Supreme Court: How to appreciate evidence if FIR neither discloses the identity of the accused nor does it refer to any particular features of the accused?

 However, the significance of the contents of the

FIR, to be specific, the omissions therein, cannot be

overlooked while examining the subsequent theory

about identification of the accused-appellant. The

FIR neither discloses the identity of the accused nor

does it refer to any particular features of the accused

which could have assisted the victim to identify the

accused in the TIP. The identity of assailant was

admittedly not known at the time when the FIR was

lodged. Consequently, the manner in which the

identity of the accused-appellant came to be

ascertained subsequently assumes considerable

importance. {Para 25}

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 135 OF 2026

DHANRAJ  Vs STATE OF RAJASTHAN 

Author: Mehta, J.

Dated: SEPTEMBER 07, 2026.

Citation: 2026 INSC 958.

Read full judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Victim identifying unknown accused Without Test Identification For First Time During Trial After Many Years Raises Doubts

 Furthermore, no identification parade has been conducted in the present matter. While identification by a witness in a given case for the first time in witness box would be permissible, the substantial gap of approximately eight years raises serious concern regarding identification. If no identification parade of the unknown accused persons took place, their identification in the Trial Court, for the first  time, would cast a serious doubt on the veracity of the prosecution’s case. {Para 15}

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 176 OF 2014

VENKATESHA & ORS.  Vs  STATE OF KARNATAKA 

Dated: 09 JANUARY, 2025.

Citation: 2025 INSC 103.

Author: B.R. GAVAI, J.

Print Page

Under which circumstances the court can held that victim was minor even though no ossification test was conducted?

 There was no ossification test conducted in this case, however, this question would come when the girl is on the border line. When there is still margin of four years, it cannot be said that the girl was not a "child" as defined under Section 2(d)of the POCSO Act. The father of the victim who has the knowledge of the date of birth of the daughter, his testimony would be also important in that respect and, therefore, in this case the prosecution had proved that the victim was a child.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)

Criminal Appeal No. 718 of 2016

Decided On: 03.10.2023

 Sunil  Vs.  The State of Maharashtra

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Vibha Kankanwadi and Abhay S. Waghwase, JJ.

Author: Vibha Kankanwadi, J.

Citation: MANU/MH/3996/2023.

Read full Judgment here: Click here

Print Page

Whether the court can rely on identification of accused by victim even if she has not stated name of accused in her statement U/S 164 of CRPC?

The identification of the accused is the important point raised on behalf of the accused, however, only a stray suggestion or question was asked in the cross-examination. It was not tried to be elaborated and it was not extracted as to whether she had seen the accused prior to the incident or not. She was certain in saying that the boy was from out of village and she is unable to tell his name and after the incident he ran away. Only on the basis of this statement, we cannot come to the conclusion that the identification of the accused by the victim is false or inadmissible. A witness may not be knowing name of the accused, but thereafter with the description or some other particulars like relative of somebody to whom the witness is knowing or would have seen residing in a particular place are the criteria with which the identity can be established. Here, no questions were asked on that point, but the fact is that the incident is alleged to have taken place at 8.00 a.m. i.e. the broad daylight and she had sufficient time to recognize the accused. Rather it has been extracted in her cross-examination that she had stated about the incident to her brother after returning home and after her parents reached there, they went to the police station on the same day. That means what has been left out in the examination-in-chief has been extracted in the cross-examination. Therefore, we do not find any fault as regards the identification of the accused. Her identification before the Court i.e. in the substantial evidence carries importance. No doubt, in her statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, she has not stated the name of the accused, but at that time, the accused was not before the girl and, therefore, the identification is important, rather than the name. {Para 9}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)

Criminal Appeal No. 718 of 2016

Decided On: 03.10.2023

 Sunil  Vs.  The State of Maharashtra

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Vibha Kankanwadi and Abhay S. Waghwase, JJ.

Author: Vibha Kankanwadi, J.

Citation: MANU/MH/3996/2023.

Print Page

Whether court can convict accused with the aid of S 34 of IPC in place of S 149 of IPC even though no charge was framed U/S 34 of IPC?

