1 | P a g e

DR. RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA

NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, LUCKNOW

Final Project for Law of Evidence 2015-16

on

Analysis of an

Eyewitness as an Evidence

Submitted by: Submitted to:

SHREYASH MR. VIPUL VINOD

Roll No. 130 Assistant Professor

V SEMESTER RMLNLU

B.A LLB (Hons.)

2 | P a g e

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

It is my pleasure to give recognition to the many people who have been involved in a more

or less directly in inspiring the production of this project. Firstly, I would like to thank all

my teachers for the knowledge he has bestowed upon me.

I take this opportunity to express a deep sense of gratitude and humble regards to my subject

teacher Mr. Vipul Vinod for his keen interest, constant guidance and encouragement which

enabled me to complete this project successfully.

I also owe sincere thanks to my parents, teachers, friends, libraries for their endless help and

support without whom this project wouldn’t have been completed.

Finally, I wish to put on record this fact, that without the help given to me by my teachers and

parents, my project would have been in shambles and all efforts would have been nullified.

Yours sincerely

Shreyash

3 | P a g e

INTRODUCTION 4

DEFINITION OF AN EYEWITNESS 5

EVIDENTIARY WORTH AND MANNER OF APPRECIATION 6

PURVIEW: WHO SHOULD BE EXAMINE 13

ROLE OF EYEWITNESS 14

CONCLUSION 17

BIBLIOGRAPHY 19

4 | P a g e

INTRODUCTION:

In both civil or criminal proceedings, proving of facts is the most necessary task in order to

enable the court to apply the well-settled legal principles to decide the case.

Facts can be proved by evidence. Though not defined by it, the Indian Evidence Act specifies

what forms part of evidence. It recognizes two broad forms of evidence, oral and

documentary.

Oral evidence refers to the statements of witnesses in court. The testimony of an eyewitness

forms part of oral evidence1. Quite logically, his testimony is important for the court since he

has witnessed the occurrence.

An eyewitness is one who saw the act, fact, or transaction to which he testifies.2 However, so

as to prove concurrence among eyewitnesses, should all of them be called to court as

witnesses and examined? While answering this, it would be pertinent to note that the Indian

Evidence Act does not specify the number of witnesses who may be examined at the trial. In

a series of judicial decisions, it has been held that the number of witnesses is of no

consequence. Even if a single witness is found credible enough, a conviction may be

sustained solely on the basis of his testimony. Clarifying the position in this respect, the

Supreme Court held in State of UP v. Jagdish,3 that all those witnesses whose testimony is

required for “unfolding the narrative” have to be called whether their testimony goes for or

against the prosecution case. The failure to examine such witnesses is likely to deny the

accused a fair trial, a right that has been guaranteed to him by the Constitution. Thus, it may

be inferred that all the eyewitnesses have to be called to court, as their testimony will be

necessary for appreciating what the facts are. However, how far would this help the court,

considering that they are all likely to provide the same account of the occurrence? At the

same time, not doing so shall mean that the court will have to rely on the testimony of a

single or a few eyewitnesses. But it is necessary to call all of them to the trial since otherwise

there shall be no other means available to prove that they are in concurrence.

1Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act deals with who can testify before court. A plain reading of thisprovisionwillshowthateyewitnessesareincludedwithinthescopeofwitnesses2Singh,Dr.Avtar,“CollegeLawDictionary”,Wadhwa,2002,Nagpur,p.25531971(2)SCC42

5 | P a g e

DEFINITION OF AN EYEWITNESS

A witness who gives testimony to facts seen by him is called an eye witness, an eye witness

is a person who saw the act, fact or transaction to which he testifies. An eye witness must be

competent (legally fit) and qualified to testify in court. A witness who was intoxicated or

insane at the time the event occurred will be prevented from testifying, regardless of whether

he or she was the only eyewitness to the occurrence. Identification of an accused in Court by

an ‘Eye witness’ is a serious matter and the chances of a false identification are very high.

Where a case hangs on the evidence of a single eye witness it may be enough to sustain the

conviction given sterling testimony of a competent, honest man although as a rule of

prudence courts call for corroboration. "It is a platitude to say that witnesses have to be

weighed and not counted since quality matters more than quantity in human affairs."

