By Dr Abhishek Atrey
In criminal matters, the importance of eyewitnesses is paramount. Recently in Rameshji Amarsingh Thakor vs State of Gujarat (2023), the Supreme Court reaffirmed the importance of eyewitnesses and gave precedence to their statements over those of medical experts and convicted the accused. While giving importance to the ocular statement over and above the medical opinion, the apex court relied on its earlier judgments of Darbara Singh vs State of Punjab (2012) and Anvaruddin vs Shakoor (1990).
In the case of Rameshji Amarsingh Thakor, there were three eyewitnesses and the dying declaration of the deceased, all of which corroborated each other. All narrated the incident in the same manner about how the deceased was killed by the accused persons by giving knife blows. However, the doctor who conducted postmortem stated that the knife recovered from the accused did not match the injuries sustained by the deceased. On the basis of this mismatch, the trial court acquitted the accused persons. However in appeal, the High Court reversed the findings of the trial court and convicted the accused persons. The Supreme Court upheld the findings of the High Court.
In this matter, the Supreme Court relied on Darbara Singh (2012), where the doctor who conducted the postmortem stated that injury No 1 was impossible to inflict when the deceased was running. In that case, while giving supremacy to ocular evidence, the Supreme Court discarded the testimony of the medical witness. It held: “So far as question of inconsistency between the medical evidence and the ocular evidence is concerned, the law is well settled that unless the oral evidence available is totally irreconcilable with the medical evidence, the oral evidence would have primacy. In the event of contradictions between medical and ocular evidence the ocular testimony of the witness will have greater evidentiary value vis-à-vis medical evidence and when medical evidence makes the oral testimony improbable, the same becomes a relevant factor in the process of evolution of such evidence. It is only when the contradiction between the two is so extreme that the medical evidence completely rules out all possibilities of the ocular evidence being true at all, that the ocular evidence is liable to be disbelieved.”
Similarly in Anwaruddin (1990), the medical expert was doubtful whether the injury sustained by the deceased was the result of one gunshot or two. In that case also, the Supreme Court relied on the testimony of the eyewitness and convicted the accused.
From these judgments, a question arises in the minds of everyone: what is the scope of burden of proof and benefit of doubt in criminal cases? It is well settled law that unlike civil cases where the preponderance of probabilities is the standard of proof, in criminal cases it is duty of the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused. One of the basic principles of criminal jurisprudence is—let hundreds of offenders be acquitted, but one innocent should not be convicted.
It was held by the Supreme Court in Anand Ramachandra Chougule vs Sidarai Laxman Chougula (2019) and hundreds of matters that in criminal cases, the burden lies on the prosecution to prove the allegations beyond reasonable doubt. In contradistinction to the same, the accused has only to create a doubt about the prosecution case and the probability of its defense.
In State of U.P. vs Moti Ram (1990), which was related to the broad daylight murder of 13 people, witnesses falsely implicated three persons who at the time of the incident were in the jail. The Supreme Court discarded the testimony of all the alleged eyewitnesses, including two who were injured, and acquitted all the accused persons except one, who himself admitted his presence on the spot.
Benefit of doubt was given to accused persons even after statements of eyewitnesses by the Supreme Court in several cases. Some of the important cases are—Shivaji Dayanu Patil vs State of Maharashtra (1989), Shishpal @ Shishu vs State (NCT of Delhi) (2022), Rampukar Rai vs State of Bihar (1993), Rajesh @ Sarkari vs State of Haryana (2021), Javed Masood vs State of Rajasthan (2010), Bhupendra Singh vs State of UP (1991) and Nagesar vs State of Chhatisgarh (2014).
A criminal trial, especially in cases of murder, is not a game where the trophy is to be given to the person who played well. It is a serious matter where it is the duty of the court and the prosecution to find out the truth and not to rely on eyewitnesses blindly. It is the divine responsibility of the judiciary to do justice and to convict or acquit a person against whom allegations of a crime are made.
We should not forget that in India it is the tendency to implicate all those with whom the deceased or the eyewitnesses were having an enmity. Planted witnesses, hostile witnesses, interested witnesses…these are not new terms for the judiciary and we may find these terms in various judgments. We can also not shut our eyes to the fact that even when there is a blind murder, the family members of the deceased always procure some witnesses to say in court that they have seen the incident and have seen certain persons committing the crime in a particular manner. Needless to mention, the manner in which the deceased was killed will be apparent from the body a few days after the postmortem and thereafter only the police records statements of the eyewitnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
And the turn of the witnesses to give a statement before the courts comes only after submission of the chargesheet. Till then, they have ample opportunity to refine their respective stories regarding the incident. When such witnesses are intelligent enough to face the cross-examination and not to detract from their original statement, it becomes very difficult to discard their testimony which may result in conviction of the accused who may, in fact, be innocent.
In such cases, the law laid down by the Supreme Court in various cases also supports these witnesses. The law states that minor contradictions in the testimonies of the eyewitnesses should not be a ground for acquittal and such minor contradictions should be ignored. Therefore in these cases, there remains a very minor possibility for a person to prove his innocence and that is why the Supreme Court in several cases held that the duty of the accused is only to create doubt on the testimony of the prosecution witnesses.
Therefore to base the conviction on the testimony of eyewitnesses without being supported by any other evidence, is fatal to criminal jurisprudence and will shake the confidence of the people in the justice delivery system. Therefore, courts should always remain conscious while granting conviction merely on the basis of the testimony of eyewitnesses which are not supported by medical or any other corroborative or substantive evidence.
—The writer is Advocate-On-Record, Supreme Court