Effect of Failure to frame proper charges

39. In State of Andhra Pradesh v. Thakkidiram Reddy and Ors. MANU/SC/0490/1998 : (1998) 6 SCC 554, this Court considered the issue of failure to frame the proper charges. observing as under:

10. Sub-section (1) of Section 464 of the Code of criminal Procedure 1973 ('the Code', for short) expressly provides that no finding, sentence or order by a court of competent jurisdiction shall be deemed invalid merely on the ground that no charge was framed or on the ground of any error, omission or irregularity in the charge including any misjoinder of charges, unless in the opinion of the court of appeal, confirmation or revision, a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned thereby. Sub-section (2) of the said section lays down the procedure that the court of appeal, confirmation or revision has to follow in case it is of the opinion that a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned. The other section relevant for our purposes is Section 465 of the Code; and it lays down that no finding, sentence or order passed by a court of competent jurisdiction shall be reversed or altered by a court of appeal, confirmation or revision on account of any error, omission or irregularity in the proceedings, unless in the opinion of that court, a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned. It further provides, inter alia, that in determining whether any error, omission or irregularity in any proceeding under this Code has occasioned a failure of justice, the Court shall have regard to the fact whether the objection could and should have been raised at an earlier stage in the proceedings.

The Court further held that in judging a question of prejudice, as of guilt, the court must look to the substance of the matter and not to technicalities, and its main concern should be to see whether the accused had a fair trial, whether he knew what he was being tried for, whether the main facts sought to be established against him were explained to him fairly and clearly and whether he was given a full and fair chance to defend himself. In the said case this Court ultimately came to the conclusion that despite the defect in the framing of charges, as no prejudice had been caused to the accused, no interference was required.

40. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Willie (William) Slaney v. State of Madhya Pradesh MANU/SC/0038/1955 : AIR 1956 SC 116, considered the issue of failure to frame charges properly and the conviction of an accused for the offences for which he has not been charged and reached the conclusion as under:

86. ... In such a situation, the absence of a charge under one or other of the various heads of criminal liability for the offence cannot be said to be fatal by itself, and before a conviction for the substantive offence, without a charge, can be set aside, prejudice will have to be made out....

87. ... If it is so grave that prejudice will necessarily be implied or imported, it may be described as an illegality. If the seriousness of the omission is of a lesser degree, it will be an irregularity and prejudice by way of failure of justice will have to be established.

41. This Court in Gurpreet Singh v. State of Punjab MANU/SC/2515/2005 : (2005) 12 SCC 615, referred to and relied upon its earlier judgments in Willie (William) Slaney (supra) and Thakkidiram Reddy (supra), and held that unless there is a failure of justice and thereby the cause of the accused has been prejudiced, no interference is required if the conviction can be upheld on the evidence led against the accused. The Court should not interfere unless it is established that the accused was in any way prejudiced due to the errors and omissions in framing the charges against him.

A similar view has been re-iterated by this Court in Ramji Singh v. State of Bihar MANU/SC/0632/2001 : (2001) 9 SCC 528; and Sanichar Sahni v. State of Bihar MANU/SC/0888/2009 : (2009) 7 SCC 198.

42. There is no bar in law on conviction of the accused with the aid of Section 34 IPC in place of Section 149 IPC if there is evidence on record to show that such accused shared a common intention to commit the crime and no apparent injustice or prejudice is shown to have been caused by application of Section 34 IPC in place of Section 149 IPC. The absence of a charge under one or the other or the various heads of criminal liability for the offence cannot be said to be by itself prejudicial to the accused, and before a conviction for the substantive offence without a charge can be set aside, prejudice will have to be made out. Such a legal position is bound to be held good in view of the provisions of Sections 215, 216, 218, 221 and 464 of Code of criminal Procedure, 1973. (Vide: Dalip Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab MANU/SC/0031/1953 : AIR 1953 SC 364; Malhu Yadav and Ors. v. State of Bihar MANU/SC/0393/2002 : (2002) 5 SCC 724; Dhaneswar Mahakud and Ors. v. State of Orissa (2009) 9 SCC 307; and Annareddy Sambasiva Reddy and Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh MANU/SC/0640/2009 : AIR 2009 SC 2661).

