It is well settled principle that in the absence of any independent corroboration like TIP held by judicial Magistrate, the evidence of eye-witnesses as to the identification of the Appellants/accused for the first time before the trial Court generally cannot be accepted. As explained in Manu Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2010) 6 SCC 1 case, that if the case is supported by other materials, identification of the accused in the dock for the first time would be permissible subject to confirmation by other corroborative evidence
In Umar Abdul Sakoor Sorathia v. Intelligence Officer, Narcotic Control Bureau, AIR 1999 SC 2562, the following conclusion is relevant:
12. In the present case prosecution does not say that they would rest with the identification made by Mr. Mkhatshwa when the photograph was shown to him. Prosecution has to examine him as a witness in the court and he has to identify the accused in the court. Then alone it would become substantive evidence. But that does not mean that at this stage the court is disabled from considering the prospect of such a witness correctly identifying the Appellant during trial. In so considering the court can take into account the fact that during investigation the photograph of the Appellant was shown to the witness and he identified that person as the one whom he saw at the relevant time
15. In Jana Yadav v. State of Bihar, (2002) 7 SCC 295, para 38, the following conclusion is relevant:
Failure to hold test identification parade does not make the evidence of identification in court inadmissible, rather the same is very much admissible in law, but ordinarily identification of an accused by a witness for the first time in court should not form the basis of conviction, the same being from its very nature inherently of a weak character unless it is corroborated by his previous identification in the test identification parade or any other evidence. The previous identification in the test identification parade is a check valve to the evidence of identification in court of an accused by a witness and the same is a rule of prudence and not law.
It is clear that identification of accused persons by witness in dock for the first time though permissible but cannot be given credence without further corroborative evidence. Though some of the witnesses identified some of the accused in the dock as mentioned above without corroborative evidence the dock identification alone cannot be treated as substantial evidence, though it is permissible.