Substantive piece of evidence is evidence of witness in court on oath- to say that photo identification is hit by section 162 Crpc is wrong- even TIP before Magistrate would otherwise be hit hit by S. 162 Crpc - logic behind TIP / photo identification is that where an accused-is not known to witness, IO conduct TIP to ensure he has got the right person as accused-- practice is not borne out of the procedure, but out of prudence - At best TIP can be brought under S 8 ,as evidence of conduct of witness in identifying accused-in presence of IO or Magistrate during investigation. - Evidence Act 1872

Failure to hold a Test identification parade would not make in admissible the evidence of identification in court.

Weight to be attached to such identification is a matter of court of fact- It would on how reliable testimony as to identification is , uncorroborated by a test identification parade - Prosecution has to be cautious to ensure that there is no scope for accused to allege that evidence of identification is vitiated due to non holding of (a timely) TI parade-- if , however circumstances are beyond control of the Prosecution and there is some delay,it can not be Said fatal to the Prosecution and there is some delay.

It can not be Said to be fatal to the Prosecution- position where accused previously known to witness concerned,not known and seen only once, and not known and seen a number of times, distinguished - On facts, a TI parade would have made no difference as one'witness did not claim to have seen the accused and the others evidence was in any case unreliable,as it was full of unexplained conditions - Section 9 of Evidence Act,1872