Refusal for ID parade not enough to charge for offence: Court

A Delhi court has observed that mere refusal of a person to participate in Test Identification Parade (TIP) in a criminal case does not draw any adverse inference against him.
District and Sessions Judge Ina Malhotra discharged a man from the charge of criminal conspiracy for the offence under Section 381 (theft by clerk or servant of property in possession of master) and said mere refusal to participate in the TIP would not be enough ground for charging him in the criminal case.
"This court finds merit in the arguments advanced by the counsel for the accused that mere refusal to participate in the TIP would not be enough to charge the accused under criminal conspiracy for the offence of theft by clerk or servant of property in possession of master. The revision petition (of accused) is allowed. The accused is accordingly discharged," the court said.

Uttar Pradesh resident Pushap Raj had filed a revision petition against the order of an Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate charging him with criminal conspiracy in the FIR filed for the offence of theft by clerk or servant.
The accused has pleaded before the court that there was no material on record to incriminate him.
The prosecutor had opposed the man's petition contending that the accused has refused to participate in the TIP and that in itself would give rise to adverse inference.

The court, however, rejected the prosecution's contention saying, "disclosure statements of the other co-accused have not led to any recovery from the accused. Mere non participation in the TIP perse does not lead to any adverse inference."

"I am unable to appreciate the arguments advanced on behalf of the state. Perusal of the record of the trial court and the statements taken during investigation does not reflect as to how and on what facts the accused has been embroiled in this case," the judge said.
The court said the investigative steps on record do not reflect facts which according to the prosecution are an 'inadvertent error' on the part of the investigating agency.
"Be that as it may, if the investigative steps have not been properly recorded, the benefit would enure to the accused," the court said.