Witnesses play a very important role in the dispensation of justice in its totality. At the initial stage of investigation, a witness guides the Investigating Officer (I.O.) in the right lines thus helping him arriving at correct findings about facts and circumstances of the crime. It is not exaggerated to say that no prosecution case can be built up without the evidence of witnesses. It is interesting to note that the term “witness” is neither defined in Indian Penal Code, 1860, the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973and the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. In this article, we will be discussing different kinds of witnesses.
According to Black’s law dictionary, “witness is person who has knowledge of an event”
According to Legal Dictionary the term witness ordinarily means one who gives evidence under oath or affirmation, in person or by affidavit or deposition, in any proceeding in any court of justice, or before any officer thereof, or before any tribunal or officer created by law, or in any proceeding in regard to any matter or thing in or respecting which an oath or affirmation is or may be required or authorized by law.
the Witness (Identity) Protection Bill, 2006 defines witness as any person who is acquainted with the facts and circumstances, or is in possession of any information or has knowledge, necessary for the purpose of investigation, inquiry or trial of any crime involving serious offence, and who is or may be required to give information or make a statement or produce any document during investigation, inquiry or trial of such case, and includes a victim of such serious offence.
In Ms. Neelam Katara v. Union of India, ILR (2003) II Del 377 case, the Delhi High Court defined witness in the following words: “Witness means a person whose statement has been recorded by the Investigating Officer under section 161 of the CrPC, 1973 pertaining to a crime”.
In Madhu Madhuranatha v. State of Karnataka (Criminal Appeal Nos.1357-1358 of 2011) case, The Court defined a witness as a person who is able to provide information by oral or written depositions given in the court or otherwise. Generally, a witness is considered to be independent unless acting under coercion, fraud or false means.
Chapter IX titled “OF WITNESSES” of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 consists of seventeen Sections spreading from Sections 118 to 134 deals with
- the Competency
- the Compellability;
- Privileges; and
- Quantity of Witnesses required for judicial decisions
Sections 118 to 121 and Section 133 of this Act provide for competency of witnesses.
Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act described that a competent witness is that whom have an understanding and ability to answer the questions that are asked to him by the court. Any individual can become a witness. There is no curtailment on who can be witnessed. Any person such as a male, female, child or old person can be considered as a witness. Only the limitations that the person must be competent to furnish a reasonable answer in a Court.
Kinds of Witnesses Under IEA:
Under the Act witness can be divided mainly into two categories, viz. (a) Eyewitness; and (b) Circumstantial Witness.
Eyewitness:
An eyewitness is a person who witnesses the act, fact or transaction and testifies to it. An eyewitness must be competent to appear and testify in court. An eyewitness’ statement is a part of the oral statement which has been defined in Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act. All the statements of witnesses are recorded as evidence in accordance with section 164 of CrPC The statements are recorded on oath followed by the three-tier procedure of Examination in chief, cross-examination and re-examination of eyewitnesses.
Eyewitness testimony is affected by many factors. Even though it plays a vital role in the justice delivery system, there are several factors which can affect the observation of an eye-witness. This leads to unreliability upon the eyewitness. If the statements given by the eyewitness are consistent with that of other witnesses, then it will be taken into consideration. This does not extend to minor variations.
In Surendra Pratap Chauhan v. Ram Naik on 13 November, 2000, it was held by the Supreme Court that evidence which is given by an eye witness cannot be ignored without scrutinizing it with proper cautions. There is also no set standard to identify whether a said reaction of the witness would make the testimony irrelevant. We will be discussing testimony of eyewitness in detail in upcoming articles.
Circumstantial Witness:
Circumstantial evidence is a fact which is put before the court and that fact itself does not tell us anything about the offence of the course of action. It is not one of the elements of the course of action, but it allows the court to make some assumptions or some inferences that bring it very close to being able to define other facts which are directly related to the chain of the course of action. Witness giving circumstantial evidence is known as circumstantial witness. We will be discussing testimony of circumstantial witness in detail in upcoming articles.
