Test Identification Parade is not a Substantive Evidence: Read Judgment

image description

Title of the Case – Test Identification Parade is not a Substantive Evidence

Name of the caseRajnish Purushottam Pogade vs. State of Maharashtra., Crl. A. 786 of 2018

Date of Judgment 10th June, 2019

Judges: Justice Rohit B. Deo

Subject and sections involved Section 394 and 397 of IPC


  1. Whether conviction can be solely based on evidence adduced from Test Identification Parade?

Fact of the Case:

  • The incident was occurred on 11th April, 2015.
  • The driver of Boloro- pickup vehicle one Naresh Shende, who is the informant and conductor Paras Kamble were proceeding from Lakhani to Bilaspur at 7:45 PM.
  • The vehicle was forced to stop at Sakoli bus stand by three persons riding on a green motorcycle.
  • One person approached the informant and dragged him out of the Boloro Vehicle and other person checked the pockets of the informant to which the informant objected.
  •  The person who dragged the informant out of the Boloro then whipped out a knife and inflicted a wound to the right hip of the informant and snatched a mobile phone (Nokia) from the shirt pocket of the informant.
  • The person who checked the pockets of the informant snatched a black coloured lather wallet from the trouser pocket of the informant, which wallet contained one Adhar Card and Driving Licence. The said person also relieved the informant of INR 1400/- cash.


Ratio of the case -

The Bombay High Court referred to the case of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Iqbal and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2015) 6 SCC 623, and noted that the evidence of identification of the miscreants in the test identification parade is not a substantive   evidence.   Conviction cannot be based solely on the identity of the dacoits by the witnesses in the test identification parade. The prosecution has to adduce substantive evidence by establishing incriminating evidence connecting the accused with the crime, like recovery of articles which are the subject­matter of dacoity and the alleged weapons used in the commission of the offence. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused persons, it is the duty of the prosecution to prove that the stolen property was in the possession of the accused persons or that the accused had knowledge that the property was a stolen property or the accused persons had converted the   stolen property. No such recovery was made to connect the appellants and other non­appealing accused persons with the crime. In the absence of any other evidence like recovery of stolen jewellery or other articles strengthening the prosecution case, conviction cannot be based solely on the identification of the accused in the test identification parade. Serious doubts arise as regards identification  of the accused regarding complicity of the appellants in the commission of dacoity and their identification by the witnesses and the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and in our view, the conviction of the appellants under Section 396 IPC cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside.