Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
Section 54
Identification of person arrested
Where a person is arrested on a charge of committing an offence and his identification by any other person or persons is considered necessary for the purpose of investigation of such offence, the Court, having jurisdiction may, on the request of the officer in charge of a police station, direct the person so arrested to subject himself to identification by any person or persons in such manner as the Court may deem fit: Provided that if the person identifying the person arrested is mentally or physically disabled, such process of identification shall take place under the supervision of a Magistrate who shall take appropriate steps to ensure that such person identifies the person arrested using methods that person is comfortable with and the identification process shall be recorded by any audio-video electronic means.
Why this exists
Test identification parades (TIPs) have long been used in Indian criminal investigation to help police confirm that they have arrested the right suspect, especially when witnesses did not know the accused beforehand. This provision, carried over and updated from Section 54A of the old Code of Criminal Procedure, formalizes court oversight so the process isn't misused, and adds a modern safeguard for witnesses with disabilities, reflecting greater sensitivity to accessibility and reliable evidence-gathering in the new Sanhita.
How courts read it
Under the predecessor provision (CrPC Section 54A), courts held that identification parades are not conducted to prove guilt but to help the investigation decide whether to proceed against a suspect; the results are not final proof of identity and are usually treated as corroborative, not primary, evidence. Courts have also stressed that fairness in the parade's procedure (like avoiding suggestive setups) matters for the evidence's credibility, though the core holdings from CrPC-era case law are expected to continue guiding interpretation of this renumbered provision.
Common misconceptions
- Myth: An identification parade alone proves someone is guilty.
Fact: Courts have generally treated identification parade results as supportive evidence for investigation, not as conclusive proof of guilt by itself. - Myth: Police can hold an identification parade whenever they want, without any check.
Fact: The provision requires the police officer to request it, and the court with jurisdiction must direct and oversee how the identification is carried out.