Dock Identification Without TIP

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

The bench of Justices MM Sundresh and Satish Chandra Sharma in the case of Nazim & Ors. v. The State of Uttarakhand (2025) acquitted three persons convicted of murdering a minor, holding that dock identification without prior Test Identification Parade (TIP) is unreliable when accused are strangers to witnesses, and prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. 

What was the Background of Nazim & Ors. v. The State of Uttarakhand (2025) Case? 

• The Appellants-accused were convicted for the offence of murder of a 10-year-old boy. 
• The prosecution's case was based on the testimony of witnesses who claimed to have last seen the accused with the deceased. 
• No Test Identification Parade (TIP) was conducted to test the reliability of the witnesses' identification of the accused. 
• The accused were strangers to the witnesses, having no prior familiarity or acquaintance. 
• The trial court convicted the Appellants based solely on the witnesses' dock identification during trial. 
• The trial court ignored the fact that the Appellants were strangers to the witnesses, and no TIP had taken place. 
• The Uttarakhand High Court affirmed the trial court's decision, upholding the conviction. 
• Aggrieved by the High Court's judgment, the accused filed an appeal before the Supreme Court. 
• The prosecution's case relied entirely on circumstantial evidence.

What were the Court's Observations?

• The Court emphasized that where the accused is a stranger to the witness and no TIP is held, courts must exercise extreme caution in accepting such identification. 
• The Court relied on the precedent established in P. Sasikumar v. State (2024), which emphasized that failure to hold TIP renders dock identification doubtful and unsafe to rely upon. 
• The Court noted that dock identification without a prior TIP has little evidentiary value where the witness had no prior familiarity with the accused. 
• The Court observed that both witnesses identified the Appellants for the first time in court, which, in the absence of a TIP, renders their dock identification less credible. 
• The Court held that the witnesses' testimonies cannot constitute reliable evidence of identification. 
• The Court noted that the prosecution's case was entirely based on circumstantial evidence. 
• The Court found that the prosecution failed to establish a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances necessary for conviction. 
• The Court held that the circumstances on record were not consistent with the hypothesis of guilt of the accused. 
• The Court emphasized that the circumstances failed to exclude every other reasonable hypothesis, including the innocence of the accused. 
• The Court granted the benefit of doubt to the accused-appellants. 
• The Court set aside the impugned findings of both the trial court and the High Court. 
• The appeal was allowed, and the Appellants were acquitted of all charges. 

What is the Test Identification Parade (TIP)? 

About:  

• One of the methods of establishing the identity of the accused is TIP which is received under Section 9 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA). 
• This Section is now covered under Section 7 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA).  
• This Section deals with the facts necessary to explain or introduce relevant facts. 

Purpose:  

• The idea of the parade is to test the veracity of the witness on the question of his capability to identify from among several people an unknown person whom the witness had seen in the context of an offence. 
• It has two major purposes:  
• To satisfy the investigating authorities, that a certain person not previously known to the witnesses was involved in the commission of the crime.  
• To furnish evidence to corroborate the testimony which the witness concerned tenders before the Court. 

Essential Elements:  

• Identification parades shall be conducted by a Judicial Magistrate at the Jail as far as possible.   
• Statements made by the identifying witness during the identification parade should be recorded in the proceedings. Even if a witness makes a mistake, it should be recorded. 
• TIP is not a substantive piece of evidence in law and can only be used for corroborating or contradicting evidence of witness concerned as given in the Court.   

Case Law: 

• In Ramkishan v. State of Bombay (1955), the Supreme Court held during investigation, the police are required to conduct identification parades. These parades serve the purpose of enabling witnesses to identify either the properties that are the focus of the offence or the individuals involved in the crime. 

What is Dock Identification? 

About: 

• Dock identification is a process where a witness identifies the perpetrator while giving evidence in court. 
• The accused is typically the only person sitting in the dock (except in magistracy when defendant is on bail). 
• The purpose is to determine if the witness can recognize the perpetrator. 

Scenarios Where Dock Identification is Permissible: 

1. True and Genuine Recognition:

• Applicable when the defendant is well known to the witness. 
• The witness must have described the defendant at the time of or shortly after the offence. 
• The court must establish that the witness can recognize the defendant based on familiarity with their appearance. 

2. Previous Identification:

• Permitted when this is not the first time the witness has identified the accused. 
• The witness has already identified the defendant through some prior procedure. 

General Principle: 

• The judge has discretion to exclude identification evidence if it is the first-time identification. 
• Exception: Dock identification may be allowed for first-time identification if there is a very good reason, such as:  
  • The accused refused to attend an identification parade, AND 
  • No other proper means of identification was possible before trial (e.g., group identification, structured photo identification, or other recognized procedures). 

Key Takeaway: 

• Dock identification without prior identification procedure is generally unreliable and should be excluded unless exceptional circumstances exist.