XXX XXX XXX "13 The two eye-witnesses PW-11 and PW-12 have given a graphic description of the incident and have stood the test of scrutiny of cross-examination and had also stated that they could identify the assailants, but the accused had declined to participate in the test identification parade on the ground that he had been shown to the eye-witnesses in advance In my considered view, it was not open to the accused to refuse to participate in the TI parade nor it was a correct legal approach for the prosecution to accept refusal of the accused to participate in the test identification parade If the accused-Appellant had reason to do so, specially on the plea that he had been shown to the eye-witnesses in advance, the value and admissibility of the evidence of TI Parade could have been assailed by the defence at the stage of trial in order to demolish the value of test identification parade But merely on account of the objection of the accused, he could not have been permitted to decline from participating in the test identification parade from which CRLA 232/2000 Page 9 of 11 adverse inference can surely be drawn against him at least in order to corroborate the prosecution case 14 In the matter of Shyam Babu v Haryana 4

AIR 2009 SC 577

All India Reporter, Supreme Court

Supreme Court of India

India

Cases Referring to this Case