The Test Identification Parade (TIP) is an important investigative tool used to verify the identity of an accused by witnesses before trial. It serves to test the memory of witnesses and to ensure that the identification of a person in court is not a product of suggestion or tutoring. However, Indian courts have consistently held that a TIP is not an indispensable requirement in every case.
In State of Kerala v. Anil Kumar @ Kolusu Binu (2025), the Kerala High Court elaborated on this principle while affirming the conviction of two accused in a gruesome case of murder, rape, and robbery. The Court clarified that while TIPs can lend assurance to identification evidence, their absence does not automatically invalidate an otherwise credible testimony.
This judgment revisits settled principles of criminal evidence and reinforces the judicial understanding that the substantive evidence is the identification made before the court, not the preliminary parade itself.
Factual Background
The case arose out of the brutal murder of Mariyadas and the grievous assault of his wife, who was left in a vegetative state. The couple lived in Thiruvananthapuram with their two children. On the morning of 7 July 2016, the daughter woke up to find her parents lying in a pool of blood.
The police investigation revealed that the first accused, Anil Kumar, had previously lived in the same locality and had developed an illicit relationship with the victim. Hostility developed between him and the deceased, prompting him to leave the area. On the fateful night, he allegedly entered the house along with the second accused, Chandrasekharan, intending to commit robbery, but events escalated into rape and murder.
Both were convicted by the II Additional Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram. The first accused received a death sentence, and the second was sentenced to life imprisonment. Their appeals, together with a death sentence reference, were heard by a Division Bench comprising Justice Dr A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Jobin Sebastian.
Issue
Whether the absence of a Test Identification Parade made PW11’s dock identification of the accused unreliable despite prior acquaintance and clear visibility under a street light?
Legal Position on Test Identification Parades
The High Court reiterated settled law:
“There is no inflexible rule that in order to rely upon an identification made by a witness, there must invariably be a test identification parade.”
The Court further observed that:
- The substantive evidence of identification was made before the court.
- The TIP serves only as corroborative evidence to lend assurance to the dock identification.
- If the witness had prior acquaintance with the accused or had a sufficient opportunity to observe him during the incident, the absence of a TIP is not fatal.
- The credibility of the witness and the circumstances under which the identification occurred are crucial to judicial acceptance.
Thus, the Court clarified that a TIP is not a sine qua non—a condition precedent—for conviction if the overall evidence inspires confidence.
Witness Identification: Analysis of PW11’s Testimony
The High Court carefully scrutinised the evidence of PW11 Shaji, the milkman, who deposed that he saw both accused near the crime scene carrying a gunny bag.
- Natural Presence: His occupation required him to be out early in the morning; hence, his presence near the scene was not suspicious.
- Prior Acquaintance: He knew the first accused, Anil Kumar, who had lived in the locality earlier.
- Visibility: The area was illuminated by a street light, and the witness saw their faces when they turned toward him after hearing a sound from his bicycle.
- Absence of Motive to Falsify: The defence could not show any reason for PW11 to falsely implicate the accused.
Given these facts, the Court held that PW11’s identification was reliable even without a TIP. His testimony, corroborated by other evidence, established the accused’s presence near the crime scene immediately after the incident.
Judicial Precedents Cited
Kerala High Court’s reasoning aligns with the longstanding jurisprudence of the Supreme Court:
- Kanta Prasad v. Delhi Administration (AIR 1958 SC 350): The Court held that failure to hold a TIP is not necessarily fatal if the witness had sufficient opportunity to identify the accused during the incident.
- Vaikuntam Chandrappa v. State of Andhra Pradesh (AIR 1960 SC 1340): Dock identification is admissible if the witness had prior familiarity with the accused.
- Budhsen v. State of U.P. (AIR 1970 SC 1321): TIPs are merely a step in investigation; their absence affects the weight of evidence, not its admissibility.
- State of H.P. v. Lekh Raj [(2000) 1 SCC 247]: The Court emphasised that identification in court is substantive evidence and TIPs only corroborate it.
- Malkhansingh v. State of M.P. [(2003) 5 SCC 746]: Dock identification alone can sustain a conviction if the witness had an adequate opportunity to observe the accused.
By reiterating these principles, the Kerala High Court reinforced that substance overrides procedure in evaluating eyewitness identification.
Forensic and Corroborative Evidence
The absence of a TIP was not viewed in isolation. The High Court examined a comprehensive chain of circumstantial and forensic evidence linking the accused to the crime:
- Recovery of Stolen Articles: The 1st accused led police to recover a plastic box (MO9) belonging to the victim, and gold ornaments traced to a jewellery shop in Thirunelveli, corroborated by CCTV footage.
- Forensic Links: Blood stains on the clothes of both accused matched the blood group of the deceased.
- DNA Evidence: Seminal traces in the victim’s vaginal swabs matched the 1st accused, confirming sexual assault.
- Medical Testimony: The cause of death and the injuries on the victim matched the weapons recovered at the instance of the accused.
The Court held that these findings collectively established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, rendering the absence of a TIP inconsequential.
Court’s Observations on Identification Evidence
Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar observed:
(a) Credibility over Formality: The primary test is whether the witness had the capacity and opportunity to recognise the accused.
(b) Prior Acquaintance: When a witness already knows the accused, a TIP is redundant.
(c) Absence Not Fatal: Even without prior acquaintance, dock identification may suffice if circumstances inspire confidence.
(d) Cross-Examination: The defence’s failure to impeach the witness’s credibility strengthened the prosecution’s case.
The Bench concluded:
“There is no abstract or universal rule that every identification made before the court must necessarily be corroborated by an earlier identification parade.”
Thus, the reliability of identification depends on the quality of the witness, not merely the quantity of procedural safeguards.
Court’s Final Decision
After a comprehensive analysis, the Kerala High Court upheld the convictions of both accused.
- The first accused’s death sentence was confirmed, given the brutality of the crime—rape, murder, and mutilation of a defenceless woman and her husband.
- The second accused’s life sentence was maintained for active participation and common intention.
In confirming the verdict, the Court reiterated that:
“Suspicion, however strong, cannot replace proof; yet, where the chain of circumstances is complete and consistent only with guilt, conviction must follow.”
The identification by PW11, coupled with forensic and recovery evidence, created a seamless chain pointing exclusively to the accused.
Conclusion
Kerala High Court’s decision in Anil Kumar @ Kolusu Binu reinforces a pragmatic and evidence-based approach to criminal adjudication. The ruling harmonises with Supreme Court jurisprudence that emphasises truth and reliability over procedural rigidity.
While test identification parades remain a valuable investigative tool, their absence cannot overshadow the weight of cogent, corroborated, and credible evidence. What matters is not whether a witness participated in a formal parade but whether their testimony stands the test of cross-examination, probability, and consistency.
In the words implicit in the judgment’s reasoning:
“Justice does not fail for want of form, nor does truth perish for want of a parade.”
Important Link
Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary, and Entrance Exams