An witness is a person who gives or is to give evidence in a cause. He has to have sworn to

speak the truth, and nothing but the truth at the trial. More importantly, he has to be cognizant

of the fact in dispute about which he is providing information, by direct experience.4 Though

the term “witness” has not been defined in the Act, statements of witnesses are expressly

recognized as one of the forms of evidence. Chapters IX and X of the Act deal with evidence

of witnesses5.

Section 118 specifies who may testify in court. According to this legal provision that is fairly

widely worded, anyone who in the opinion of the court is able to understand the questions put

to them and answer the same rationally can be a witness. Someone who has seen an offence

taking place before him is thus not precluded from testifying in court so long as he fulfills

this broad requirement.

At this point, it would be pertinent to address the question of who is an eyewitness. A witness

who is able to provide a graphic account of the attack on the deceased can be accepted as an

eyewitness.6 As already noted, an eyewitness is one who saw the act to which he testifies.

4Singh,Dr.Avtar,“CollegeLawDictionary”,Wadhwa,2002,Nagpur,p.7115ChapterIX–OfWitnesses,andChapterX–OftheExaminationofWitnesses6HarishKumarv.State (DelhiAdministration),AIR1993SC973:ascited“Halsbury’sLawsof India”,Vol.15,ButterworthsIndia,Delhi,2000,p.411

6 | P a g e

EVIDENTIARY WORTH AND MANNER OF APPRECIATION

The test which has to be applied so to determine whether someone is an eye-witness or not is

whether it was probable for him to be present at the scene of the occurrence, keeping in mind

the given circumstances. His explanation for being present at the scene of occurrence has to

be plausible. Apart from this, like all other witnesses, he also has to be found credible7. So

long as it is proved that the eyewitness was present at the scene of occurrence, the court

should ordinarily not go into the question of why he was present there. He may have seen the

incident while passing through that area, but he shall still be an eyewitness for all legal

intents.

The presence of an eyewitness has to be proved by the prosecution beyond all reasonable

doubt. In Hari Chand v. State (Delhi Administration),8 the trial court acquitted the other

accused. The Supreme Court, while clarifying this decision, held that the other accused were

acquitted since the FIR mentioned they were standing on the road outside the house in which

the murder took place. In other words, they could not have seen the murder, since it took

place inside the house (their presence at the scene of occurring being doubtful).

The fact that eyewitnesses have to be found credible is undisputed, but this does not mean

that they should be aware of all details in connection with the offence committed. If they are

able to prove their presence at the place of occurrence beyond reasonable doubt, minor

inconsistencies in so far as the time of occurrence is concerned will not be of any

consequence. The underlying logic is that they should have been present at the scene of

occurrence. In Balbir Singh v. State of Punjab9, the presence of the eyewitnesses at the scene

of occurrence was proved, but they failed to mention the time of the occurrence. Reversing

the decision of the High Court which had acquitted the accused solely for this reason, the

Supreme Court convicted the accused.

7(1996)3SCC1038AIR1996SC14779AIR1994SC969;CrLJ1206(SC)

7 | P a g e

In Jagdish Prasad v. State of MP10, the accused were acquitted since the testimony of the

eyewitness was “clouded with grave suspicion and serious doubts.” His presence at the

scene of the occurrence itself was doubtful, since he was fleeing for his life when the accused

assaulted the deceased, and hid inside a room of a hospital. In such circumstances, it is

improbable for him to have seen the entire occurrence. The court recognized the need for an

eyewitness to mention the names and alleged offences committed by all the accused. Should

they fail to do so, as in the present case, it will indicate that they are aiding the acquittal of

some of the accused.

In Govind v. State of MP11 the underlying legal principles was similar. It was held that

simply because an eyewitness failed to provide many details of an offence, her testimony

cannot be rejected. The facts of the case are as follows: There was a massacre in Kestara,

Madhya Pradesh, leading to the death of 14 persons. Those inmates who attempted to flee

from the house that was set on fire were caught and thrown into the flames. As many as 44

persons from the opposite group with whom this group had a long-standing faction were

prosecuted.

