Section 9 of The Indian Evidence Act, 1982 and Test Identification Parade

SECTION 9 OF THE INDIAN EVIDENCE
ACT,1982 AND TEST IDENTIFICATION

PARADE.
ABHAY TRIPATHI – 17010125037

NAMAN KHANNA- 17010125053
SECTION 9 OF INDIAN EVIDENCE
ACT, 1872
Section 9 of Indian Evidence Act,1872 provides for facts necessary to explain or introduce relevant
facts which states: “Facts necessary to explain or introduce a fact in issue or relevant fact, or which
support or rebut an inference suggested by a fact in issue or relevant fact, or which establish the
identity of anything or person whose identity is relevant, or fix the time or place at which any fact in
issue or relevant fact happened or which show the relation of parties by whom any such fact was
transacted, are relevant so far as they are necessary for that purpose”
This section declares the following facts as relevant:
• Facts necessary to explain or introduce a fact in issue or relevant fact.
Illustrations
• There is a question that whether a given document is will of A. The state
of A’s property and details of his family at the date of alleged will, will
be relevant as introductory facts.
• A sues B for inducing C to break a contract of service made by him with
C. The fact is that C on leaving A’s service says to A “I am leaving your
services because B has made me a better offer”. The statement of C is
relevant as it explains C’s conduct, which is relevant as a fact in issue.
• Facts which support or rebut an inference suggested by a fact in
issue or relevant fact.
Illustration
• Where A is accused of committing a crime, the fact that soon after
the commission of crime A absconded from his house which is
relevant under sec 9 as it supports the inference that he committed
the crime. The fact that at the time when a left home he had a sudden
and urgent business at the place to which he went is also relevant as
it rebuts the inference suggested by the fact in issue that he
committed a crime.
• Facts which establish the identity of anything or person whose
identity is relevant.
Bibhavati Devi v. Raja Ramender Narain 1942 PC 1

• Facts which fix the time and place at which any fact in issue or
relevant fact happened.
FACTS WHICH FIX
TIME PLACE
• Facts which show the relation of parties by whom any such
fact was transacted, are relevant in so far as they are necessary
for that purpose.
TEST IDENTIFICATION PARADE
• Method of establishing identity of the accused.
• Unfair to identify the accused in the dock by witness
Ayyappan v State of Kerala 2005 Cr.LJ 57 (Ker).
State of Maharastra v. Goraraksha Ambaji Adsul 2006 Cr. LJ
(NOC) 45 (Bom)
• Appu v. State 1990 Cr. LJ 2281 (Ker). – Evidentiary value
depends on safeguards followed while conducting TIP.
• Heera v. State of Rajasthan 2007 Cr.L.J 36514(Para 6)
PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN IN THE CASE
• Doesn’t constitute substantive evidence and can be used for corroboration purposes.
Shyamal Ghosh v State of WB 2012 Cr. LJ 3825 (SC)
• The main objective of holding a TIP during an investigation is to test the memory of
the witness.
• TIP should be conducted immediately after the arrest of the accused.
• Appreciation of TIP will depend upon the trustworthiness of the witness.
• Presence of Magistrate.
PURPOSE
• Usually, there is a stretched time gap between the commission of
an offence and the trial of the offence, and quite naturally if the
accused is not known to the eyewitness, then, how can it be
expected of the eyewitness to remember minute details such as:
general appearance, physical structure, stature and complexion of
the accused, and as a necessary corollary, how can it be expected
of the eyewitness to identify the accused with exactitude in the
court of law; thus, to resolve this anomaly, soon after the
commission of crime, if any eyewitness is available then TIP
should be conducted as a matter of priority, prudence and
propriety and not just procedure, so that the eyewitness is able to
depose about the accused and the crime scene when his memory
is fresh and unsullied.
• It is important to note that, evidence of TIP conducted by police cannot
be tendered in the court of law because such identification amounts to a
statement made to the police and accordingly as per the purport of
Section 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, such evidence being
in the nature of statement made to the police during investigation it
cannot be tendered as evidence in the court of law. In order to make TIP
admissible in the court of law, so that it can be used to corroborate the
oral evidence that would be given in the court of law, TIP must be
conducted in the presence of a magistrate (judicial or executive).
WHEN IS HOLDING OF TIP NECESSARY.
• Not relevant when victim and accused are known to
each other.
• Need is only in the cases where accused has not been
arrested at the place of occurrence.
EVIDENTIARY VALUE OF TIP.
State of A.P. v. V.K. Venkata Reddy
R.Shaji v. State of Kerala (2013) 14 (1976) 1 SCC 463
SCC 266
• In this case it was held that it is • In this case, the Hon’ble Supreme
not a substantive piece of Court of India categorically held
evidence, that, the evidence given by a
witness in the court of law is
• But it can be used for
substantive testimony while the
corroboration or contradiction identification made by the witness
purposes. in the TIP is only confirmatory of
the testimony made before the
court of law.
DELAY IN HOLDING TIP MUST BE EXPLAINED?
• Many times TIP gets delayed due to the non-availability of the
magistrate; the delay in holding TIP must be accounted for satisfactorily.
• In the case, Murarilal Jivaram Sharma v. State of Maharashtra AIR
1997 SC 1593, delay of 2 (two) months in holding TIP was held to be
sufficiently explained where the I.O. although kept writing to the
magistrate for holding TIP but the magistrate was not able to spare time
due to his pre-occupations. Delays in holding TIP can reduce the
credence that can be attributed to the evidence obtained vide the TIP
route.
DOCK IDENTIFICATION-Identification only in the court. Validity-:
KANTA PRASAD V. DELHI ADMINISTRATION REVISED IN RAM NATH NAIK V. STATE 1995
AIR 1958 SC 350 2255 (PARA 5)
• The failure to hold an • The identification for the first

