Ramkishan Mithanlal Sharma v. State of Bombay

Facts

During investigation, witnesses identified the accused and the stolen/incriminating property at test identification parades. The prosecution sought to prove the fact of identification through police evidence as well as through the identifying witnesses, and the admissibility of this identification evidence was challenged on the footing that it amounted to statements made to the police during investigation.

Issues

• Whether the act of identification at a test identification parade amounts to a 'statement' made during investigation?
• Whether a police officer can give evidence of the identification made by witnesses, having regard to the bar under Section 162 CrPC?
• What is the evidentiary value of test identification, and how may it be proved?

Arguments

The prosecution argued that identification is a physical fact distinct from any verbal statement and could therefore be proved through the police officers who supervised the parade. The defence argued that identification is in substance a statement made to the police during investigation, hit by Section 162, so that police evidence of it was inadmissible and the parade evidence carried little weight.

Held

The Court held that identification by a witness involves a statement, express or implied (including by signs and gestures), that the person or property identified was concerned in the offence; the physical fact of identification has no existence apart from that statement. Consequently a police officer cannot prove identification made at a parade, as such proof is barred by Section 162. However, the identifier himself may give evidence in court of his own act of identification, and this serves to corroborate his substantive testimony under Section 9 of the Evidence Act. Where the police wholly withdraw and the parade is conducted exclusively under panch or magisterial supervision, the bar of Section 162 is avoided.

Ratio decidendi

Test identification is a statement; evidence of it by a police officer is barred by Section 162 CrPC, but the identifying witness's own evidence of identification is admissible under Section 9 of the Evidence Act to corroborate identification made in court.

Significance

The leading Supreme Court authority on the nature and admissibility of test identification parade evidence, establishing that TIP is corroborative and not substantive evidence and that parades should be insulated from police influence. Its principles continue under Section 7 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam and Section 181 BNSS and underpin all later TIP jurisprudence.

Related