In criminal proceedings, a test identification parade is a method frequently used to identify the accused in a court of law. Witnesses are essential to this process since it is their job to identify the accused from a group of people on display during the parade.

Section 7 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 or Section 9 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 create the requirement to identify the accused as the identification in court. The purpose of an identification parade is to identify the individuals or properties that are the focus of an offence. In accordance with section 9 of the Evidence Act, a test identification parade is held when a first information report is filed against unidentified individuals. The purpose of this procedure is to see if the witness can correctly identify the accused out of a group of people. In a court of law, the identification of the rightful accused and their goods is admissible as relevant fact.

This procedure's primary goal is to determine if the witness can correctly identify the accused from a crowd of individuals. In light of the circumstances surrounding the incident, this establishes the witness's credibility in identifying an unknown individual. This technique is widely utilised by law enforcement to confirm the reliability of witnesses, particularly when the witness has only ever seen the accused at the crime site.

Purpose of Test Identification Parade
In the case of Ram kishan v. State of Bombay[1], it was decided that police require to hold identification parades while they were looking into a crime. The objective of these parades is to provide witnesses with an opportunity to identify the perpetrators or the properties that are the subject of the crime.

A test identification parade has the following key dimensions:

• It seeks to reassure the investigating authorities that a certain individual, who was previously unknown to the witnesses, may have been involved in the crime or that a specific piece of property was connected to it.
• It is also intended to offer proof that validates and reinforces the testimony that the relevant witness provides in a court of law.
• Furthermore, it protects the accused's interests by assisting in the removal of any potential for false implication.

Exception For Test Identification Parade

Exceptionally, Test Identification Parades may not be necessary in certain situations and this exception has been clarified by various judgments from the Supreme Court of India:

1. In State of H.P. v. Prem Chand,^[1] the Supreme Court ruled that in situations where a witness is already familiar with the accused and is able to positively identify them in court, there is no need for a test identification parade. It might not be necessary to conduct a formal test identification parade if the accused is already well-known.
2. In Ramesh Kumar v. State of Punjab,^[2] the Supreme Court upheld the Prem Chand case's guiding principle, underlining that test identification parades are not required where a witness is already familiar with and able to identify the accused in court.
3. The Supreme Court decided in State of A.P. v. V.K. Venkata Reddy,^[3] that a witness's evidence in a court of law has substantial significance and that the accused's identification in a test identification parade only serves to corroborate the testimony given in court.
4. In Dana Yadav v. State of Bihar,^[4] the Supreme Court restated its stance, underlining that the main goal of the test identification parade is to bolster the accused's court identification. Test Identification Parades are thought of as a means of bolstering the identifications produced throughout the trial.

Biases And Limitations Of Identification Parades

An identification parade is a police procedure used to identify suspects in criminal investigations. In this process, a witness is presented with a group of people, one of whom is the suspect, and asked to identify the person they saw commit a crime. While identification parades can be useful in solving crimes, they have several biases and limitations that can affect their accuracy and reliability. In this article, we will discuss these biases and limitations with case laws to illustrate how they can impact the outcome of an identification parade.

1. Bias based on the witness's expectation: The witness's expectancy bias is one of the biggest biases during an identification parade. Based on their own prejudices and presumptions, witnesses may have preconceived notions about the suspect's appearance, which may affect their ability to identify them. In R v. Turnbull, the court determined that if a witness had developed an impression of the accused before the identification procedure, the witness' identification may not be credible. Similar to this, the court determined in R v. Hanson that a witness' identification was not credible as the witness had already seen the suspect's portrait.
    
2. Bias based on the suspect's appearance: The suspect's appearance is a major source of bias during an identification parade. It might be simpler for the witness to identify a suspect that the police select if they stand out from the other suspects. This kind of bias, referred to as "suggestion bias," occurs when the police propose to the witness who the suspect is. The court concluded in R v. Turnbull that using a defendant who sticks out during an identification parade may result in faulty identification evidence.
    
3. Limitations based on the quality of the witness's observation: The witness's capacity to recognise and recall the suspect's features will determine how accurate the identification process is. The witness' identification could not be trustworthy if they were not paying attention or had a brief interaction with the culprit. The court determined in R v. Abreu that a witness' identification was not credible as the witness had only briefly seen the culprit and had not noted any distinguishing characteristics.
    
