now mirrored in Section 7 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023), which covers facts necessary to explain or introduce relevant facts. The identification of an accused by a witness is treated as a relevant fact that aids the judicial process, as The Law Brigade explains in its critical analysis of TIP practice in India.

When is a TIP required? 🔗

A TIP is not mandated in every criminal case. It becomes necessary in specific circumstances. The investigating officer must consider requesting a parade before the magistrate when:

• The accused was unknown to the witness or victim before the crime was committed.
• Witnesses gave a vivid description of the accused in their statements or FIR but had no prior acquaintance with them.
• Witnesses stated they could identify the suspect based on physical features they observed during the offence.
• The accused was observed by witnesses for a sufficient duration and under adequate lighting conditions to retain distinguishing features.

Conversely, a TIP is not required when witnesses already know the accused personally and can identify them independently, or where the accused has been seen multiple times at different places and times, as noted by Legal Service India.

Step-by-step procedure for conducting a TIP 🔗

The procedure for a TIP follows a structured process aimed at eliminating bias and ensuring fairness. Here is how it unfolds:

1. Police prayer to the magistrate 🔗

The investigating officer files a written prayer before the concerned court requesting that the arrested person be directed to participate in a TIP. This request is made when the conditions described above are satisfied.

2. Supervision by a judicial magistrate 🔗

The TIP must be conducted and recorded by a Judicial Magistrate, preferably at the jail premises. This is a crucial safeguard. If the parade is conducted in the presence of a police officer, any identification made during it amounts to a statement within the meaning of Section 162 CrPC (Section 183 of BNSS), rendering it inadmissible as evidence, as Drishti Judiciary notes. Independent magistrate supervision is therefore non-negotiable for the TIP to have any evidentiary value.

3. Composition of the parade 🔗

The suspect is placed among several other individuals – typically eight to ten people – who resemble the accused in general physical characteristics such as age, height, build, and complexion. The witness is not told who the suspect is or where they are positioned in the group. Crucially, the Supreme Court in Shaik Santhai Madar v. State (2016) held that two accused persons cannot be clubbed into a single joint TIP – each accused must be subjected to a separate parade.

4. Identification by the witness 🔗

The witness is brought in and asked to identify the person they saw in connection with the crime. Every detail – including any mistakes made by the witness – must be carefully recorded by the magistrate. The fact that a witness may misidentify someone during a TIP does not automatically derail the investigation; it simply becomes part of the evidentiary record.

5. Property identification 🔗

TIPs are not limited to identifying persons. In cases where the identification of objects or property connected to a crime is necessary, a similar procedure is followed. The witness is asked to describe the property and confirm whether they can identify it among similar objects. Objects without special identification marks are generally considered to have higher evidentiary value than those with clearly distinguishing markings, since identifying the latter requires less precision of memory, as explained on iPleaders.

Evidentiary value of a TIP: corroborative, not substantive 🔗

One of the most important legal points to understand about TIPs is their evidentiary character. A TIP is not substantive evidence. The Supreme Court has consistently reiterated that the primary or substantive evidence in any criminal trial is the identification made by the witness in open court. The TIP merely serves to corroborate that in-court identification – it tests and strengthens the trustworthiness of the witness’s memory.

This was categorically stated by the Supreme Court in Munna v. State of NCT of Delhi (2003), which held that the TIP’s purpose is to test and strengthen the trustworthiness of existing substantial evidence, and that an identification during a TIP alone cannot form the sole basis for a conviction. As Live Law reports, failure to hold a TIP does not automatically make an in-court identification inadmissible – but it may weaken its evidentiary value, and courts must examine the weight to be attached to it accordingly.

The Supreme Court in Mahabir v. State of Delhi (AIR 2008 SC 2343) clarified that when a witness fails to identify the accused in court – even if identification was successfully made during the TIP – no conviction can be based on the TIP alone.

Can an accused refuse to participate in a TIP? 🔗

This has been a contested question in Indian criminal law. Before the 2005 amendment introducing Section 54A of the CrPC, no statutory provision compelled participation. The Supreme Court in Rajesh v. State of Haryana had reaffirmed that neither the CrPC nor the Indian Evidence Act made participation mandatory.