The case mainly rested on the testimony of the two eyewitnesses who happened to be

members of that family. The trial court acquitted the accused. One of these witnesses

admitted to not providing many details of the occurrence in her statement to the investigating

agency. But it was noted that it was not in itself a sufficient ground to reject her testimony.

Since she had witnessed this incident it was only necessary for her to identify the assailants.

She identified some of the accused, attributing specific overt acts to them. They were

convicted. Thus, material particulars have to be properly mentioned. So long as that is done,

the court will not go into the threadbare details.

The eyewitnesses are supposed to be able to provide details as to how the injuries were

inflicted by the accused, but shall not be required to provide specific details. In Sardul Singh

10AIR1994SC125111AIR1994SC826

8 | P a g e

v. State of Punjab12, the trial court refused to accept the testimony of the three eyewitnesses,

because they failed to provide details of the injuries sustained by the deceased. But the

Supreme Court convicted the accused. It held that minor variations are insignificant, and so

long as they are able to give some details of the manner in which the injuries were inflicted,

that will be enough. What is most important in such cases is that the injuries sustained by the

deceased have to tally with the evidence of eyewitnesses. Moreover, it is necessary for the

eyewitness to mention the injuries sustained by the victim. They need not mention the

injuries to the police, but have to mention about the incident at some point of time after it

occurred.

Similarly, in Vahula Bhushan v. State of Tamil Nadu13, the accused contended that he

should not have been convicted on the sole testimony of a single eyewitness, since it was not

corroborated by the testimony of other witnesses. The appellate court held that there is no

such rule of evidence. Therefore, if the testimony of even a single eyewitness is found to be

wholly reliable, the conviction may be sustained on that basis alone.

In Anil Phukan v. State of Assam14, it was held that conviction of the accused can be based

upon the testimony of even one eyewitness. But he shall have to prove to be wholly reliable.

This clearly shows that the courts appreciate quality and not quantity of evidence. The

witness has to be reliable. If that requirement is satisfied, the number of witnesses is of no

consequence. But if he is not found wholly credible, the courts will not reject his evidence

straightaway, but will insist upon a corroboration of his testimony (at least as far as material

particulars are concerned). However, if he is found wholly unreliable, there will be no option

left to the courts but to discard his evidence in whole, there being no scope for corroboration

in such cases. At the same time, since we are dealing with those instances in which only one

12AIR1994SC67213AIR1989SC236;SeealsoAIR1994SC250714AIR1993SC1462

9 | P a g e

witness is being relied upon for sustaining the conviction of the accused, his testimony has to

be found to be wholly reliable, and nothing less than that will do.

In the present case, the single eyewitness was a close relative of the deceased. Though he

claimed to have been present at the place of occurrence, he did not do anything to save the

deceased when he was being assaulted, even though the deceased was his uncle. Instead, he

simply escaped from the scene of occurrence. The courts found this reaction surprising since

in normal circumstances “a close relation would be the last person to spare the real assailant

of his relative.” Also, he failed to provide the actual time of the offence. So the court did not

rely upon his testimony.

The importance of the testimony of eyewitnesses can be appreciated in the light of the fact

that non-examination of other witnesses shall become insignificant if the eyewitnesses are

examined and are found to be reliable in whole. The non-examination of other witnesses in

such cases shall neither be fatal, nor shall it be necessary for the prosecution case. In Girish

Yadav v. State of Madhya Pradesh15, the court examined the eyewitnesses but did not

examine the other witnesses. The eyewitnesses were examined and cross-examined, and were

found to be reliable. The court therefore decided to rely on their account. Eyewitnesses have

to be called, but as far as other witnesses are concerned, they may generally prefer to keep

away from police or judicial proceedings.

