In Harjindra Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the Supreme Court held that the absence of a Test Identification Parade (TIP) is not automatically fatal to the prosecution’s case. The Court clarified that TIP is only a corroborative investigative tool, whereas identification of the accused in court (dock identification) constitutes substantive evidence. The case arose from a kidnapping-for-ransom conviction where the accused argued that no TIP was conducted and that witnesses identified them for the first time during trial. Rejecting this contention, the Court noted that the crime occurred in broad daylight, the victims had ample opportunity to observe the accused, interacted with them directly, noticed their distinctive features, and provided descriptions to the police immediately after the incident. The accused were also arrested shortly thereafter. Relying on established precedent, the Court reiterated that TIP is a rule of prudence, not a mandatory legal requirement. Where witnesses had sufficient opportunity to observe the offenders and the identification inspires confidence, a conviction can be sustained even without a TIP. Accordingly, the Supreme Court upheld the convictions, emphasizing that the evidentiary value of identification depends on the facts and circumstances of each case.