Test Identification Parade (ss. 7 & 9) — BSA (Law of Evidence) Notes

Test Identification Parade (ss. 7 & 9)

A witness sees a robber for thirty seconds in a crowded market. Weeks later the police stand the suspect in a line-up of similar-looking men and ask the witness to pick him out. If she picks the right man, that is powerful — but only if she had never been shown him first. The Test Identification Parade is built entirely around that “no peeking” safeguard.

A Test Identification Parade (TIP) is a procedure in which a witness is asked to identify the suspect from a line-up of several similar-looking persons, held soon after the crime, usually before a Magistrate. Its purpose is to test whether the witness can genuinely recognise the offender.

Where does it sit in the Act? It has no section of its own; its relevance flows from s. 7 (facts that establish the identity of a person whose identity is relevant) and s. 9 (facts that make the identity of the offender highly probable). The procedure for holding it is now provided by s. 54 BNSS (the criminal procedure code). So: substance from ss. 7 & 9 BSA, procedure from s. 54 BNSS.

The scoring points about its evidentiary value:

• A TIP is NOT substantive evidence. The substantive evidence is the witness’s identification of the accused in court, at the trial. The parade only corroborates that in-court identification and lends it assurance. A conviction cannot rest on the TIP alone.
• It must be held promptly. A parade held long after the arrest loses value — memory fades, and the risk that the witness was shown the accused in the meantime grows.
• It is worthless if the witness saw the accused beforehand. If the accused was shown to the witness at the police station, or his photograph was published, the parade proves nothing — the witness is identifying a face she already knows, not the offender.
• It must be fairly conducted. The suspect should be mixed with a sufficient number of persons of similar build, age and appearance, and the parade held before a Magistrate to guarantee fairness.

🧩 WORKED EXAMPLE — a tainted parade

Facts. W witnesses a dacoity. The next day, at the police station, the police point out the arrested suspect to W. A week later a TIP is held and W identifies that suspect. Is the TIP of any value?

Rule. A TIP corroborates in-court identification (ss. 7 & 9) but is worthless if the witness had already been shown the accused.

Apply. Because W was shown the suspect at the police station before the parade, W is merely recognising a face already pointed out — the parade tests nothing.

Conclusion. The TIP has no corroborative value; the identification is tainted, and the court will place no reliance on it.

Note the limit. Even a clean TIP is only corroboration; the witness must still identify the accused in court for the identification to be substantive evidence.

On the value of a TIP (settled judicial view): “Identification parades belong to the stage of investigation; they are not substantive evidence. The substantive evidence is the identification made in court; the earlier parade is used only to corroborate it.”

In Simple Terms: Picking the accused out of a line-up is a test of the witness’s memory done during the investigation. What convicts is the witness pointing to the accused in the courtroom; the parade just backs that up — and only if it was fair and prompt.

flowchart TD
    ROOT["Test Identification Parade"]:::root
    ROOT --> A["Substance: ss. 7 &amp; 9 BSA<br/>(establishes identity)"]:::leaf
    ROOT --> B["Procedure: s. 54 BNSS<br/>(before a Magistrate)"]:::leaf
    ROOT --> C["NOT substantive evidence<br/>— only corroborates in-court ID"]:::diamond
    ROOT --> D["Worthless if: delayed OR<br/>witness saw accused beforehand"]:::diamond
    classDef root fill:#FFF8DC,stroke:#000,stroke-width:1px,color:#000;
    classDef leaf fill:#E6F3FF,stroke:#1E3A8A,color:#000;
    classDef diamond fill:#FDECEA,stroke:#B22222,color:#000;
    linkStyle default stroke:#888,stroke-width:1px;

Case Laws

• Matru vs State of Uttar Pradesh (1971) — identification parades are not substantive evidence; they only corroborate the identification made in court and must be held promptly and fairly.
• Ramanathan vs State of Tamil Nadu (1978) — where the accused was shown to witnesses before the parade, the identification loses its value.

Back to Top

📄 Full notes + Question Bank (₹199) — every topic in depth, model answers to all past KSLU questions, in one printable PDF. Get the bundle · 10 Solved Problems · All BSA (Law of Evidence) topics