43. Thus, the law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that unless the accused is able to establish that the defect(s) in framing the charge(s) has caused real prejudice to him; that he was not informed as to what was the real case against him; or that he could not defend himself properly, no interference is required on mere technicalities.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 1243 of 2007

Decided On: 14.09.2010

 Abdul Sayeed  Vs.    State of Madhya Pradesh

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

P. Sathasivam and B.S. Chauhan, JJ.

Citation: MANU/SC/0702/2010,(2010) 10 SCC 259

Print Page

Whether test identification parade will be vitiated if two accused are identified in same TIP?

The next question is whether the Test Identification Parades were
vitiated on account of delay or for holding those TIPs jointly, or on
account of the identity of the accused having been already revealed
before the TIP could be conducted. It is clear from the evidence that
there is no inordinate delay in conducting the TIP. As and when the
accused were arrested, within reasonable time they were produced for
the TIP. Also, there is no invariable rule that two accused persons
cannot be made part of the same TIP. Joint TIP would thus, in nomanner, affect the validity of the TIP. The purpose of a TIP is to ensure
that the investigation is going on the right track and it is merely a

corroborative evidence. The actual identification must be done in the
Court and that is the substantive evidence. 

REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 2118-2119 OF 2009
SHEIKH SINTHA MADHAR @ JAFFER @
SINTHA 
V
STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE 
Dated:April 13, 2016.
Citation:(2016) 11 SCC265

Print Page

What will be importance of test identification parade if accused is already known to witness?

 The purpose of a TIP is to ensure
that the investigation is going on the right track and it is merely a

corroborative evidence. The actual identification must be done in the
Court and that is the substantive evidence. If the accused is already
known to the witness, the TIP does not hold much value and it is the

identification in the Court which is of utmost importance.

REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 2118-2119 OF 2009
SHEIKH SINTHA MADHAR @ JAFFER @
SINTHA 
V
STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE 
Dated:April 13, 2016.
Citation:(2016) 11 SCC265

Print Page

When court can rely on identification of accused before court first time if test identification parade was not previously held?

 No doubt, law with regard to the importance of TIP is well settled that identification in court is a substantive piece of evidence and TIP simply corroborates the same. This Court in the case of Dana Yadav alias Dahu and Ors. v. State of Bihar[6] has elaborated upon the importance of test identification parade in great details.

The relevant para nos. 6, 7 and 8 read thus: "6. It is also well settled that failure to hold test identification parade, which should be held with reasonable dispatch, does not make the evidence of identification in court inadmissible, rather the same is very much admissible in law. Question is, what is its probative value? Ordinarily, identification of an accused for the first time in court by a witness should not be relied upon, the same being from its very nature, inherently of a weak character, unless it is corroborated by his previous identification in the test identification parade or any other evidence. The purpose of test identification parade is to test the observation, grasp, memory, capacity to recapitulate what a witness has seen earlier, strength or trustworthiness of the evidence of identification of an accused and to ascertain if it can be used as reliable corroborative evidence of the witness identifying the accused at his trial in court.

If a witness identifies the accused in court for the first time, the probative value of such uncorroborated evidence becomes minimal so much so that it becomes, as a rule of prudence and not law, unsafe to rely on such a piece of evidence. We are fortified in our view by a catena of decisions of this Court in the cases of Kanta Prashad v. Delhi Admn., Vaikuntam Chandrappa, Budhsen, Kanan v. State of Kerala, Mohanlal Gangaram Gehani v. State of Maharashtra, Bollavaram Pedda Narsi Reddy, State of Maharashtra v. Sukhdev Singh, Jaspal Singh v. State of Punjab, Raju v. State of Maharashtra, Ronny, George v. State of Kerala, Rajesh Govind Jagesha, State of H.P. v. Lekh Raj and Ramanbhai Naranbhai Patel v. State of Gujarat.

7. Apart from the ordinary rule laid down in the aforesaid decisions, certain exceptions to the same have been carved out where identification of an accused for the first time in court without there being any corroboration whatsoever can form the sole basis for his conviction. In the case of Budhsen it was observed: "There may, however, be exceptions to this general rule, when for example, the court is impressed by a particular witness, on whose testimony it can safely rely, without such or other corroboration."

