Read Time: 06 minutes

The Supreme Court on Friday reiterated that it was well settled that Test Identification Parade (T.I Parade) was a part of investigation but not a substantive evidence.

"The question of holding T.I Parade arises when the accused is not known to the witness earlier. The identification by a witness of the accused in the Court who has for the first time seen the accused in the incident of offence is a weak piece of evidence especially when there is a large time gap between the date of the incident and the date of recording of his evidence. In such a case, T.I Parade may make the identification of the accused by the witness before the Court trustworthy. However, the absence of T.I Parade may not be ipso facto sufficient to discard the testimony of a witness who has identified the accused in the Court. In a given case, there may be otherwise sufficient corroboration to the testimony of the witness", held the Court.

A bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S Oka added that in some cases, the Court may be impressed with the testimony of the prosecution witnesses which is of a sterling quality and thus the testimony of such a witness can be believed.

These remarks were made by court while allowing an appeal filed by persons who were convicted under Section 55(a) of Kerala Abkari Act for transporting total quantity of 6090 litres of spirit without a license.

The appellant argued that TI Parade was not conducted and therefore, the version of prosecution witness that he identified the accused in the court nearly after lapse of 12 years cannot be believed.

It was noted that the prosecution witness accepted that he was not able to identify any persons whom he had seen 11 years back. However, he asserted that he can identify the accused though he had seen them for the first time more than 11 years back on the date of the incident. Therefore, in the facts of the case, the bench held that the evidence of the witness as regards the identification of the accused in the Court could not be accepted.

After analyzing the other evidences placed on record, the Court said,

"It is very difficult to believe that PW13 who was not knowing the accused Nos.2 and 4 prior to the incident could identify them in the Court after lapse of 11 years. That is also the case with all the official witnesses. The prosecution has chosen not to produce evidence regarding the correct registration number of the truck and the name of the registered owner thereof. Therefore, the entire prosecution case becomes doubtful."

Accordingly, the appeals were allowed. 

Cause Title: Jayan v State of Kerala