4. Limitations based on the nature of the crime: An identification parade's accuracy may also be impacted by the type of crime committed. The witness's memory for the suspect's characteristics can be compromised if the crime was violent or upsetting. In R v. Turnbull, the court determined that a witness' identification was not credible since the witness might not have been able to correctly identify the culprit since they were shocked at the time of the crime.
    
5. Limitations based on the composition of the identification parade: The accuracy of the identification parade can also be affected by its makeup. The identification might not be accurate if the suspect is the only one in the group who does not look like the local population as a whole or if the group does not reflect the diversity of the community. The court determined that using an all-male identification parade was unjust to the female suspect in R v. A and R v. B and produced an untrustworthy identification. The Indian Supreme Court has noted that the identity provided by the accused cannot be trusted, particularly when it is not supported by any other evidence or by the accused's identification from a prior identification parade.[7]
   
   The identification parade is a formal procedure conducted under police supervision, and it is used to place a suspect in a line-up with other persons for identification. The identification parade enables the witness to identify the suspect in a controlled environment. On the other hand, if the prosecution declines to conduct an identification parade on the grounds that the witnesses were already familiar with the accused, the accused is entitled to the benefit of the doubt.

Relevant Case Laws:

1. Matru v. State of U.P.[1]:
   • The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that:
     • Identification Tests do not qualify as substantive evidence. They are mainly intended to provide the investigating agency with reassurance that their progress with the criminal investigation is going in the correct direction. The identification is only admissible in court as evidence supporting the statement. Similarly, it was held by the court in Santokh Singh v. Izhar Hussain.[2]
        
     • An identification parade may only be required if the accused have not been known to the witnesses previously. The purpose of a test identification parade is for witnesses who swear to have seen the offenders at the scene to identify them among the crowd without assistance or assistance from any other source. The purpose of the test is to verify their accuracy. Stated differently, the primary goal of an identification parade held during the investigative phase is to assess the witnesses' recollection based on their initial impressions and to help the prosecution determine which witnesses, if any, could be called as eyewitnesses to the crime.
        
     • As soon as the accused is taken into custody, it is preferable to hold a test identification parade. This is required to make sure that there is no chance that the accused would be shown to the witnesses before the test identification parade. Since the accused frequently raises this defence, the prosecution must exercise caution to make sure there is no possibility of making such an accusation. It cannot, however, be considered fatal to the prosecution if circumstances are out of control and there is some delay.
        
2. Ram Nath Mahto v. State of Bihar[3]:
   • The appellant's conviction was confirmed by the Supreme Court in this case, despite the fact that the witness, who had recognised the accused during the test identification parade, had refrained from identifying him during his deposition in court due to fear. This Court took note of the trial judge's findings regarding the witness's demeanour, noting that he appeared trembling at the accused, Ram Nath, and speculated that the witness might have been terrified of him. The testimony of the Magistrate, who led the test identification parade in which the witness recognised the appellant, was also considered by this court. This Court determined that there was no need to intervene in the case in question if the appellant had been found guilty by the lower courts.
      
3. Suresh Chandra Bahri v. State of Bihar[4]:
   • The Hon'ble Court ruled in this case that although it is well established that a witness's testimony in court constitutes substantive evidence, it is crucial for a witness to identify an accused person as soon as they are arrested if they have never met them before. This ensures that the investigation is going in the proper direction and provides support for the testimony the witness will provide later in court during the trial. From this view point, it is critical that such identification take place as soon as possible after the accused is arrested, for the sake of the investigating agency, the accused, and the proper administration of justice. Justice and fair play can only be guaranteed to the prosecution and the accused by following this one course. Thereafter, this Court observed:
     • But the position may be different when the accused or a culprit who stands trial had been seen not once but for quite a number of times at different point of time and places which fact may do away with the necessity of a TI parade.
        
4. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Boota Singh and others[5]:
   • The Hon'ble Supreme Court noted that stronger identification evidence results from a witness seeing the accused for an extended period of time during the day, when he can take more careful note of the accused's features than if the witness sees the accused for a short while on a dark night.