However, in the landmark Mukesh Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2023), a Supreme Court bench held that after the introduction of Section 54A, an accused is under an obligation to stand for a TIP and cannot resist on the ground of coercion. The court further held that this obligation does not violate Article 20(3) of the Constitution – the right against self-incrimination – because appearing in a TIP does not amount to giving testimony. As SCC Online reports, the court viewed that if an accused refuses to participate in a TIP, they do so at their own risk, and an adverse inference may be drawn against them.

It is worth noting that this judgment has not gone without academic debate. Some legal scholars, as noted by the Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy, argue that the decision misreads the text of the statute and overlooks the broader autonomy-based protections developed in the Article 20(3) jurisprudence under cases like Nandini Satpathy and Selvi. Nevertheless, as the law stands post-Mukesh Singh, an accused is expected to participate.

Key procedural pitfalls that can invalidate a TIP 🔗

Courts in India have been vigilant about the fairness of TIP procedures. Several situations can reduce or eliminate the value of a TIP:

• Police exposure before the parade: If the accused is shown to witnesses at the police station or presented at a press conference before the TIP, the subsequent identification loses credibility – the witness can no longer claim an independent recollection. The Supreme Court in Rajamoori Ram Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2016) made this explicit.
• Delay in conducting the TIP: A significant and unexplained delay between the arrest and the TIP can reduce its reliability, since witness memory fades with time. Courts have consistently held that TIPs should be held at the earliest possible opportunity.
• Conducting TIP without magistrate supervision: As mentioned, a TIP in the presence of only a police officer results in inadmissible identification evidence.
• Joint TIP of two accused: Conducting a single parade for two accused simultaneously has been held to be impermissible.

TIPs under India’s new criminal laws 🔗

With the BNSS, 2023 replacing the CrPC from July 2024, Section 54 now governs TIPs. While the substantive procedural framework remains largely the same, the BNSS introduces a broader provision for recording the process through any audio-video electronic means – not just videography as under the earlier CrPC. This change aligns with the broader digital push in India’s criminal justice reforms and addresses the growing recognition that the integrity of the TIP process must be verifiable through reliable electronic records.

The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA), which replaces the Indian Evidence Act, carries forward the same evidentiary principles in Section 7 that Section 9 of the earlier Act provided for – treating the identification of persons and things as relevant facts.

Why TIPs matter: accuracy, justice, and wrongful convictions 🔗

Mistaken identity is one of the most frequently cited causes of wrongful convictions in criminal justice systems worldwide. The TIP, when conducted properly, acts as a critical check against this risk. It places the witness’s identification claim under a controlled test before any courtroom pressure, narrative framing, or passage of time can distort memory. For the accused, a properly conducted TIP that results in non-identification can be an important safeguard. For the prosecution, a strong identification during a TIP supports the reliability of the witness when they identify the accused in court.

The procedure is equally relevant in property crimes, where the recovery and identification of stolen goods or weapons used in the commission of offences must be independently corroborated beyond the investigating officer’s claims.

What do you think? Given that a TIP is only corroborative and not substantive evidence, how much weight should courts give to an in-court identification that was never preceded by a TIP – particularly when the witness first saw the accused months before the trial? And with the BNSS now mandating electronic recording of TIPs, do you think this technological requirement is sufficient to address concerns about procedural manipulation, or do deeper structural reforms in how TIPs are conducted still remain necessary?

References

1. https://www.legalbites.in/bharatiya-Sakshya-adhiniyam//test-identification-parade-tip-in-criminal-investigation-1114876
2. https://www.indiacode.nic.in/handle/123456789/20099
3. https://thelawbrigade.com/criminal-law/test-identification-parade-a-critical-analysis-in-india-practice/
4. https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-10860-test-identification-parade-an-evaluation-through-judicial-pronouncements-its-utility-and-veracity.html
5. https://www.drishtijudiciary.com/current-affairs/test-identification-parade-when-doubtful
6. https://blog.ipleaders.in/understanding-test-identification-parade/
7. https://www.livelaw.in/articles/article-203-constitution-test-identification-parade-rights-obligations-240186
8. https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2023/08/25/test-identification-parade-do-not-violate-article-203-constitution-supreme-court/
9. https://vidhilegalpolicy.in/blog/misreading-section-54a/