Whether or not the eyewitness evidence should be fully trusted remains a matter of debate. Should the court establish any standard operating procedures regarding the admission of eyewitness testimony and its degree of reliability?
The question of whether a conviction can be based solely on an eyewitness’s statement remains pertinent in light of the numerous other factors that could taint the witness’ testimony or turn them hostile, such as misidentification, delays in the procedure that cause memory loss, or the witness becoming hostile for financial gain and so on.
In ancient times as per Dharma Shastras, the witnesses were known to be ‘Sakshi’ and were regarded as a crucial instrument for determining the truth in disputed cases. The practice of corroborating the incident with the witnesses and their testimony has been an ancient method of concluding the crime committed. Generally, documentary evidence is considered superior to oral evidence as there are fewer chances of it getting tempered.
While Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act of 1872 deals with different types of witnesses in a Criminal case yet there is no particular section that specifically deals with the ‘eyewitnesses’. An eyewitness is a person who has seen a crime and is willing to testify in court. Legally, eyewitness testimony is a person’s first-hand description of an incident they saw, often one that is thought to be or is suspected to constitute a crime.
Usually, an eyewitness is a victim or a passerby who was present at a crime scene that is being investigated by law enforcement. The incidents or crimes include murder, assaults, and robberies, to name a few, and the person’s account of what they observed during the incident, including any witnesses who were also involved in the crime is the testimony of that witness.
As such, they are seen as crucial shreds of evidence, particularly in criminal cases, and their testimony is significant in ensuring fair trials. When it comes to establishing a crime, judges place an undue emphasis on eyewitness testimony. A conviction based only on the evidence of one witness may be possible if the reliability criteria are satisfied. If a court determines that a witness has a conflict of interest or his testimony is not completely reliable, they may order an independent verification of the witness’ evidence.
However, because there have often been multiple challenges, they are not always seen as credible. According to various studies, eyewitnesses are not always trustworthy and can result in the conviction of innocent persons for crimes they did not commit.
There are contradicting opinions when it comes to the reliability of the testimony of eyewitnesses as in some cases it has led to the conviction of the accused and delivering justice to the victim, while in numerous other circumstances, it has also steered the case towards the conviction of an innocent party.
One of the viewpoints could be according to the Indian Judiciary which says that the eyewitness has to be taken very seriously as the same has been ruled by the Courts in various cases. The Supreme Court ruled in the seminal case of Vikas Kumar Rorkewal v. State of Uttarakhand & Ors.[1] that the involvement of eyewitnesses is crucial in the Criminal Justice System and that any legislation about witnesses upholds the essential idea of a fair trial. Again, in a case named Pratap Chauhan v. Ram Naik[2], it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that an eyewitness account must not be overlooked before carefully examining the facts due to potential erroneous implications. The court also ruled that an eyewitness’s evidence cannot be discarded due to slight discrepancies.
While accepting the testimony of the eyewitness, all that the Courts have to keep in mind is that it should be corroborated with the other pieces of evidence and circumstances of the incident. Although there have been instances where the conviction has been on the sole testimony of an eyewitness. In a number of recent cases one of which being Amar Singh VS State of NCT Delhi[3] of the year 2020, for conviction of the accused, the Supreme Court relied on the testimony of the sole eyewitness as he was unblemished and there was no discrepancy in the statement when corroborated with the incident. Thus, the Court observes that being found guilty based only on the testimony of just one witness has no legal ramifications. Section 134 of the Evidence Act of 1872 makes sense in this way.
This shows that the Courts are open to the witness and the other view could be that conviction for a criminal offence has to be mandatorily supported by other documentary evidence or any such. There is always a high probability of the eyewitnesses’ testimony to be influenced or flawed. Owing to the significant fallibility of eyewitness accounts, it is often proposed that a quantitative evidentiary threshold be established. Various reasons cause flaws in the testimony such as the frequent delay in the legal proceedings which leads to the ageing of the witness and the deterioration in their memory making them less credible. Innocent convictions are still mostly the result of mistaken identity, and suggestive identification techniques are still widely used.
In the case of Karmjit Singh v. State (Delhi Administration)[4], the court determined that the evidence of law enforcement personnel could not be completely trusted in the absence of confirmation from other independent witnesses.
To further the endeavour of the admissibility of the eyewitness there is also a mention of the provision as per Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with the punishment for giving tainted or wrong testimony/ evidence in the Court which prescribes imprisonment of up to 3 years or fine or both. The Courts are very strict regarding the testimonies given by the evidence as it can lead to the conviction of an innocent person and as is said that the Indian Courts work on the maxim that 100 guilty persons escape then 1 innocent suffers.
Surjit Singh And Another v. State of Punjab[5] on 23 March 1993 learned Counsel for the appellant claimed that PW-6 is a dishonest witness with a dubious background whose behaviour during the back and call was incredibly abnormal. Even while we can’t completely label him as a false witness, given the lack of any more supporting data as was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
While upholding the decision of the High Court, the Hon’ble Supreme Court clarified by passing an important judgment that in the landmark case of Chhotelal vs Rohtash[6], the testimony of a lone eyewitness must be carefully scrutinized, particularly if he was an interested witness since he was the deceased’s father and had a long-standing grudge against the accused. The Supreme Court’s ruling clarifies the rules regarding convictions based only on eyewitness testimony. The Court has made it clear that an eyewitness’s testimony alone may result in a conviction, but it must be of the highest calibre and handled extremely cautiously. Conviction verification is prohibited when the testimony of the lone witness contains contradictions.
The inference that can be made is that there is no set procedure for accepting or rejecting eyewitness testimony in criminal cases and using it as a foundation for conviction. Rather, the decision to do so will ultimately rely on the facts and merits of the case as well as the court’s level of confidence in the witness. Therefore, it is usually the discretion of the Court to decide the level of weight to be placed on the testimony.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
[1] Vikas Kumar Rorkewal v. State of Uttarakhand & Ors. ( 2011 2 SCC 178).
[2] Pratap Chauhan v. Ram Naik, 2001 AIR 164 SC.
[3] Amar Singh VS State of NCT Delhi.
[4] Karmjit Singh v. State (Delhi Administration), AIR 2003 SC 1311.
[5] Surjit Singh And Another v. State of Punjab, 1996 SCC (2) 336.
[6] Chhotelal vs Rohtash 2023 (LiveLaw (SC) 1069).
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
This article was written and submitted by Muskan Singh during her course of internship at B&B Associates LLP. Muskan is a 3rd year B.A.LL.B student at the Army Institute of Law, Mohali.