The initial reaction of an eyewitness to an offence, particularly a serious offence is not likely

to be the same. In Arjunan v. State of Tamil Nadu16, it was held that the testimony of

eyewitnesses cannot be disbelieved simply because they hid in a sugarcane garden after they

saw the accused committing the murder of as many as three persons consecutively, in a

manner that was highly gruesome. However, it is quite logical that they would subsequently

provide the same account of the incident. If they fail to do so, that shall be a ground for the

court to reject their testimony or even to insist upon corroboration of their evidence. In State

15AIR1996SC3098161993CrLJ3113(Mad.HC)

10 | P a g e

of Karnataka v. K Yarappa Reddy,17 an important principle of evidence law upheld. A

uniform set of reactions from all the eyewitnesses is not practical and should not be expected,

particularly for serious offence such as murder. Further, it was held in this case that as long as

the reaction of an eyewitness is not improbable or inconceivable, has to be accepted without

calling it unnatural. Until and unless the reaction of an eyewitness is totally improbable, or

unnatural, it does not mean his reaction is a structured one.

Similarly, in Rana Pratap v. State of Haryana, 18 it was held that the conduct of an

eyewitness cannot be predicted, since people do not react in a uniform manner to an offence,

particularly a serious offence. But the reaction of an eyewitness has to be reasonable,

plausible. If his reaction is so unnatural to disprove his being present at the scene of the

occurrence, he will not be accepted as an eyewitness. In Narayan Singh v. State of

Maharashtra,19 the eyewitness was a guard of the deceased. He had seen his employer’s

murder, which took place in a ghastly manner. At first, he failed to give the names of the

accused to the members of the deceased’s family when he went to their house due to the

mental condition he was in at that point of time. But subsequently he did so, after regaining

composure. His testimony was relied upon since it was held that his initial failure to mention

the names of the accused must have been due to the state of shock he was in. From these

cases, it may be concluded that ordinary discrepancies due to errors of perception are

permissible. A person present at the scene of occurrence may even attempt to save the

deceased, while someone else may attempt to escape from the scene of occurrence to save

himself from injury. These are just some of the ways in which an eyewitness would react to a

serious offence. Thus, if someone sees the deceased being assaulted, but does not attempt to

save him, that does not mean his testimony should be turned down for that reason alone.20

172000CrLJ400(SC)18AIR1983SC68019AIR1988SC167820Held inAngadv.StateofMaharashtra,AIR1981SC1227:cited in“Halsbury’sLawsof India”,Volume15,ButterworthsIndia,2000,Delhi,p.415

11 | P a g e

In Vadivelu Thevar vs The State Of Madras21 it was recognised as a sound and well-

established rule of law that the court is concerned with the quality and not with the quantity

of the evidence necessary for, proving or disproving a fact. Generally, the oral testimony in

this context may be classified into three categories, namely:

(1) Wholly reliable.

(2) Wholly unreliable.

(3) Neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable.

In the first category of proof, the courts would have no difficulty in coming to its conclusion either way-it may convict or may acquit on the testimony of a single witness, if it is found to be above reproach or suspicion of interestedness, incompetence or subornation.

In the second category, the court, equally has no difficulty in coming to its conclusion.

It is in the third category of cases, wherein the court has to circumspect and has to look for corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony, direct or circumstantial. There is a danger in insisting on plurality of witnesses. Irrespective of the quality of the oral evidence of a single witness, if courts were to insist on plurality of witnesses in proof of any fact, they will be indirectly encouraging subornation of witnesses.

Situations may arise and do arise where only a single person is available to give evidence in support of a disputed fact. The court naturally has to weigh carefully such a testimony and if it is satisfied that the evidence is reliable and free from all taints which tend to render oral testimony open to suspicion, it becomes its duty to act upon such testimony.

There are exceptions to this rule, for example, in cases of sexual offences or of the testimony of an approver; both these are cases in which the oral testimony is, by its very nature, suspect, being that of a participator in crime. But, where there are no such exceptional reasons operating, it becomes the duty of the court to convict, if it is satisfied that the testimony of a single witness is entirely reliable. Therefore, they found no reasons to refuse and acted upon the testimony of the sole witness, which was the only reliable evidence in support of the prosecution.

211957AIR614

12 | P a g e

In Anil Phukan v. State of Assam22, the conduct of the single witness on whose testimony

the case primarily hinged, was found to be unnatural since he did nothing to save his uncle

(the deceased) when he was being assaulted. The appellant’s conviction was thus set aside.

