TIP Report Would Lose Its Evidentiary Value If Witness Identifying Person Or Article Is Not Examined During Trial: SC

Post By 24 Law
June 25, 2025

Pranav B Prem

The Supreme Court has reiterated that a test identification parade (TIP) conducted under Section 9 of the Evidence Act, 1872, is merely corroborative evidence and not substantive. The court held that if the witness who identified a person or an article in the TIP is not examined during the trial, the TIP report, which may otherwise be used for corroboration or contradiction, would lose its evidentiary value.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Manoj Misra observed: “Thus, if the witness who identified a person or an article in the TIP is not examined during trial, the TIP report which may be useful to corroborate or contradict him would lose its evidentiary value for the purposes of identification… Be that as it may, once the person who identifies the accused during the TIP is not produced as a witness during trial, the TIP is of no use to sustain an identification by some other witness.”

Case Background

The appeal before the Supreme Court arose from a judgment of the Chhattisgarh High Court that had affirmed the conviction of the appellant under Section 395 read with Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959. The prosecution case related to a dacoity incident that occurred in 1993, wherein a group of eight armed men allegedly robbed passengers on a running bus. One of the culprits put a country-made pistol to the driver's temple and forced him to stop the vehicle. The dacoits looted the passengers and fired a shot, injuring one person. The appellant was later arrested in possession of a country-made pistol with five cartridges. A TIP was conducted, in which he was identified by the bus driver and the conductor. However, these identifying witnesses were not examined during trial.

Supreme Court’s Analysis

The Court noted several discrepancies in the prosecution’s case and emphasized the lack of substantive evidence linking the appellant to the crime. The Bench remarked:

On the evidentiary value of TIP: “A test identification parade under Section 9 of the Evidence Act, 1872 is not substantive evidence in a criminal prosecution but is only corroborative evidence… The evidence of identification merely corroborates and strengthens the oral testimony in court which alone is the primary and substantive evidence as to identity.” The Court relied on its earlier ruling in Rameshwar Singh v. State of Jammu and Kashmir (1971), which laid down that TIP reports can only be used to support or contradict witness testimony in court.

On the non-examination of key witnesses: The Bench pointed out that although PW-7 (the Naib Tehsildar) proved the TIP, the three witnesses who participated in it were not examined during trial. “Thus, the TIP report, which could have been used to either contradict or corroborate those witnesses, is of no evidentiary value,” the Court held.

On doubts regarding the arrest: The Court also found inconsistencies in the manner of the appellant’s arrest. It noted that the prosecution claimed that the appellant was arrested at 3 a.m. while allegedly hiding in bushes near a pond. The appellant, despite being armed, made no attempt to escape or resist arrest. The Court found this improbable, stating: “Ordinarily, if a person is carrying a loaded weapon, he would use the same to evade arrest unless the person is completely outnumbered. Here, the appellant is stated to have been arrested by PW-5, who was single and about to attend nature’s call.”

On the lack of forensic linkage: The country-made pistol allegedly recovered from the appellant was not linked to any bullets or empty cartridges recovered from the crime scene. Additionally, there were discrepancies in the description of the seized weapon and the one produced during trial, which the trial court dismissed as being caused by rusting.

Conclusion

Finding that the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and acquitted the appellant. The Bench observed: “In the light of the analysis above, we are of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The appellant is therefore, entitled to the benefit of doubt.” The Court further ordered that the appellant, who was on bail, need not surrender and discharged his bail bond.