8. In the case of State of Maharashtra v. Sukhdev Singh it was laid down that if a witness had any particular reason to remember about the identity of an accused, in that event, the case can be brought under the exception and upon solitary evidence of identification of an accused in court for the first time, conviction can be based. In the case of Ronny it has been laid down that where the witness had a chance to interact with the accused or that in a case where the witness had an opportunity to notice the distinctive features of the accused which lends assurance to his testimony in court, the evidence of identification in court for the first time by such a witness cannot be thrown away merely because no test identification parade was held.

In that case, the accused concerned had a talk with the identifying witnesses for about 7/8 minutes. In these circumstances, the conviction of the accused, on the basis of sworn testimony of witnesses identifying for the first time in court without the same being corroborated either by previous identification in the test identification parade or any other evidence, was upheld by this Court. In the case of Rajesh Govind Jagesha it was laid down that the absence of test identification parade may not be fatal if the accused is sufficiently described in the complaint leaving no doubt in the mind of the court regarding his involvement or is arrested on the spot immediately after the occurrence and in either eventuality, the evidence of witnesses identifying the accused for the first time in court can form the basis for conviction without the same being corroborated by any other evidence and, accordingly, conviction of the accused was upheld by this Court.

In the case of State of H.P. v. Lekh Raj it was observed (at SCC p. 253, para 3) that "test identification is considered a safe rule of prudence to generally look for corroboration of the sworn testimony of witnesses in court as to the identity of the accused who are strangers to them. There may, however, be exceptions to this general rule, when, for example, the court is impressed by a particular witness on whose testimony it can safely rely without such or other corroboration". In that case, laying down the aforesaid law, acquittal of one of the accused by the High Court was converted into conviction by this Court on the basis of identification by a witness for the first time in court without the same being corroborated by any other evidence.

In the case of Ramanbhai Naranbhai Patel it was observed: "It, therefore, cannot be held, as tried to be submitted by learned counsel for the appellants, that in the absence of a test identification parade, the evidence of an eyewitness identifying the accused would become inadmissible or totally useless; whether the evidence deserves any credence or not would always depend on the facts and circumstances of each case." The Court further observed: "the fact remains that these eyewitnesses were seriously injured and they could have easily seen the faces of the persons assaulting them and their appearance and identity would well remain imprinted in their minds especially when they were assaulted in broad daylight". In these circumstances, conviction of the accused was upheld on the basis of solitary evidence of identification by a witness for the first time in court."

Another important fact which the High Court has failed to appreciate is that the prosecution witness identified the accused-appellants in court for the first time, during trial, in the year 1997-98 and the incident occurred in the year 1995. Thus, after considering some undisputed facts like occurrence of incident at night, at a place with improper lighting and all the accused-appellants were not known to the forest officers, except one present at the place of incident, there should have been TIP conducted at the instance of the investigating officer. Therefore, the identification of the accused-appellants by the prosecution witness for the first time after a gap of more than 2 years from the date of incident is not beyond reasonable doubt, the same should be seen with suspicion.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Noorahammad and Ors Vs. State of Karnataka

[Criminal Appeal No. 412 of 2006]

V.GOPALA GOWDA, J.

Citation;2016 CRLJ1232
Dated;2-2-2016

Print Page

Whether involvement of accused in crime can be ruled out because test identification parade was not held in accordance with law?

Be that as it may, the identification of an accused in a T.I. parade is merely a corroborative piece of evidence and the involvement of the appellants in the crime cannot be ruled out only because the test identification parade was not held in accordance with law and the accused had been identified by some of the witnesses for the first time before the Court. As mentioned earlier the Test Identification Parade merely gives a direction for conducting the investigation. Evidence of Approvers

Kolkata High Court (Appellete Side)

