Dock Identification Without A Prior TIP Has Little Evidentiary Value Where Witness Had No Prior Familiarity With Accused: Supreme Court

While acquitting three men in a murder case, the Supreme Court reiterated that dock identification without a prior TIP (Test Identification Parade) has little evidentiary value where the witness had no prior familiarity with the accused.

The Court reiterated thus in a Criminal Appeal preferred by the accused persons challenging the Judgment of the Uttarakhand High Court, which upheld their conviction for the offence of murder.

The two-Judge Bench of Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma observed, “Both PW-3 and PW-4 thus identified the Appellants for the first time in court. No TIP was conducted, even though PW-3 admitted he had never known the accused earlier. It is well settled that dock identification without a prior TIP has little evidentiary value where the witness had no prior familiarity with the accused.”

The Bench emphasised that where the accused is a stranger to the witness and no TIP is held, Courts must exercise extreme caution.

AOR Sarvam Ritam Khare represented the Appellants/Accused, while AOR Akshat Kumar represented the Respondent/State.

Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court in the above regard, noted, “In the present case, both PW-1 and PW-2 were admittedly familiar with Nazim and Aftab. Despite this, their names were not mentioned in the FIR, nor was any contemporaneous explanation offered for their absence. The High Court acknowledged the omission but brushed it aside as inconsequential. This approach is untenable. In a case based solely on circumstantial evidence, every circumstance must withstand rigorous scrutiny.”

The Court remarked that the failure to name two of the three Appellants in the FIR, despite the Complainant’s familiarity with them, casts a serious shadow on the subsequent attempt to implicate them.

“It raises a legitimate inference that their names were introduced at a later stage, thereby suggesting the possibility of false implication. If PW-1 and PW-2 genuinely believed that Nazim and Aftab were responsible, there is no plausible reason for their omission in the FIR. This significant omission strikes at the root of the prosecution narrative, undermines its credibility, and constitutes a material fact that must weigh heavily in favour of the accused”, it added.

The Court said that when important facts are omitted in the FIR, such omissions are relevant under Section 11 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA), in judging the veracity of the prosecution case.

“In the present case, it is clear that the identification of the appellants by PW-3 and PW-4 cannot be accepted with confidence. PW-3 himself admitted he had never known Nazim or Aftab previously, yet no TIP was conducted. His alleged sighting was from a considerable distance while engaged in harvesting work, with his line of sight obstructed, and the natural witnesses present with him were not examined. PW-4, though a co-villager, failed to mention his alleged sighting either in the FIR or during the search for the missing child, and could not even recall the timing of him informing PW-1 about it”, it further noted.

The Court added that both witnesses identified the Appellants for the first time in Court, which, in the absence of a TIP (Test Identification Parade), renders their dock identification less credible and their testimonies, therefore, cannot constitute reliable evidence of identification.

“Even apart from the deficiencies in identification, the ‘last seen’ theory is itself a weak link unless the prosecution establishes a narrow time gap between when the accused and the deceased were seen together and the recovery of the body, such that the possibility of intervention by a third person is excluded”, it also observed.

The Court held that the absence of TIP renders the witnesses’ identification unreliable and secondly, even if their testimony is accepted, ‘last-seen’ theory alone is insufficient to sustain the conviction in the circumstances of the present case.

Conclusion

The Court was of the view that the case of the prosecution with respect to motive is also tenuous and the motive alleged by the prosecution is only that the Appellants sought revenge for an insult to their sister.

“… the supposed motive is speculative and there is no evidence that the Appellants bore any grudge against a ten-year-old child. … In light of the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to establish a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances. The circumstances on record are not consistent with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and fail to exclude every other reasonable hypothesis, including their innocence. As is well-settled, suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof. Accordingly, the Appellants are entitled to the benefit of the doubt”, it concluded.

Accordingly, the Apex Court allowed the Appeal and acquitted the accused persons.

Cause Title- Nazim & Ors. v. The State of Uttarakhand (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1184)

Click here to read/download the Judgment