Further, Witnesses, themselves are classified broadly according to their nature, sex, age, education, mental status or make up, basic personal traits and other characteristics. There cannot be any hard and fast se principles for examining witnesses. Every individual should be judged according to his own individuality. So, witnesses may be broadly classified under three categories viz., Search witnesses/scene of crime inspection witnesses; Inquest witnesses; Witnesses to criminal incidents or any aspect thereof or to any incident of unnatural or suspicious death or any aspect allied therein.
General Kinds of Witnesses:
In general, we can categorize witnesses as under:
1. Prosecution Witness:
The institution and conduct of legal proceedings against a defendant for criminal behavior is known as prosecution. A prosecution exists until terminated in the final judgment of the court to write the sentence, discharge or acquittal, a witness which appears on behalf of the prosecution side is known as a Prosecution Witness.
- A police officer is almost always included as a prosecution witness. The police officer may testify to what information was gathered during the investigation of the crime or what was personally observed by the officer. In addition, testimony may be offered regarding any statements the defendant made to the officer after the arrest was made.
- Confidential informants are also considered a prosecution witness. In many cases a confidential informant is used to provide information. For example police want to trap drug traffickers. Police may ask confidential informant to make purchases on the part of police from suspected traffickers. If the case goes to trial, then the confidential informant will need to testify against the defendant.
- The victim of a crime, as well as bystanders, often make excellent prosecution witnesses.
In State of UP v. Raju, AIR 1977 SC 708 case, the Court held that a prosecution case is not weakened on account of non-production of the Informer in court.
The defendant will also be given the opportunity to cross-question the prosecution witness. The defendant may be able to establish that the witness is biased or that the testimony he or she gave was inconsistent. In some cases, a prosecution witness actually ends up being more beneficial to the defense.
2. Defence Witness:
Defence witness is a witness whom the defence intends to call at a hearing or at trial. The defence evidence should not be bypassed or overlooked by the courts simply because the witnesses had deposed in favour of accused. The trial court has to give cogent and convincing reasons for discarding the defence evidence.
Defense witnesses are entitled to equal treatment with those of the prosecution and, courts ought to overcome their traditional, instinctive disbelief in defcnce witnesses, quite often, they tell lies but so do the prosecution witnesses.
In Satya Naryan v. State, 1985 Cr.L.J. 966 case, the Supreme Court also observed that “defence witnesses are entitled to equal treatment with those of the prosecution and, courts ought to overcome their traditional instinctive disbelief in defence witnesses. Quite often they tell lie but so do the prosecution witnesses”
The evidence of witnesses in trial whether they depose for the prosecution or defence is to be judged by the courts with the same standard of the reliability.
3. Eyewitness:
An eyewitness is a person who witnesses the act, fact or transaction and testifies to it. An eyewitness must be competent to appear and testify in court. An eyewitness’ statement is a part of the oral statement which has been defined in Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act. All the statements of witnesses are recorded as evidence in accordance with section 164 of CrPC. The statements are recorded on oath followed by the three-tier procedure of Examination in chief, cross-examination and re-examination of eyewitnesses.
Eyewitness testimony is affected by many factors. Even though it plays a vital role in the justice delivery system, there are several factors which can affect the observation of an eye-witness. This leads to unreliability upon the eyewitness. If the statements given by the eyewitness are consistent with that of other witnesses, then it will be taken into consideration. This does not extend to minor variations.
In Surendra Pratap Chauhan vs Ram Naik, on 13 November, 2000, it was held by the Supreme Court that evidence which is given by an eye witness cannot be ignored without scrutinizing it with proper cautions. There is also no set standard to identify whether a said reaction of the witness would make the testimony irrelevant.
4. Expert Witness:
When the court needs an opinion in a subject which requires special assistance, the court calls an expert, an especially skilled person. The opinion given by a third person is considered as relevant facts if the person testifying is an expert. An expert witness is one that has superior knowledge to the average person when it comes to the topic they will testify about. These people are often doctors, forensic expert, psychologists, fingerprint expert, footprint expert etc. The evidence of handwriting expert can never be conclusive because it is, after all, opinion evidence.
According to Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 when the Court has to form an opinion upon a point of foreign law or of science, or art, or as to identity of handwriting, or finger impressions, the opinions upon that point of persons specially skilled in such foreign law, science or art, or in questions as to identity of handwriting or finger impressions are relevant facts.
