Court’s decision on evidentiary value of eyewitness.
In the landmark decision of Vikas Kumar Roorkewal v. State of Uttarkhand & Ors,the Supreme Court held that eyewitnesses’ plays an important role in the Criminal Justice System and every legislative measure in connection of witnesses contributes to the fundamental principle of fair trial. Similarly in the case of Pratap Chauhan v. Ram Naik , it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that an eyewitness statement cannot be ignored on the ground of false implications before checking the evidences with proper care and caution. The court further held that a testimony of eyewitness cannot be discarded on the ground of minor variations.
In cases of murder, eye witnesses are the most reliable witnesses in the eye of law. The credibility and the truthfulness of the eyewitness statement are not affected if the statement has led to the acquittal of one accused and conviction of others as held in the case of Krishna Ram v. State of Rajasthan. The Supreme Court in the case of Edward v. Inspector of Police held that the statement of sole eyewitness reliable evidence even if it differs from the medical reports.The testimony of the eyewitness cannot be discarded on the ground of absence of motive.
The admissibility of the eyewitness statement is based on the presumption that the witness speaking under an oath is truthful unless it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that their testimonies are untruthful and unreliable. It is necessary to make a close observation while making the statement of the witness admissible. It is the duty of the court to examine whether or not the eyewitness was under any undue influence while giving the evidence; whether or not there has been any threat to the eyewitnesses etc. It is of utmost importance that the witnesses are not influenced in any manner so that witness can provide unbiased and truthful statement which would help in the delivery of fair judgment. However, in many cases, documentary evidences weakens the oral evidences as the eyewitness can often be misleading but the documentary evidences have lesser chances of being inaccurate.
In cases where there is a relation between the witness and the deceased, it is the duty of the court to scrutinize the evidence with proper caution. In the case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Jagdeo,the court held that the testimony of the witness cannot be discarded on the ground that the witness is connected to the deceased if the evidence given by him is consistent and supported with other witnesses. Similarly in case of Bhagwan Singh and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh, it was held by the Hon’ble Court that the evidence of related witness cannot be discarded solely on the ground of being related to the victim.
In cases of child witness, there is no law which rejects such evidence if it is reliable. In the case of Algupandi v. State of Tamil Nadu, it was held that a child is a competent witness if the statement of such witness is reliable, truthful and corroborated by other prosecution evidence.
The presumption that every person acts honestly applies to the police official as well. In the case of Ram Kumar v. State of Delhi, it was held that any evidence of police official which is found reliable cannot be discarded on the ground that no independent witnesses has been examined by the prosecution. However, in the case of Karmjit Singh v. State (Delhi Administration), it was held by the court that without corroboration of other independent witnesses, the testimony of police officials cannot be solely relied on.
