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:

SHREYASH
Roll No. 130

Submitted to:

MR. VIPUL VINOD

Assistant Professor

V SEMESTER

RMLNLU

B.A LLB (Hons.)

1|Page

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 wouldnt 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

2|Page

INTRODUCTION

DEFINITION OF AN EYEWITNESS

EVIDENTIARY WORTH AND MANNER OF APPRECIATION

PURVIEW: WHO SHOULD BE EXAMINE

13

ROLE OF EYEWITNESS

14

CONCLUSION

17

BIBLIOGRAPHY

19

3|Page

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.

Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act deals with who can testify before court. A plain reading of this
provision will show that eyewitnesses are included within the scope of witnesses
2
Singh, Dr. Avtar, College Law Dictionary, Wadhwa, 2002, Nagpur, p. 255
3
1971 (2) SCC 42

4|Page

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.

Singh, Dr. Avtar, College Law Dictionary, Wadhwa, 2002, Nagpur, p. 711
Chapter IX Of Witnesses, and Chapter X Of the Examination of Witnesses
6
Harish Kumar v. State (Delhi Administration), AIR 1993 SC 973: as cited Halsburys Laws of India, Vol. 15,
Butterworths India, Delhi, 2000, p. 411
5

5|Page

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.

(1996) 3 SCC 103

AIR 1996 SC 1477
9
AIR 1994 SC 969; CrLJ 1206 (SC)
8

6|Page

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

10

AIR 1994 SC 1251

AIR 1994 SC 826

11

7|Page

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 Nadu 13 , 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

12

AIR 1994 SC 672

AIR 1989 SC 236; See also AIR 1994 SC 2507
14
AIR 1993 SC 1462

13

8|Page

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 Pradesh 15 , 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

15

AIR 1996 SC 3098

1993 CrLJ 3113 (Mad. HC)

16

9|Page

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

17

2000 CrLJ 400 (SC)

AIR 1983 SC 680
19
AIR 1988 SC 1678
20
Held in Angad v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1981 SC 1227: cited in Halsburys Laws of India, Volume 15,
Butterworths India, 2000, Delhi, p. 415
18

10 | P a g e

In Vadivelu Thevar vs The State Of Madras 21 it was recognised as a sound and wellestablished 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.

21

1957 AIR 614

11 | 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 appellants 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. Sahai 23 , 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

22

AIR 1993 SC 1463

AIR 1981 SC 1442
24
Section 134, Indian Evidence Act, No particular number of witnesses shall in any case be required for the
proof of any fact.

25
Lal, Batuk, Law of Evidence, Central Law Agency, 2003 Reprint Edition, Allahabad, p. 421
23

12 | 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.

26

AIR 1989 SC 236

AIR 1997 SC 321

27

13 | 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

28

Girish Yadav v State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1996 SC 3098

The decision of the SC in Anil Phukan v. State of Assam and Vahula Bhushan v. State of Tamil Nadu underline
this point. In both cases, it was held that even a single eyewitnesses testimony is enough to sustain a
conviction of the accused, if found wholly reliable
30
(1971) 2 SCC 42: In this case the Supreme Court referred to and relied upon Habeeb Mohammad v. State of
Hyderabad, AIR 1954 SC 51, Ram Ranjan Roy v. Emperor (1915) ILR 42 Cal 442, Stephen Senivaratne v. The
King, AIR 1936 PC 289.
29

14 | 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
31

The case had been referred to the High Court by the Sessions Judge for confirming the death sentences he
had passed upon the accused. All the accused but for Jagdish (Jagoo) were convicted under Sections 148 and
302 of the Indian Penal Code, read along with Section 149. Jagdish was convicted of offences under Sections
147 and 302 of the Code, read along with Section 149.
32
AIR 1954 SC 51 (This case was referred to in State of UP v. Jagdish)
33
AIR 1936 Privy Council 289 (B), referred to by the SC in Habeeb Mohammad v. State of Hyderabd, AIR 1954
.









SC 51
34
Held in Ram Ranjan Roy v. Emperor, AIR 1915 Cal 545 (C)

15 | 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.

16 | 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.

35

supra

17 | 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 Honble 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.

18 | 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-ofevidence (last accessed: 20.08.2015)

19 | P a g e