identification parade does not time during trial is inherently of a
make evidence of identification very weak character which thus
before the court inadmissible. loses value without there being a
prior Test Identification Parade
immediately after the arrest of the
accused.
This was reiterated in the case YAKOOB ABDUL RAZAK MEMON V. STATE
OF MAHARASHTRA (2013) 13 SCC 1 where the witness failed to identify
accused in the court.
In the case, the witness was disposed before the court after a lapse of two and
a half years after the incident where he failed to identify the accused .
The Supreme Court observed that it was plausible the memory could have
faded.
However, during the identification parades, which was conducted soon after
the incident the witness identified the accused accurately.
The witness corroborated the evidence of other witnesses and his failure to
identify the accused in the court was found to be not fatal for the prosecution.
PERIOD WITHIN WHICH TIP MUST BE CONDUCTED-:
• In the case of PRAMOD MANDAL V. STATE OF BIHAR
(2004) 13 SCC , the Supreme Court ruled that it was neither
prudent nor possible to lay down any invariable rule as to the
period within which the test identification parade must be held.
Thus, there can be no time limit for holding the test
identification parade, as such a limit will help professional
criminals to avoid arrests and thereby make the time limit to
prevent identification.
WHAT OPPORTUNITY DID THE IDENTIFIER HAD OFSEEING THE OFFENDER?
• Whether the identifier had sufficient opportunity of seeing

the offender is a matter of importance. From what
distance and position he could see the offender while
committing the crime has to be taken into consideration.
NON IDENTIFICATION BY OTHER WITNESSES.
• Where there are more eye-witnesses the problem would
arise when the offender is identified by some and not by
the others.
• The Allahabad High Court in the case SUNDER V. STATE
AIR 1957 ALL. 809, held that the witness has to be judged
on the strength of what he himself has seen and not on the
inability of someone else to see it.
PRESENCE OF LEGAL COUNSEL AT THE PARADE.
• Where the accused requests for the presence of his
legal counsel at the TIP, his request must be
conceded, even though the legal counsel cannot
interfere in the test, his presence can be permitted
only to ensure a fair conduct of the parade.
WHETHER THE ACCUSED HAS A
CAN AN ACCUSED PERSON
RIGHT TO DEMAND TIP?
REFUSE TO ATTEND TIP?
• SHEO SHANKAR SINGH V. STATE OF • If the accused refuses to appear for TIP
JHARKHAND (2011) 3 SCC 654 then an adverse inference of guilt can be
• In the case the accused alleged that the witness had drawn against him (Section 54A of the
never seen the accused before and demanded TIP.
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973).
• It was held that TIP belongs in the stage of
investigation. Moreover, there is no provision in the • But, in the case of SURAJ PAL V. STATE
Criminal Procedure Code where the accused can OF HARYANA, (1995) 2 SCC 64, it was
demand for TIP for TIP, he does so at his own risk. held that-:
• No one can be compelled to line-up for
TIP and if the accused/suspect refuses to
submit himself
WHAT OTHER THINGS CAN BE USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF TIP?
PHOTOGRAPHS SKETCHES VOICES

THANK YOU!

Section 9 of The Indian Evidence Act, 1982 and Test Identification Parade

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Section 9 of The Indian Evidence Act, 1982 and Test Identification Parade

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Section 9 of The Indian Evidence Act, 1982 and Test Identification Parade

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SECTION 9 OF THE INDIAN EVIDENCE

ACT,1982 AND TEST IDENTIFICATION

ABHAY TRIPATHI – 17010125037

Bibhavati Devi v. Raja Ramender Narain 1942 PC 1

FACTS WHICH FIX

• The failure to hold an • The identification for the first

• Whether the identifier had sufficient opportunity of seeing

PHOTOGRAPHS SKETCHES VOICES

You might also like