In the case of S v. Sunil Kumar, wherein Test Identification Parade (TIP) was not held to determine the identity of the offender alleged on committing rape in broad daylight, the apex court has ruled that prior identification by TIP is used to corroborate identification in court and the latter is a substantive piece of evidence. Holding TIP is merely a rule of law and not of evidence. The role of TIP is to assure the judge that the identification in court is safe to be believed and relied upon. If the witness is trustworthy and reliable, identification in court can be relied upon. In the present case, the sexual offender was held liable under 376(1) of the Indian Penal Code.