From the aforesaid, it may be concluded that whether a reaction is unnatural or not has to be

decided in the light of the facts and circumstances of each case, but the reaction has to be a

plausible one. Though no standard set of reactions can be expected from eyewitnesses, their

reactions have to be natural in the light of the prevailing circumstances.

The absence of injuries on a witness is no ground to doubt his presence at the time and place

of the occurrence. Sometimes, an eyewitness may successfully escape from the place of

occurrence, but sometimes he may get injured. In State of UP v. Sahai23 , the accused

intended to inflict harm only on the deceased. He did not have any intention to harm those

present at the scene of the occurrence. Thus, if the eyewitness was able to escape from the

scene of occurrence without getting injured, this in itself should not operate to prove that he

was not present at the scene of the occurrence.

PURVIEW : WHO SHOULD BE EXAMINE

The extent to which witnesses may be called is defined in Section 134.

According to Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act,24 there is no specific number of

witnesses who have to be brought before the court for proof of any fact. As a general rule, a

court can and may act on the testimony of a single witness, even though uncorroborated. One

credible witness outweighs testimony of a number of other witnesses of an indifferent

character.25

22AIR1993SC146323AIR1981SC144224Section134, IndianEvidenceAct,“Noparticularnumberofwitnessesshall inanycasebe required for theproofofanyfact.”25Lal,Batuk,“LawofEvidence”,CentralLawAgency,2003ReprintEdition,Allahabad,p.421

13 | P a g e

In Vahula Bhushan v. State of Tamil Nadu26, the trial court convicted the accused on the

testimony of a single prosecution witness. The testimony of a single witness if found to be

straight forward cogent and if believed by the court is sufficient to prove the prosecution

case. The facts of the present case are as follows:

The accused along with another was beating the deceased. On seeing PW No. 1 the main

accused took a crowbar embedded in the earth, in his right hand. Thereafter, they tied the

deceased with a rope. The accused said that he was about to commit theft of the coconuts.

But he actually assaulted the deceased, by hitting him on his right arm and on the right side of

the forehead, causing substantial injury. The deceased fell down and dies within a few

minutes of his being hit.

As evident from the facts, PW No. 1 was the only witness to the offence. The trial court on

finding that his evidence was corroborated by medical evidence, convicted the main accused.

The conviction was upheld by the High Court. Though there was no principle of law under

which a conviction can be sustained only on the testimony of a single witness, a settled

principle of criminal jurisprudence is that before convicting the accused the court has to be

satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt that he has committed the offence. In the present case,

the courts had no doubt about the testimony of the witness.

In other words, they were satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt about his having committed

the offence. Apart from his evidence appearing to be credible, he successfully answered the

question put to him in the cross-examination. Therefore, his testimony was accepted.

In Binay Kumar and Others v. State of Bihar,27 the trial court had to determine whether the

accused was a member of an unlawful assembly. It refused to convict him simply because

there were not enough witnesses to prove the fact in dispute.

26AIR1989SC23627AIR1997SC321

14 | P a g e

On appeal the case went to the Supreme Court (which convicted the accused), wherein it was

held that there is no rule of evidence that no conviction can be based until and unless certain

minimum number of witnesses testify to the fact in dispute. Thus, it is not the quantity but the

quality of witness that is important.

ROLE OF EYEWITNESS

As already noted, eyewitnesses are important to enable the court to decide how the offence

was committed. The failure to examine other witnesses is not fatal to the prosecution case,

but non-examination of eyewitnesses is28. This brings one to the question of whether all the

eyewitnesses shall have to be called for this purpose. In the light of decided cases,29 the

present legal position appears to be that all the eyewitnesses have to be called since their

testimony is essential to know how the offence was committed. At the same time, how far is

this necessary since concurrence among the witnesses can be proved by other means as well.

Moreover, they shall in all probability provide a substantially similar account of the

incident.