Reforms And Best Practices For Conducting Identification Parades In India: Lessons From Global Jurisprudence

The Code of Criminal Procedure in India regulates identification parades and establishes standards for behaviour. To increase their efficacy, a number of best practices and modifications have been proposed in response to reservations regarding the fairness and consistency of these identification parades. Here are some lessons from global jurisprudence that can inform reforms and best practices for conducting identification parades in India:

• Use of Double-Blind Procedures: In a double-blind procedure, the person conducting the parade does not know the identity of the suspect, and the witness does not know which person in the parade is the suspect. This removes the possibility that inadvertent cues or biases could interfere with the identification process. In a number of nations, such as the UK and Australia, identification parades employ double-blind processes. To maintain accuracy and fairness, India ought to think about using this procedure as well.[1]
   
• Limiting the Number of Participants: An identification parade may include up to 12 participants, according to the Code of Criminal Procedure. Larger line-ups, however, have been found to raise the possibility of misidentification. Some US jurisdictions have restricted participation to six people or fewer. India ought to think about lowering the number of competitors in line-ups in order to increase accuracy.
   
• Sequential Line-Ups: Witnesses are shown each participant individually rather than all at once in a sequential line-up. Because witnesses are compelled to compare each participant to their memory of the suspect rather than to each other, this strategy has been demonstrated to lessen the likelihood of misidentification. Sequential line-ups are used in a number of nations, including the US and the UK. To increase the accuracy of identification parades, India ought to think about implementing this technique as well.
   
• Video Recording: Identification parades can be reviewed and examined via a video recording, which can be a useful tool. It can also be used as proof in court to show that the identification was accurate and fair. A number of nations, such as the US and the UK, mandate that identification parades be videotaped. To promote accountability and openness, India ought to think about enforcing video recording laws.[2]
   
• Training and Education: The abilities and expertise of individuals leading identification parades determine how successful they are. Police officers and other staff members involved in the identification process can benefit from training and education to better grasp optimal practices and steer clear of typical pitfalls. Personnel involved in identification procedures receive training from a number of nations, including the US and the UK. India could think about offering instruction and training to increase the efficacy of identification parades.

Conclusion
India's identification parade law has changed dramatically throughout the years as a result of numerous important rulings from the Supreme Court and High Courts. But there's still room for improvement when it comes to staff training, procedure standardization, and integrating contemporary technologies.

One way forward is to create a uniform protocol for conducting identification parades that outlines rules for participant selection, the use of suitable identification techniques, and documentation of the identification process could be one step in the right direction. A group of specialists might create such a protocol after consulting with the legal system, law enforcement, and other relevant parties.

In conclusion, the development of a standardised procedure, staff training, the application of contemporary technology, and increased public knowledge are all necessary steps towards the future of India's identification parade law. By using these steps, the criminal justice system's credibility may be increased and identification parade accuracy and dependability may be increased.

End Notes:

1. Tejbir Chugh, Demystifying Test Identification Parade, I PLEADERS, https://blog.ipleaders.in/demystifying-test-identification-parade/
2. Nyaay Shastra, Validity of Test Identification Parade as an Admissible Piece of Evidence, 2, HC, 5, 8-11 (2021), validity-of-test-identification-parade-as-an-admissible-piece-of-evidence.pdf.pdf
3. Matru v. State of U.P., 1971 (2) SCC 75
4. Santokh Singh v. Izhar Hussain, 1973 (2) SCC 406
5. Ram Nath Mahto v. State of Bihar, 1996 8 SCC 630
6. Suresh Chandra Bahri v. State of Bihar, 1995 Supp (1) SCC 80
7. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Boota Singh and Ors., 1979 (1) SCC 31
8. State of H.P. v. Prem Chand, 2002 (10) SCC 518
9. Ramesh Kumar v. State of Punjab
10. State of A.P. v. V.K. Venkata Reddy
11. Dana Yadav v. State of Bihar
12. R v. Turnbull, [1977] QB 224
13. K. Srivalli Vaishnavi, Test Identification Parade, JCLS, https://www.juscorpus.com/test-identification-parade/
14. Sarvesh Kumar Shahi, Rules and Principles of Identification under Criminal Justice System, SCC, https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2020/08/20/rules-and-principles-of-identification-undercriminal-justice-system/
15. Ram Kishan v. State of Bombay, AIR 1955 SC 104

Also Read:

• Test Identification Parade An Evaluation Through Judicial Pronouncements, Its Utility And Veracity