Testimony of official witnesses: Judicial assessment for basing

convictions
By
×
Prof (Dr) Mukund Sarda

1. Question often arises before the courts as to whether conviction

can be based on the sole testimony of official witnesses when

satisfactory explanation is given for non-examination of

independent witnesses. One such case in recent times is the case

of Baldev Singh1. In this case, possession and recovery of huge

quantity of poppy husk from trolly attached with tractor driver by

the accused which constituted an offence under Section 15 of

NDPS Act. A plain reading of Sec 3 of the Indian Evidence Act,

1872 inferentially states that the evidence of police witnesses

cannot be discarded merely because they belong to police force.

The Supreme Court pointed out the difficulties on the part of

prosecution to produce independent witness, when the court

observed, “when the tractor was intercepted on G.T.Road and the

driver of the tractor was apprehended under suspicion in odd

×
Principal & Dean, Bharati Vidya Peeth University, New Law College, Pune.
1
Baldev Singh Vs. State of Haryana 2016 Cr LJ P.154 SC.

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2758070

 hours of mid-night, prosecution cannot be expected to examine

independent witnesses”.2

The Supreme Court examined the ratio in Gyan Singh3 which

states that conviction cannot be based on uncorroborated

testimony of official witnesses. However, it can be pointed out

that this statement of law does not take into account where the

need to have independent witnesses in the odd hours of midnight

and more so there was no human habitation in the nearby place.

Such a situation is bound to exist when on the highway at mid-

night an incident occurs, there can be no independent witnesses,

if in the place nearby there is no human habitation.

The Supreme Court also ruled thus:-4

i) There is no legal proposition that evidence of police officials,

unless supported by independent witnesses is unworthy of

acceptance;

ii) Evidence of police witnesses cannot be discarded merely on

the ground that they belong to police force and interested in

the investigation and their decision to see the success of the

case;

2
Ibid Para 8.
3
Gyan Singh and others Vs. State of UP 1995 Supp (4) SCC P.658.
4
See Note 1 para 10.

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2758070

 iii) Prudence however, requires that the evidence of police

officials, who are interested in the outcome of the result of

the case needs to be carefully scrutinised and independently

appreciated.

The mere fact that they are police officials does not by itself

give rise to any doubt about their credit-worthiness.

In Girija Prasad,5 the Supreme Court while laying down the law

that ‘no infirmity is attached to the testimony of police officials

merely because they belong to police force and that conviction

can be based on the testimony of police officials’ and stated as

follows:-6

i) It is well settled that crediability of witness has to be tested

on the touchstone of truthfulness and trustworthiness;

ii) It is quite possible in a given case, a court of law may not

base conviction solely on the evidence of police officials but

it is not the law that police witnesses shall not be relied

upon and their evidence cannot be accepted unless it is

corroborated in material particulars by other independent

evidence;

5
Girija Prasad Vs. State of M.P. (2007) 7 SCC P.625.
6
Ibid Para 24 of the Judgment.

3
 iii) The presumption that every person acts honestly applies as

much in favour of a police official as any other person;

iv) No infirmity attaches to the testimony of police officials

merely because they belong to police force;

v) There is no rule of law which lays down that the testimony

of police officials even such evidence is otherwise reliable

and trust-worthy;

vi) The rule of prudence may require more careful scrutiny of

their evidence;

vii) If the court is convinced that what was stated by a witness

has a ring of truth, conviction can be based on such

evidence.

In Aher Raja Khima’s case,7 the Supreme Court pointed out ... “it is

not judicial approach to distrust and suspect him (police official)

without good grounds therefrom. Such an attitude could neither

credit to the magistracy nor good to the public. It can only run

down the prestige of the police administration”. This was again

re-iterated somewhat differently in Tahir’s case,8 when the

Supreme Court observed, “where the evidence of the police

7
Aher Raja Khima Vs. State of Saurashtra AIR 1956 SC P.217.
8
Tahir Vs. State (Delhi) AIR 1996 SC P.3079.

4
 officials after careful scrutiny, inspires confidence and is found to

be trustworthy and reliable, it can be form the basis of conviction

and the absence of some independent witnesses of the locality to

lend corroboration to their evidence, does not in any way affect

the credit-worthiness of the prosecution case”.

2. It is open to the accused to discredit the testimony of a police

official, by relying on the material available in the prosecution

evidence. He can also elicit from the police officer through cross-

examination to dispel the doubts in the case. He may also adduce

evidence when he is called upon to enter on his defence. The

accused can also point out the reasons for the police to falsely

implicate him.

There should be satisfactory explanation on the part of the

prosecution as to why the independent witnesses were not

examined.

3. Keeping in view the legislative intent in making a confession made

to police not relevant and admissible in view of Section 25 of the

Indian Evidence Act, courts acting on the basis of uncorroborated

sole testimony may be in the rarest of rare cases, until the police

force acquires public reputation as in the case of British Police, as

5
we may find in many cases a person is falsely implicated for a

variety of reasons. This rarest of rare case must be as follows:-

i) It is not possible for the prosecution to find an

independent witness, because of the time and place of

occurrence;

ii) The prosecution should satisfactorily explain the reasons

for non-examination of independent witnesses;

iii) The testimony of sole police official should inspite

truthfulness and trustworthiness;

iv) As a rule of prudence which has been read into while

interpreting illustration (b) to Sec 114 and Sec 133 of the

Indian Evidence Act concerning the testimony of an

accomplice, a similar approach is needed that as a rule

of prudence testimony of a sole police witnesses

requires corroboration and the absence of such

corroboration by independent witnesses conviction

should be based subject to a clear scrutiny with regard

to truthfulness and credit-worthiness.