As per Section 46 of the Indian Evidence Act, in case any fact is in contradiction to the opinion of the expert, that fact becomes relevant. If the opinion of the expert is relevant, the contradictory fact becomes relevant even though it was not relevant as such. The value of expert opinion depends upon the facts on which he is based and the competency of such expert in forming a reliable opinion.
In Jaspal Singh v. State of Punjab. AIR 1979 SC 1708 case, the Supreme Court held that the science of Identifying Thumb Impression is an exact science and does not admit any mistake or doubt.
In Pritam Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1956 SC 415 case, the Supreme Court held that the science of Identification of footprints is no doubt a rudimentary science and not much reliance can be placed on the result of such Identification. The track evidence, however, can be relied upon as a Circumstance, which along with other Circumstances would point to the Identification of the culprit though by itself it would not be enough to carry conviction in the mind of the court.
5. Hostile Witness:
A hostile witness is a witness who appears to be refusing to fully testify in support of the person who called them or testifies in a way that significantly differs from their pre-trial statement. Thus, hostile witness is said to be when a party calls in a witness to depose in its own favor, instead the witness goes against the party calling him. This situation arises in many of the cases where witnesses do not give answers in favor of the party calling the person as a witness. The court has to declare the witness as a hostile one. It is not the option of the party calling the witness to do so. The adverse reference by the witness towards the person who calls him is a manner which helps the court to uphold or reject the statement of witness if crucial to a case and the trial.
In Sat Paul v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1976 SC 294 case, the Apex Court held that a hostile witness is the one who is not desirous of telling the truth at the instance of the party who has called him whereas an unfavourable witness is one who instead of proving a particular fact, in turn, fails to prove such fact or proves an opposite fact.
In G.S. Bakshi v. State (Delhi Admin.), (1978) (4) SCC 482(489) case, the Apex Court held that witness saying something which is destructive to prosecution is to be treated as hostile.
The mere fact that witness is declared hostile does not make him unreliable witness. Testimony of a hostile witness is not to be rejected as a whole.
6. Child Witness:
Anyone who has witnessed an event is capable of testifying. The acceptable value of the evidence is subject to the fulfilment of certain conditions set forth under Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872:
- The witness must be qualified to testify,
- They should be capable of understanding the questions put to them,
- He or she should be able to provide a rational response.
Section 118 of the I.E.A., 1872 is the relevant section under which the testimony of child witness is admissible. The evidence of a child is required to be evaluated carefully because he is an easy prey to tutoring. Therefore, the Court always looks for adequate corroboration from other evidence to his testimony. The competency of a child to give evidence, however, is not regulated by the age but by the degree of understanding he appears to possess.
In Rameshwar S/o Kalyan Singh v. The State of Rajasthan, AIR 1952 SC 54, this Court examined the provisions of Section 5 of Indian Oaths Act, 1873 and Section 118 of I.E.A., 1872 and held that every witness is competent to depose unless the court considers that he is prevented from understanding the question put to him, or from giving rational answers by reason of tender age, extreme old age, disease whether of body or mind or any other cause of the same kind. There is always competency in fact unless the Court considers otherwise.
In Dattu Ramrao Sakhare v. State of Maharashtra, (1997) 5 SCC 341 case, the Supreme Court held that the only precaution which the court should bear in mind while assessing the evidence of a child witness is that the witness must be reliable and his/her demeanor must be like any other competent witness and there is no likelihood of being tutored.”
7. Dumb Witness:
Anyone who has witnessed an event is capable of testifying. The acceptable value of the evidence is subject to the fulfilment of certain conditions set forth under Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872:
- The witness must be qualified to testify,
- They should be capable of understanding the questions put to them,
- He or she should be able to provide a rational response.
According to Section 119 of the I.E.A., 1872 a witness who is unable to speak may give his evidence in any other manner in which he can make it intelligible, as by writing or by signs; but such writing must be written and the signs made in open Court. Evidence so given shall be deemed to be oral evidence. There must be a record of signs and not the Interpretation of signs. When the witness is deaf and dumb, his examination shall be with the assistance of expert or person familiar with his mode of conveying ideas to others in day-to-day life. If such witness is examined without such assistance, then his evidence shall not be relied upon.
