The Supreme Court made an observation that merely on the ground that Test Identification Parade, i.e. TIP, had not been conducted, the testimony of a witness who identified the accused in the court could not be discarded.
In the instant case, the prosecution witness confessed that he had been unable to identify any individual whom he had seen 11 years ago, however, he asserted that he would be able to identify the accused even though he has seen him for the first time 11 years ago, on the day of incident.
The division bench stated that usually there is presence of sufficient corroborative evidence to corroborate the testimony of witnesses.
The bench allowed the appeal filed by the accused who had been convicted under Section 55(a) of Kerala Akbari Act, and disbelieved the witness who had identified the accused in the court on the ground that he had seen him for the first time in 11 years.
The accused contended that since the TIP had not been conducted, the prosecution’s version could not be relied upon.
The bench, however, clarified that the TIP is a part of investigation and does not form part of substantive evidence.
Leave a Reply