Abdul Rahaman Kunji vs The State Of West Bengal on 14 November, 2014

Author: Nishita Mhatre

Citation: (2015)1CALLT318(HC), II(2015)CCR111(Cal.),

2016 CRLJ1159  

Print Page

Leading Supreme court judgment on test identification

Facts which establish the identity of an accused person are relevant under s. 9 of the Evidence Act. The substantive evidence of identification is the statement of the witness in court. But the evidence of identification at the trial for the first time is from its very nature weak. A prior test identification, therefore serves to corroborate the evidence in court. The purpose of identification parades which belong to the investigation stage is to enable the witnesses to identify persons concerned in the offence, who are not previously known to them, and thereby to satisfy the investigating officers of their bona fides by pointing out the persons they recognise as having taken part in the crime. These parades, thus furnish evidence which corroborates the testimony of the identifying witnesses in court. These parades do not constitute substantive evidence. Keeping in view the purpose of identification parades, the precautions to eliminate suspicion of unfairness and to reduce chances of testimonial error. They must take intelligent interest in the proceedings bearing in mind two considerations : (i) that the life and liberty of an accused may depend on their vigilance and caution, and (ii) that justice should be done in the identification. Generally, the Magistrates must make a note of every objection raised by an accused at the time of identification and the steps taken by them to ensure fairness to the accused, so that the court which is to judge the value of the identification evidence may take them into consideration in the appreciation of that evidence. The persons required to identify an accused should have had no opportunity of seeing him after the commission of crime and before identification and secondly that they should make no mistakes or the mistakes made are negligible. The identification to be of value should also be held without much delay. The number of persons mixed up with the accused should be reasonably large and their bearing and general appearance not glaringly disincline.

In the present case the evidence shows that the Magistrate paid scant attention to the direction in the identification memos. The memos do not show that the parades were held by the Magistrate with the degree of vigilance, care and anxiety their importance demanded, and they were filled up in a very casual manner. They could only have a somewhat fleeting glimpse of the assailants. The prosecution has also not explained why the second eve witness had to go to the jail for identification a third time. The two eve witnesses did not state in evidence what particular part the two appellants played in the occurrence. The third witness who come on the scene on hearing the alarm could only have had a still more fleeting glimpse

Supreme Court of India

Budhsen vs State Of U.P on 6 May, 1970

Equivalent citations: 1970 AIR 1321, 1971 SCR (1) 564

Print Page

Whether Identification of accused by witnesses by photograph is permissible?

The learned Counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that showing of photographs to the witnesses for the purpose of identification is permissible under law. He even drew our attention to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, 1984 which is in force in England and submitted that the provisions of the said statute permit the showing of photographs to the witnesses for the purpose of identification and there is nothing in law which prohibits such action being taken by the Investigating Officer. In the instant case, the witnesses had not described the physical features of the accused or any identifying characteristics as to how they identified the assailants. To such a witness, showing of photograph would only lead the investigating officer to make the wrong conclusion regarding the identification. Even under the provisions of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, 1984 which is prevalent in England, the photographs could be shown to the witnesses only under certain specified conditions. Annexe E of the Act are the guidelines and it says that before showing the photographs of the suspect, the supervising officer must first confirm that the description of the suspect given by the witness has been recorded, and if the supervising officer is unable to confirm the description, the officer shall postpone the showing of the photographs. The other condition as stated in Annexe E of the statute says that a witness must not be shown photographs or computerized or artist's composite or similar likeness or pictures if the identity of the suspect is known to the police and suspect is available to take part in a video identification, an identification parade or group identification.

There are no statutory guidelines in the matter of showing photographs to the witnesses during the stage of investigation. But nevertheless, the police is entitled to show photographs to confirm whether the investigation is going on in the right direction. But in the instant case, it appears that the investigating officer procured the album containing the photographs with the names written underneath and showed this album to the eye-witnesses and recorded their statements under Section 161 Cr. P.C. The procedure adopted by the police is not justified under law as it will affect fair and proper investigation and may sometimes lead to a situation where wrong persons are identified as assailants. During the course of the investigation, if the witness had given the identifying features of the assailants, the same could be confirmed by the investigating officer by showing the photographs of the suspect and the investigating officer shall not first show a single photograph but should show more than one photograph of the same person, if available. If the suspect is available for identification or for video identification, the photograph shall never be shown to the witness in advance.

In the instant case, the High Court held that the witnesses had no occasion to properly identify the assailants as they had no previous acquaintance with them. The witnesses had been travelling in a vehicle while going to the factory, and if a group of workers were seen by them while travelling, it may not be easier for them to identify them. It cannot be said that the High Court has made a perverse appreciation of evidence, and the view taken is plausible and this is not a fit case where this Court can interfere with the acquittal passed by the High Court.

Supreme Court of India

D. Gopalakrishnan vs Sadanand Naik & Ors on 15 October, 2004

Print Page