Held, process of identification was necessary for the Investing Officer (IO) to be certain that this is the man that the said witnesses had witnessed/seen as the person responsible. To say that a photo identification is hit by Section 162 is wrong. It is not a substantive piece of evidence and it is only by virtue of Section 9 of the Evidence Act the act of identification becomes admissible in Court. Logic behind TIP, including photo identification lies in the fact that it is only an aid to investigation, where an accused is not known to the witnesses, the IO conducts a TIP to ensure that he has got the right person as an accused. Facts, which establish the identity of the accused persons, are relevant under Section 9 of the Evidence Act and as a general rule, the substantive evidence of a witness is the statement made in Court.