In State of UP v. Jagdish30, it was held that those witnesses whose evidence is necessary for

the unfolding of the narrative have to be called whether or not their testimony is for or against

the prosecution case. Thus, all the eyewitnesses should be examined. However, the testimony

of even a single witness may be sufficient if found wholly reliable. The writer would like to

submit that the overall legal position is that the courts have to decide what the facts are, for

which only those witnesses (including eye-witnesses) have to be called whose testimony is

necessary for the court to appreciate how the offence was committed. How far would this

28GirishYadavvStateofMadhyaPradesh,AIR1996SC309829ThedecisionoftheSCinAnilPhukanv.StateofAssamandVahulaBhushanv.StateofTamilNaduunderlinethispoint.Inbothcases,itwasheldthatevenasingleeyewitnesses’testimonyisenoughtosustainaconvictionoftheaccused,iffoundwhollyreliable30(1971)2SCC42:InthiscasetheSupremeCourtreferredtoandrelieduponHabeebMohammadv.StateofHyderabad, AIR 1954 SC51,RamRanjanRoy v. Emperor (1915) ILR 42Cal 442,Stephen Senivaratne v. TheKing,AIR1936PC289.

15 | P a g e

require calling all the eyewitnesses? It would not be necessary to call all the eyewitnesses, but

only some of them to appreciate how the offence was committed.

In State of UP v. Jagdish, the Sessions Judge, Agra, convicted the accused but

their convictions were set aside by the High Court.31 In all, there were seven accused persons

charged with murder. Reliance was placed upon Habeeb Mohammad v. State of

Hyderabad,32 in which the appellant filed an application before the Special Judge, alleging

that a number of police officers and other officers present at the scene of occurrence were not

presented to give evidence in court. Further, he alleged that when he raised this objection the

government pleader said that the prosecution was not under any obligation to produce them

as witnesses. He further alleged that the conduct of the pleader gave the impression that they

wanted to incriminate the accused, while shielding the police officers. However the court

refused to entertain this application. It held that the right of the court to call witnesses is in

the nature of a remedial provision that can be exercised only for the purpose of curing a

defect in evidence. The prosecutor has discretion as to what witnesses should be called for the

prosecution, a discretion in the exercise of which the courts will ordinarily not interfere till in

the opinion of the court there has been a patently wrongful exercise of such discretion.

In Stephen Senivaratne v. The King33, the legal position relating to calling witnesses was

laid down. In an earlier case referred to by the Privy Council in deciding this case34, it was

held that the prosecution has to call all available witnesses, even though they may be defense

witnesses. Thus, all eyewitnesses have to be called. This is consistent with the duty of the

prosecution to assist the courts in finding out the truth of a case. For this reason, it is under an

obligation to produce all those witnesses needed for knowing how the offence was

committed. But it does not mean that it has to go on calling witnesses notwithstanding 31ThecasehadbeenreferredtotheHighCourtbytheSessionsJudgeforconfirmingthedeathsentenceshehadpassedupontheaccused.AlltheaccusedbutforJagdish(Jagoo)wereconvictedunderSections148and302oftheIndianPenalCode,readalongwithSection149.JagdishwasconvictedofoffencesunderSections147and302oftheCode,readalongwithSection149.32AIR1954SC51(ThiscasewasreferredtoinStateofUPv.Jagdish)33AIR1936PrivyCouncil289(B),referredtobytheSCinHabeebMohammadv.StateofHyderabd,AIR1954. SC5134HeldinRamRanjanRoyv.Emperor,AIR1915Cal545(C)

16 | P a g e

considerations such as number and reliability, nor does it have to discharge the functions of

both the prosecution and defense.

Thus, the previous position stood substantially altered. It was held that all those witnesses

essential to the unfolding of the narrative, on which the prosecution is based, have to be

called by the prosecution whether their testimony goes for or against the prosecution. But

beyond that the prosecution does not have a duty to call anyone else as a witness.

In another case, it was held that the duty of a public prosecutor is to represent not the police

but the Crown. He has to discharge his duties with full fairness and a sense of responsibility.

In a case involving murder, it is necessary for him to call all the eyewitnesses, even though

they may all give different accounts. The principle is founded upon common sense and

humanity, and is not so much a technical rule incapable of being challenged.

