Select the correct statements with respect to the “test identification parade” –

(i) If there is delay in holding TIP of accused persons, then that mere delay would also be  regarded a factor as to invalidate the said TIP.

(ii) Under the schemes of Code of Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act, there are provisions which create a right in favour of the accused to claim TIP.

(iii) The evidence of identification is substantive piece evidence and such tests are for the purpose of helping the investigating agency and also to be used in corroboration of the

statement in the court. 

(iv) The idea of holding TIP under section 9 of the Evidence Act is to test the veracity of the ‘accused’ on the question of his capability of identify ‘victim’ whom the ‘accused’ may

have seen only once. If no TIP is held then it will be wholly unsafe to rely on his testimony regarding the identification of ‘victim’ for the first time in the court.

(v) The question of holding an identification parade would arise only in event of witness claiming to be a position to identify a person whom he/she had not seen before the incident.

(vi) It is well settled that the evidence of identification can only be relied upon if all the chances of the suspects being shown to the witnesses prior their test identification are 

eliminated.

(vii) The whole object behind the TIP is really to find whether or not the suspect is the real  offender. The evidence of identification in parade on its own and independently is of a

very weak character rather no evidence and has only contradicting value to the evidence in court.