55 occurrence to identify such accused from the midst of other individuals, who bear physical attributes similar to them, without any aid or other source. TIPs are meant to test witness veracity and their capability to identify unknown persons. TIPs should normally be conducted at the earliest possible time to eliminate the chance of accused being shown to witnesses before the identification parade, which might otherwise affect such witnesses’ memory. TIPs are conducted during investigation; however, there is no provision of law enabling an accused to claim it as a matter of right, as held in Malkhan Singh v. State of MP.34 In Ramanathan v. State of Tamil Nadu35 this court outlined the utility and weight of a TIP. There is no hard and fast rule that delay or failure in holding the TIP ipso facto renders the evidence inadmissible or unacceptable; it however, affects the credibility and weight attached to such identification, as held in Shyamlal Ghosh v. State of West Bengal36. 101. This court has discussed earlier, with respect to credibility PW-10’s testimony and why it cannot be taken at face value. Even otherwise, the fact remains that he omitted to mention basic details about the distance from between where he was, and where he saw the accused. Further, his account suggests that he apparently saw the accused, fleetingly. No attempt was made by the prosecution to draw a sketch or to show the approximate distance from where this witness (who is vital to its case) observed the accused. Given these facts, and the delay (unexplained by the prosecution, which had by its account, wrapped up the case by end of June 2011) to conduct the TIP after the accused’s arrest, renders the TIP suspect. It cannot be said that the TIPs conducted and the subsequent dock identification, by PW-10 of the accused, are among the circumstances proved beyond reasonable doubt. VII. Recovery of articles and their Test Identification 34 (2003) 5 SCC 746 (para 7). 35 (1978) 3 SCC 86 (para 18). 36 (2012) 7 SCC 646