JUDGMENT: Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, J. 14. In the matter of Dal Chand v. State , AIR 1953 All 123 , their Lordships of Allahabad High Court held that as a safe rule of prudence, a fair proportion of outsiders mixed with the suspects, considering the circumstances of the case should always be insisted upon by every Magistrate who is charged with the duty of conducting identification proceedings. 15. Similarly, in State v. Wahid Bux , AIR 1953 All 314 in identification parades, it is always better to have as large a number of persons mixed up with the accused as possible. If five times the number of the accused persons are mixed with them, it cannot be said that there is any flaw in the identification proceedings. 17. Recently, in the matter of Gireesan Nair v. State of Kerala , (2023) 1 SCC 180 , Their Lordships of the Supreme Court held as under:- "32. If identification in the TIP has taken place after the accused is shown to the witnesses, then not only is the evidence of TIP inadmissible, even an identification in a court during trial is meaningless {Sk. Umar Ahmed Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra, (1998) 5 SCC 103 }. Even a TIP conducted in the presence of a police officer is inadmissible in light of Section 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 {Chunthuram v. State of Chhattisgarh (2020) 10 SCC 733 } and {Ramkishan Mithanlal Sharma v. State of Bombay, (1954) 2 SCC 516}. 33. It is significant to maintain a healthy ratio between suspects and non-suspects during a TIP. If rules to that effect are provided in Prison Manuals or if an appropriate authority has issued guidelines regarding the ratio to be maintained, then such rules/guidelines shall be followed. The officer conducting the TIP is under a compelling obligation to mandatorily maintain the prescribed ratio. While conducting a TIP, it is a sine qua non that the non-suspects should be of the same age-group and should also have similar physical features (size, weight, color, beard, scars, marks, bodily injuries etc.) to that of the suspects. The officer concerned overseeing the TIP should also record such physical features before commencing the TIP proceeding. While conducting a TIP, it is a sine qua non that the non-suspects should be of the same age-group and should also have similar physical features (size, weight, color, beard, scars, marks, bodily injuries etc.) to that of the suspects. The officer concerned overseeing the TIP should also record such physical features before commencing the TIP proceeding. This gives credibility to the TIP and ensures that the TIP is not just an empty formality {Rajesh Govind Jagesha v. State of Maharashtra and Ravi v. State, (2007) 15 SCC 372}.” 18. In the matter of Bollavaram Pedda Narsi Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh , (1991) 3 SCC 434 , their Lordships of the Supreme Court clearly held that the evidence given by the witnesses before the Court is the substantive evidence. In a case where the witness is a stranger to the accused and he identifies the accused person before the court for the first time, the court will not ordinarily accept that identification as conclusive. It is to lend assurance to the testimony of the witnesses that evidence in the form of an earlier identification is tendered and held observed in Para- 08 as under: "8. The witness is a stranger to the accused and he identifies the accused person before the court for the first time, the court will not ordinarily accept that identification as conclusive. It is to lend assurance to the testimony of the witnesses that evidence in the form of an earlier Identification is tendered. If the accused persons are got identified by the witness soon after their arrest and such Identification does not suffer from any infirmity that circumstance leads corroboration to the evidence given by the witness before the court. But in a case where the evidence before the court is itself shaky, the Identification before the magistrate would be of no assistance to the prosecution." “38. This Court in Varun Chaudhary v. State of Rajasthan, (2011) 12 SCC 545 and Mustkeem a v. State of Rajasthan, (2011) 11 SCC 724 , has held that if the recovery memos have been prepared in the police station itself or signed by the panch witnesses in the police station, the same would lose their sanctity and cannot be relied upon by the Court to support the conviction.” “66. Further, in Subramanya v. State of Karnataka, (2023) 11 SCC 255 , it was held as under: (SCC pp. 299-300, paras 76 to 78) "76. Keeping in mind the aforesaid evidence, we proceed to consider whether the prosecution has been able to prove and establish the discoveries in accordance with law. Section 27 of the Evidence Act reads thus: 27. How much of information received from accused may be proved.-Provided that, when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence. in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved.' 77. The first and the basic infirmity in the evidence of all the aforesaid prosecution witnesses is that none of them have deposed the exact statement said to have been made by the appellant herein which ultimately led to the discovery of a fact relevant under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. 78. If, it is say of the investigating officer that the appellant-accused while in custody on his own free will and volition made a statement that he would lead to the place where he had hidden the weapon of offence, the site of burial of the dead body, clothes, etc, then the first thing that the investigating officer should have done was to call for two independent witnesses at the police station itself. Once the two independent witnesses would arrive at the police station thereafter in their presence the accused should be asked to make an appropriate statement as he may desire in regard to pointing out the place where he is said to have hidden the weapon of offence, etc. When the accused while in custody makes such statement before the two independent witnesses (panch witnesses) the exact statement or rather the exact words uttered by the accused should be incorporated in the first part of the panchnama that the investigating officer may draw in accordance with law. When the accused while in custody makes such statement before the two independent witnesses (panch witnesses) the exact statement or rather the exact words uttered by the accused should be incorporated in the first part of the panchnama that the investigating officer may draw in accordance with law. This first part of the panchnama for the purpose of Section 27 of the Evidence Act is always drawn at the police station in the presence of the independent witnesses so as to lend credence that a particular statement was made by the accused expressing his willingness on his own free will and volition to point out the place where the weapon of offence or any other article used in the commission of the offence had been hidden. Once the first part of the panchnama is completed thereafter b the police party along with the accused and the two independent witnesses (panch witnesses) would proceed to the particular place as may be led by the accused. If from that particular place anything like the weapon of offence or bloodstained clothes or any other article is discovered then that part of the entire process would form the second part of the panchnama. This is how the law expects the investigating officer to draw the discovery panchnama as contemplated under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. If we read the entire oral evidence of the investigating officer then it is clear that the same is deficient in all the aforesaid relevant aspects of the matter." 67. Similar view was taken by this Court in Ramanand v. State of U.P., (2023) 16 SCC 510 , wherein this Court held that mere exhibiting of memorandum prepared by the investigating officer during investigation cannot tantamount to proof of its contents. While testifying on oath, the investigating officer would be required to narrate the sequence of events which transpired leading to the recording of the disclosure statement.”