Abstract
The article delves into the critical examination of two key pieces of evidence in criminal trials: eyewitness testimony and extra-judicial confessions, underlining their significance and limitations within the Indian legal framework.
Eyewitness testimony, often considered the cornerstone of evidence, is meticulously dissected. While it’s deemed crucial for trial quality, inherent flaws such as memory lapses, observation errors, and external influences are acknowledged. The landmark case of Vikas Kumar Roorkewal v. State of Uttarakhand & Ors is cited to exemplify the challenges witnesses face, particularly when threatened or intimidated by influential parties. Despite its vulnerabilities, the judiciary emphasizes protecting witnesses’ rights and ensuring a fair trial.
Conversely, the article scrutinizes the evidentiary value of extra-judicial confessions, citing Sahadevan V. State of Tamil Nadu as a pertinent case study. These confessions, while potentially compelling, are deemed weaker evidence, necessitating thorough examination for voluntariness and truthfulness. The Supreme Court’s stipulations regarding their reliability, including corroboration and consistency with circumstantial evidence, are outlined.
Moreover, critical analyses of both forms of evidence highlight their advantages and shortcomings. While eyewitness testimony may be more inherently reliable, extra-judicial confessions can offer corroborative support when consistent with other evidence. The article underscores the judiciary’s role in discerning the credibility of witnesses and the necessity of adhering to procedural guidelines to ensure justice is served.
Ultimately, the conclusion emphasizes the intricate nature of testimonial evidence, urging courts to integrate social scientific insights into their procedures. By upholding standards of reliability and fairness, the criminal justice system can effectively fulfill its mandate, ensuring that witnesses truly serve as the “eyes and ears of justice.”
INTRODUCTION
An English philosopher, Jeremy Bentham rightly stated that ‘Witnesses are the eyes and ears of justice’ which is basically important for the quality of the trial process and by which the case has been built concretely at the court.
The most common form of direct evidence which is the eye-witness testimony is the most important source which can be taken as a piece of absolute evidence for the process and is covered under Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act[1]. A person who has direct observation of a crime in progress and direct knowledge of the accused committing the act through direct proof is referred to be an eyewitness. In these circumstances, the court is not required to use common sense to determine whether the circumstantial evidence is reliable.
As there are always two sides to the same coin, here also there are two sides that can be taken into consideration for the eye-witness testimony. On the one side, eye-witness testimony is found to be credible and trustworthy but on the other side, it contains inaccuracies and exaggerations as there are various errors and omissions on account of lapse of memory, poor power of observations, or inability to recount and recite accurately. There are various reasons why eye-witness testimony can’t be relied upon like in the case of the testimony given by an eye-witness who has a criminal record.
Whereas the extra-judicial confessions are covered in Section 24 of the Indian Evidence Act[2]. They are the confessions that are made by the party to or before any private individual which even includes a judicial officer in his private capacity and a magistrate, not empowered to record the confession under section 164 of the Crpc[3] and can be treated as a corroborative piece of evidence.
CASE ANALYSIS
Now, the fact about which piece of evidence can be treated as an absolute piece of evidence is analysed as follows:-
There are a series of cases that proves the evidentiary value of the both and can also be taken as an absolute piece of evidence. Firstly the recent and landmark case of Vikas Kumar Roorkewal v. State of Uttarakhand & Ors[4] will be taken to discuss whether the eye-witness testimony is an absolute proof or not and by the help of this case the researcher will discuss the factors affecting the evidentiary value of the eye-witness testimony.
For the extra-judicial confession, the researcher has taken the case of Sahadevan V. State of Tamil Nadu to analyse the relevancy of the extra-judicial confession.
CASE-1: VIKAS KUMAR ROORKEWAL V. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND, 2011
This landmark case basically talks about the integral role played by the eye-witnesses in the criminal justice system and also talks about the various measures used for protecting the right of witnesses for the fair trial.
In this case, the eye-witness was facing threats from the accused who was involved in the murder of the engineer and the accused has a high profile and was a influential person. Also because of the influential image, even the police was somehow incapable to do investigation of the crime. Even the other witnesses were unable to present before the court to tender their testimonies because of the threats and due to this the witnesses faced mental pressure and even left the city due to fear.
The supreme court closely analyses the situation and stated some points which needs to be followed by the high courts and trial courts, which are as follows:-
- Whether the eyewitness was subjected to undue influence when testifying in court, and
- Whether the eyewitness was subjected to undue influence when testifying in court, and
- Whether there was any non-deferral that would allow subsequent witnesses to provide evidence on comparable facts, tailoring the testimony to circumvent the defence approach
- Whether the trial could be delayed and witnesses might not be available in circumstances where deferral is permitted.
This judgment explains the paramount importance of the eye-witnesses and ensures the protection of justice so that the accused would be punished as properly as possible.
As there are several factors that somehow reduce the value of the eye- witness testimonies and which ultimately amounts to injustice. The factors can be stated as follows:-
- Being in highly stressful situations at a crime scene or while going through the identification process.
- due to the presence of weapons at the crime scene, fear or tension.
- Mental state of the identifier
- mental injury
- The criminal is using a mask, wig, or other form of disguise.
- any racial discrepancy between the suspect and the witness.
- During the commission of a crime or the identification process, the witness only has a brief viewing period.