We have to understand difference between a deaf and dumb witness and child witness. The deaf and dumb witness must understand the nature of an act. The child need not understand it and the deaf and Dumb can give his evidence by means of signs Under Section 119 of Indian Evidence Act while child can give evidence under Section 118 of the Act.
8. Chance Witness:
Any person who by the matter of coincidence happens to be present at the site of crime committed. Thus, a chance witness is a witness who should not normally be where and when he professes to be. Chance witness is uninterested and unrelated witness. He is third party generally roadside person or passerby. The evidence by chance witness is acceptable provided he gives reasonable explanation to the Court about his presence at the crime spot. It is considered as corroborative and not substantive evidence.
‘A’ causes a grievous hurt to B, which is seen by C who was just passing by C. C is uninterested and unrelated to the incidence then C becomes a chance witness.
In Guli Chand v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1974 SC 276 case, the Supreme Court held that the testimony of a chance witness, although not necessarily false, is proverbially unsafe. In this case the evidence of witnesses, who do not belong to the village of occurrence, was not believed although names of two were maintained in the F.I.R. When the incident took place on the Grant Trunk Road, only passersby could be natural witnesses of the same.
9. Accomplice Witness:
The term accomplice has not been defined under the Indian Evidence Act therefore while deciding a case the Judiciary tends to use the literal meaning of the term, as it is presumed that the intention of the legislature was the same.
The Black Law’s dictionary defines an “accomplice” as a person who has participated in a guilty act and is liable in a criminal action, by being present at the place where crime has been committed by aiding or abetting in it even when he is absent from the place where crime has been committed, the person participated having advised or encouraged it.
In Chandan v. Emperor, AIR 1930 ALL 274 case, the court while deciding the case defined the term accomplice and stated that he is the one who is involved with the offender or offenders “in the commission of a crime or the one who voluntarily helps other offenders in the commission of the crime”.
In The Crown v. Gulam Kaushal AIR 1950 Lahore 129 (130) Case, the Court held that an accomplice is a person who participates in the commission of the actual crimes charged against an accused. An accomplice is a guilty associate or partner in crime, a person who is connected with the offence or who makes admissions of facts showing that he had a conscious hand In It. There can be, however, no doubt that the very fact that he has participated in the commission of the offence introduces a serious taint in his evidence and courts are naturally reluctant to act on such tainted evidence unless it is corroborated in material particulars by other independent evidence.
Accomplice evidence may appear untrustworthy as accomplices are usually always involved and infamous witnesses, but their evidence is mostly admitted under necessary circumstances because, in these cases, it is not easy to convict main accused without having recourse to such evidence. Thus, an accomplice is undoubtedly a competent witness under the I.E.A., 1872.
According to Section 133 of the Indian Evidence Act,1872 an accomplice has to be proved as a competent witness for a conviction, legal to rely upon the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice.
10. Related Witness:
A related witness is a person who has some sort of relationship with the victim. Some examples include but are not limited to, a parent of a child victim, a spouse of the victim, any sibling of the victim, etc.
Because there is a personal relationship between the related witness and the victim, it would be assumed that the witness would have good intentions and would want to see the culprit punished. But this is not the case every time. Instead of only looking at the relationship between the victim and the related witness, the courts look at the credibility and the truthfulness of the testimony of the witness.
According to Section 122 of the Indian Evidence Act, no person who is or has been married shall be competent to disclose any communication made to him during marriage by any person to whom he is or has been married; nor shall he be permitted to disclose any such communication, unless the person who made it or his representative-in-interest consents, except in suit between married person is prosecuted for any crime committed against the other
In Raja Gounder V. State of Tamil Nadu, 2011(1) RCR (Criminal) 614 case related to a land dispute, the court held that the reliability of the testimony from a related witness, who was the wife of the deceased, was upheld as there were no independent witnesses. Moreover, the court held that the wife would be the last person who would give false testimony to involve her brothers-in-law who were the appellants.
In Bhagwan Swarup V. State of U.P, AIR 1971 SC 429 case, the court held that just because the witnesses were related to each other, their testimony could not be disregarded. It also held that it was not necessary that a related witness would always have the intentions to see the culprit or the offender be punished for their alleged crime, and that the credibility of a witnesses’ testimony, who was the related witness, would depend upon the facts and the circumstance of the very case.
