Section 54 BNSS: Identification of person arrested (Formerly Section 54A CrPC)

Section 54 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023: Identification of person arrested

Official Bare Act Text

Override / Mandate Mens Rea (Intent) Actus Reus (Conduct) Punishment Limitation Monetary

Where a person is arrested on a charge of committing an offence and his identification by any other person or persons is considered necessary for the purpose of investigation of such offence, the Court, having jurisdiction may, on the request of the officer in charge of a police station, direct the person so arrested to subject himself to identification by any person or persons in such manner as the Court may deem fit:

Provided that if the person identifying the person arrested is mentally or physically disabled, such process of identification shall take place under the supervision of a Magistrate who shall take appropriate steps to ensure that such person identifies the person arrested using methods that person is comfortable with and the identification process shall be recorded by any audio-video electronic means.

Statutory Defined Terms in this Section: (Click any term for official legal definition)

Charge Sec 2(1)(b) Investigation Sec 2(1)(h) Police Station Sec 2(1)(q)

Legal Commentary & Landmark Judgments: Section 54

Section 54 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 provides for the identification of an arrested person through Test Identification Parade (TIP).

Statutory Powers & Jurisdiction: Section 54 authorizes the Court having jurisdiction to direct that the arrested person be subjected to identification by any person or persons in such manner as the Court may deem fit.
Core Legal Standard: If the person identifying is mentally or physically challenged, the identification process must be conducted under the supervision of a Judicial Magistrate and recorded through audio-video electronic means.

Test identification parades serve to test the veracity of eyewitnesses and provide investigative corroboration.

Key Landmark Precedents:

Raju Manjhi v. State of Bihar (2019) 12 SCC 784: The Supreme Court reiterated that TIP evidence is not substantive evidence but corroborative; its utility lies in testing the witness's memory and reassuring the investigating agency.
Heera v. State of Rajasthan (2007) 10 SCC 175: Held that unexplained delay in holding a TIP or showing the accused to witnesses prior to the parade vitiates the evidentiary value of identification.

Legal Commentary:

Section 54 regulates pre-trial identification procedures. Defense advocates must cross-examine identifying witnesses on whether the accused was shown at the police station or photographed prior to the parade, which demolishes the corroborative value of TIP.