- The condition of the witness’s eyesight.
As the testimony provided by the witness will not be reliable in that case. As also in the case of Ishaque Mian v. State of Bihar[5], it was stated that the evidence of the eye-witness will not be reliable during the event of low light or the event took place on a dark night. The same interpretation can be seen in the case of the State of UP v. Jogeshwar[6], as there is the involvement of only a small kerosene lamp in the dark night which ultimately proves that the identification would be inherently difficult for the eye-witness and no reliance should be placed upon them.
CASE-2: SAHADEVAN V. STATE OF TAMIL NADU, 2012[7]
This recent case talks about the evidentiary value of the extra-judicial confession.
In this case, the accused has made a confession to the person about the murder and then afterwards he denied it. Also, there are no eye witnesses in the particular case so therefore the complete chain of circumstances were not proved as there was no direct evidence available for the same.
The Supreme Court has stated some points regarding the same which are as follows;
- The extra-judicial confession is in itself weak evidence and it has to be examined with greater care and caution.
- It should be made voluntarily and should be truthful.
- It should inspire confidence.
- If an extrajudicial confession is supported by a series of convincing circumstances and is further corroborated by the other prosecution evidence, it has additional credibility and evidentiary value.
- For an extra-judicial confession to be the basis of conviction it should not suffer from any material discrepancies and inherent improbabilities.
- Such statement essentially has to be proved like any other fact and in accordance with law.
As in the case of Chattar Singh v. State of Haryana[8], it was clearly stated that the value of the extra-judicial confession can be determined by analyzing that the accused is the free man at the time of the confession and its evidentiary value at the time of confession on the veracity of the witness to whom it was made.
The voluntariness of the extra-judicial confession is based upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Also, as per section 24, it is clear that the confession can’t be used against the accused till the time the court is satisfied with the confession.
Also, any confession made by the way of shouting on the roads, or before the stock witnesses of the police, or any hearsay extra-judicial confession cannot be termed as an admissible extra-judicial confession.[9] Also, the telephone calls made to media houses amount to an extra-judicial confession.
Extra-judicial confessions which voluntarily made and if they are fully consistent with the circumstantial evidence establish the guilt of the accused[10].
ILLUSTRATION
The illustration is about a person ‘A’ who has a criminal record and witnesses a crime committed by the X. So, the testimony given by the eye-witness will be reliable or not. So the answer is, Yes the testimony given by the person having criminal record can be relied in the situation. This can be analysed from the case of Jwala Mohan & Ors. v. The State[11].
CRITICAL ANALYSIS
Both pieces of evidence themselves hold their evidentiary value but the eye-witness testimony is a more reliable and stronger piece of evidence. Despite the fact that the eye-witness testimony also has various inconsistencies but it is more reliable than the latter.
There are a series of cases that talk about their advantages and disadvantages but the major clarity can be found in the cases of eye-witness testimony.
For example in the Sahadevan Case, there was no eye witness to the murder which leads to a lack of clarity of facts.
Also, In the case of State of Punjab v. Bhagwan Singh,[12] it was held by Supreme Court that extra-judicial confession can be relied on only when it is clear, consistent and convincing.
In the case of Balwinder Singh v. State, the Supreme Court ruled that in the event of an extrajudicial confession, the court must determine the witness’s credibility and determine whether or not they can be trusted.
The main emphasis for the analysis is on the case of Y.I. Patel v. State of Gujarat in which it was held that Testimony of eye witness cannot be disbelieved particularly when it is tested with cross-examination.
CONCLUSION
The testimony scenario always involves more than just the knowledge of the witness since it also involves the intricate rhetorical, social, and ethical facets of human communication. By understanding this, we are actually rediscovering features of testimony that have previously received far greater attention in other contexts and at different times.
When employing and assessing eyewitness procedures like line-ups, law enforcement and the courts should adhere to the guidelines made by social scientists. Courts have the power and duty to provide judges with the necessary instructions, to reject evidence that doesn’t meet minimal standards of reliability, and to work with other stakeholders in the justice system to enhance the criminal justice system.
If the witness is unable to serve as the court’s eyes and ears, the trial becomes negative symptoms and paralysed, and it is no longer capable of being a ultimate justice.
Author : Anchal Gupta, in case of any queries please contact/write back to us via email to chhavi@khuranaandkhurana.com or at IIPRD.
[1] The Indian Evidence Act, 1872, s. 3.
[2] The Indian Evidence Act, 1872, s. 24
[3] The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, S. 164
[4] Vikas Kumar Roorkewal v. State of Uttarakhand & Ors, [2011] 2 SCC 178
[5] Ishaque Mian v. State of Bihar, 2007 CrLJ (NOC) 299
[6] State of UP v. Jogeshwar, AIR 1983 SC 349
[7] Sahadevan v. State of T.N., (2012) 6 SCC 403
[8] Chattar Singh v. State of Haryana, AIR 2009 SC 378
[9] Girdhari Singh v. State of Rajasthan, (2010) 85 AIC 856 (Raj-DB)
[10] Gokaraju Venkatanarasa Raju v. State of A.P. (1993) 3 Crimes 235.
[11] Jwala Mohan & Ors. v. The State, AIR 1963 CriLJ 404
[12] State of Punjab v. Bhagwan Singh
