Supreme Court Affirms Legal Obligation for Accused Individuals in Criminal Cases to Participate in Test Identification Parades
Supreme Court of India
The Supreme Court has upheld the requirement of the Code of Criminal Procedure that suspects in criminal proceedings participate in a test identification parade (TIP) while a criminal investigation is ongoing. The Court’s ruling emphasizes that this obligation does not violate any fundamental rights. The appeal of a person who had been found guilty of murder was rejected by a bench composed of Justices M M Sundresh and J B Pardiwala.
According to the Supreme Court, the requirement for a test identification parade does not infringe upon the basic right guaranteed by Article 20(3) of the Constitution. No accused person may be forced to testify against themselves, as stated in Article 20(3). In other words, a suspect cannot be coerced into testifying against themselves.
The Court’s decision emphasizes the delicate balance that must exist between the defense of an accused person’s constitutional rights and the investigative processes required for criminal prosecutions. Test identification parades are essential in helping witnesses recognize criminals. They involve placing the accused on trial alongside those who exhibit comparable traits. The witnesses then identify the offender from the lineup. This process helps law enforcement organizations develop a compelling case based on reliable witness testimony.
The Court’s ruling in this case makes it clear that while the accused are required to participate in a test identification parade, doing so does not amount to making them testify against themselves. This distinction is important because it guarantees that the investigative process is fair and reasonable, safeguarding the rights of the accused as well as the integrity of the criminal justice system.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s ruling emphasizes the legitimacy and constitutionality of asking suspects to participate in test identification parades during criminal investigations. The Court strikes a compromise between the rights of the accused and the demands of the criminal justice system’s investigation by rejecting the appeal and reaffirming the relevance of these parades within the legal framework. Participating in a test identification parade (TIP) does not equate to admitting guilt, the Court said. The Court states that an accused person is required to participate in the TIP since Section 54A was added to the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). In particular, the Court emphasizes that the accused cannot be rejected under duress.
The Supreme Court makes it clear that when an accused person is compelled to testify against themselves, the Constitution’s prohibition on self-incrimination (Article 20(3)) applies. However, Article 20(3) does not apply if the accused can obtain evidence without actively participating. In response to the question of whether a suspect who has already been recognized by witnesses might decline to participate in the TIP, the Court determines that the TIP is not intended to gather evidence. In a specific instance, the Court denied Mukesh Singh’s request to have his life sentence for murder reduced. Singh and others rejected the TIP, claiming that a prior “planted” eyewitness had seen them.
-Hrishika Tripathi
Team Profile
Latest entries
News4 September 2023ISRO’s Strategic Approach: Enhancing Efficiency and Scientific Discovery with Pragyan Rover on the Moon
News4 September 2023India’s Solar Space Observatory and Sun Exploration Mission, Aditya-L1
News3 September 2023KARNATAKA’S GRUHA JYOTI SCHEME: Providing Relief and Savings to Household Consumers Amid Rising Energy Demand
News2 September 2023A Significant Development in Indian Education: NCERT’s Designated University Status
