54 quid pro quo, i.e., being a convenient witness, leaves a lurking suspicion. The police did not involve him during the test identification parade; admittedly, Manoj was in fact taken to him during the investigation. In these circumstances, the testimony of this witness is not credible. This circumstance is therefore, held not to be proved. VI. Test Identification Parade of the accused 98. The prosecution relied upon the testimonies of PW-10 and PW-18 (Pratap Kumar Agasiya, Naib Tehsildar). Both deposed that PW-10 had correctly identified Manoj and Rahul by specifically tapping their heads. According to PW-18, both the accused were made to stand with 10 other persons resembling them. The result of this identification memo i.e., the test identification parade (“TIP”) proceedings were recorded as Ex. P38, where Manoj and Rahul were identified by PW-10, and Ex. P40 where only Manoj was identified by PW-11 Raju Sen. Likewise, PW-18 deposed that in a separate proceeding recorded as Ex. P39, PW-10 had identified Neha from amongst five other girls who had similar physical features. 99. The main argument against the TIP proceedings was that it was held after an inordinate delay. The appellants were arrested on 22.06.2011 and remained in custody till 30.06.2011. It was urged that no attempt was made to involve a magistrate, to have their TIPs either at that time, or thereafter and that the TIP was held only on 14.07.2011. Ex. P38, the TIP relating to Rahul and Manoj, records the names of 10 other men who the accused were made to stand with, anywhere as per their choice. Each person was covered with a blanket, upto their neck. It records that no police personnel were present when the proceedings took place, and the witness correctly identified the accused. 100. A popular and widely used method of accused identification, by witness, in criminal trials, is the identification parade. TIP procedures are used, where witnesses who claim to have seen the accused at, or about the time of