Introduction:

The Allahabad High Court, in Kanahi and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 518, has elaborately explained the legal procedure governing a Test Identification Parade (TIP) while emphasizing that strict compliance with statutory safeguards is essential to preserve its evidentiary value. Justice Santosh Rai held that unexplained delay in conducting a TIP and failure to follow the procedure prescribed under the U.P. Police Regulations and the U.P. Jail Manual seriously weaken the prosecution’s case, particularly where the accused were unknown to the witnesses.

The case arose from a robbery committed on February 21, 1985, in which the complainant alleged that four unknown persons robbed him of cash, grocery items and containers of desi ghee while threatening him with a knife. An FIR was registered against unknown persons. Following investigation, four accused were arrested and subjected to a Test Identification Parade before being charge-sheeted and convicted by the trial court under Section 392 IPC. During the pendency of the appeal, two accused died, leaving the appeal to survive only against the remaining appellants.

Since the entire prosecution case rested upon the identification of the accused, the High Court examined whether the Test Identification Parade was conducted in accordance with law and whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction.

Arguments of the Parties:

The appellants contended that the prosecution had failed to establish their identity beyond reasonable doubt. They argued that the Test Identification Parade was conducted after an unexplained delay of about forty-two days from their admission to jail and more than two and a half months after the incident. Such delay, they submitted, created a possibility that the witnesses had already seen the accused before the parade, thereby destroying its evidentiary value.

The appellants further argued that the mandatory safeguards prescribed under the U.P. Police Regulations and the U.P. Jail Manual were not followed during the identification proceedings. They also pointed out that two independent witnesses participating in the Test Identification Parade failed to identify them. Apart from the complainant’s identification during trial, which took place more than two years after the incident, there was no reliable evidence connecting them with the offence. No stolen property, weapon or independent eyewitness supported the prosecution case.

The State defended the conviction, contending that the complainant had consistently identified the accused and that the trial court had rightly relied upon his testimony. It was argued that the Test Identification Parade, along with the evidence recorded during trial, sufficiently established the involvement of the accused in the robbery and justified the conviction.

Court’s Judgment:

The High Court allowed the appeal and acquitted the surviving appellants after finding serious defects in the prosecution’s evidence. The Court observed that the Test Identification Parade was held after an unexplained delay, giving sufficient opportunity for the accused to be shown to the witnesses before the identification proceedings. Such delay substantially reduced the reliability of the identification.

Justice Santosh Rai reiterated that a Test Identification Parade is not substantive evidence but only corroborative evidence under Section 9 of the Evidence Act. Its primary purpose is to test the memory and credibility of a witness who claims to have seen an unknown offender. The actual substantive evidence is the identification made before the trial court. However, where the accused was previously unknown, identification for the first time in court without reliable corroboration is considered weak evidence.

The Court also comprehensively explained the procedure governing a valid Test Identification Parade. It observed that after an accused is sent to judicial custody, the Investigating Officer should promptly seek permission from the Magistrate for holding the parade. The identification should ordinarily be conducted inside the jail under the supervision of a Judicial Magistrate. The Jail Superintendent must ensure that the accused’s appearance remains unchanged and that witnesses do not see the accused before the parade. The accused should be mixed with persons of similar appearance, each witness should identify independently without communication with others, and every procedural detail must be carefully recorded by the Magistrate to ensure fairness and transparency.

Examining the facts, the Court found that these mandatory safeguards had not been followed. The independent witnesses failed to identify the appellants during the Test Identification Parade, and the prosecution offered no satisfactory explanation for the considerable delay in conducting it. There was also no recovery of stolen property or weapon and no independent eyewitness to corroborate the complainant’s testimony.

Relying upon the Supreme Court decisions in Budhsen v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1970), State of Himachal Pradesh v. Lekh Raj (1999) and Malkhansingh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2003), the Court reaffirmed that while failure to hold a Test Identification Parade is not always fatal, where the accused are strangers to the witnesses, a defective or delayed parade significantly weakens the prosecution case.

Holding that the prosecution failed to establish the identity of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt, the High Court extended the benefit of doubt and acquitted the surviving accused. The judgment serves as an important reminder that strict adherence to the prescribed procedure for Test Identification Parades is essential to ensure fairness in criminal investigations and to safeguard the rights of the accused.