Indeed, conviction can be based on the testimony of a single eye witness and there is no rule

of law or evidence which says to the contrary provided the sole witness passes the test of

reliability. So long as the single eye-witness is a wholly reliable witness the courts have no

difficulty in basing conviction on his testimony alone.

17 | P a g e

CONCLUSION

On a conspectus of these decisions, it clearly comes out that there has been no departure from

the principles laid down in Vadivelu Thevar35 case and, therefore, conviction can be recorded

on the basis of the statement of a single eye witness provided his credibility is not shaken by

any adverse circumstance appearing on the record against him and the court, at the same

time, is convinced that he is a truthful witness. The court will not then insist on corroboration

by any other eye witness particularly as the incident might have occurred at a time or place

when there was no possibility of any other eye witness being present. Indeed, the courts insist

on the quality, and, not on the quantity of evidence.

However, where the single eye witness is not found to be a wholly reliable witness, in the

sense that there are some circumstances which may show that he could have an interest in the

prosecution, then the courts generally insist upon some independent corroboration of his

testimony, in material particulars, before recording conviction. It is only when the courts

find that the single eye witness is a wholly unreliable witness that his testimony is

discarded in totality and no amount of corroboration can cure that defect.

On the basis of the aforesaid, the following conclusions can be derived:

1. The prosecution is under a duty to produce all those witnesses whose testimony is

essential for enabling the court to know how the offence was committed. All the

eyewitnesses may be produced, since they can assist the court in finding out how the

offence was committed, but this shall not be necessary. If the prosecutor does not call

someone as a witness, the court may use its discretion and call them as court

witnesses. Thus, the public prosecutor has to assist the court in finding out what the

facts are, not in simply securing a conviction.

2. The evidentiary worth of an eyewitnesses’ testimony is higher than other forms of

oral evidence (so long as it is credible). However, he has to be found truthful on all

material particulars only, and not as far as minor details are concerned. If necessary

corroboration may also be required.

35supra

18 | P a g e

3. Conviction may be sustained even on the basis of a single eyewitnesses’ testimony, so

long as it is found to be wholly reliable. Indian evidence law insists upon the quality

and not quantity of evidence. Therefore, even a single credible eyewitness may

outweigh several witnesses who are not found credible.

4. There cannot be a standard reaction from an eyewitness, particularly if the offence

committed is a serious one. Some of them may react by escaping from the scene of

the occurrence, while others may attempt to save the victim. But afterwards, they are

all likely to provide a substantially similar account of the occurrence. This is the main

reason why it is contended all of them do not require to be examined at the trial, since

they would in all likelihood provide a substantially similar account. Also, the Code

does not specify the number of witnesses to be called, the emphasis clearly being

upon credible evidence enabling the court to find out the facts.

5. Accordingly, looking into various judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court, it can be

inferred that it is absolutely not necessary for all the eyewitnesses to be called at the

trial. Only the testimony of those witnesses is necessary who can help the court in

appreciating how the offence was committed. Thus, not all the eyewitnesses are

required to testify before the court.

19 | P a g e

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books :

1. Phipson on Evidence, Sweet & Maxwell Publication, edition II 2000

2. Joya Rao S.V., Law of Evidence, Sir John Woodroffe, Syed Amir Alis Volume 1

edition 16, 2001

3. Bakshi P.M., Law of Evidence, 6th Edition, 1998 I.L.H.

4. Sarkar, Law of Evidence, 19th Edition, Ashoka Law House, 1999

5. Lal, Batuk, “Law of Evidence”, Central Law Agency, 2003 Reprint Edition,

Allahabad

6. Ratan Lal & Dhiraj Lal, Law of Evidence, 19th Edition Wadhwa Publisher

7. Singh, Dr. Avtar, “College Law Dictionary”, Wadhwa Publications, 2002, Nagpur

Websites :

1. http://www.manupatra.com

2. https://www.indlaw.com

3. https://www.legalserviceindia.com

4. http://www.hcmadras.tn.nic.in/jacademy/article/App%20of%20Evi%20by%20DMJ.pdf (last accessed: 28.08.2015)

5. http://lex-warrier.in/2011/03/role-of-an-expert-and-an-eyewitness-in-the-law-of-evidence (last accessed: 20.08.2015)