11. Interested Witness:
Any person who has some interest in the case or its verdict in order to extract some material benefit out of it is called interested witness. A witness is called “Interested” only when he or she derives some benefit from the result of litigation, in the decree in a civil case, or in seeing an accused person punished.
X is a family friend of Y and Y has committed many crimes but Y was never caught by the police. X always takes care of Y and is fully aware of what happened to Y. Suddenly Y was caught by the police for committing a crime and was put in jail. X is considered a willing witness if he wants to make a statement in court to prove that Y is a habitual offender. X is an interested witness and the motive is to make the offender punishable.
In State of Rajasthan v. Smt. Kalkai, AIR 1981 SC1390 case, the Supreme Court held that A witness can be called interested only when he or she derives some benefit from the result of the litigation. A witness who is a natural one and is the only possible eye-witness in the circumstances of a case cannot be said to be interested. The evidence of a witness cannot reject merely because it was an interested witness.
It should be noted that ‘Related’ is not equivalent to ‘Interested’. A witness who is a natural one and is the only possible eyewitness in the circumstances of a case cannot be said to be interested.
In Pappu @ Matiuddin vs State of M.P. (Cr.A.No. 246 of 2010) case, the M.P. High Court observed that: “Why a “related witness” would spare the real culprit in order to falsely implicate some innocent person? There is a difference between “related witness” and “interested witness”. “Interested witness” is a witness who is vitally interested in the conviction of a person due to previous enmity. Furthermore, why would a related witness spare the original assailant.”
In Joginder Singh vs. State14 (1978) DLT 205 case, the Supreme court held that the testimony of an interested witness could not be discredited on the grounds of the relationship the witness with the accused or the victim as long as it had been looked at with caution and scrutiny.
12. Independent Witness
A witness is normally to be considered independent unless he or she springs from sources which are likely to be tainted and that usually means unless the witness has cause, such an enmity against the accused, to wish to implicate him falsely.
In Varghese Thomas v. Slate of Kerala. AIR 1977 SC 701 case, the Apex Court held that the rule of careful scrutiny applies only to inimical or interested witnesses but not to independent witnesses. Evidence of an independent witness cannot be rejected merely on the ground that he was once convicted in the past.
In Pradeep Narayan Madgaonkar v. State of Maharashtra (1995) 4 SCC 255 case, the Supreme Court dealt with the issue of the requirement of the examination of an independent witness, and whether the evidence of a police witness requires corroboration. The Court held that though the same must be subject to strict scrutiny, however, the evidence of police officials cannot be discarded merely on the ground that they belong to the police force and are either interested in the investigation or in the prosecution. However, as far as possible the corroboration of their evidence on material particulars should be sought.
13. Prosecutrix:
Prosecutrix means female prosecutor. Corroboration is not the sine qua non for a conviction in a rape case. In the Indian setting refusal to act on the testimony of a sexual assault in the absence of corroboration as a rule, is adding insult to injury why should the evidence of a girl or woman who complains of rape or sexual molestation be viewed with the aid of spectacles fitted with lenses tinned with doubt, disbelief, or suspicion. To do so is to justify the charge of male chauvinism in male dominated society.
In State of Karnataka v. Maha Baleshwar Gourya Naik, AIR 1992 SC 2043 case, the Supreme Court held that even if a victim of rape is not available to give evidence on account of her having committed suicide, the prosecution case cannot be thrown away over-board. In such a case, the non-availability of the victim of the victim will not be fatal and the Court can record a conviction on the basis of the available evidence brought on record by the prosecution.
In Karnel Singh v. The State of M.P., AIR 1995 SC 2472 case, the Apex Court observed that a woman who is a victim of a sexual assault is not an accomplice to the crime but is a victim of another person’s lust and therefore, her evidence need not be tested with the same amount of suspicion as that of an accomplice. She is not in the category of child witness or an accomplice, and therefore, the rule of prudence that her evidence must be corroborated in material particulars has no application at the most the court may look for some evidence which lends assurance.
In Ranjeet Naik Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), CRL.A. 615/2020 case, the Court held that the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, if it inspires confidence, can be the basis for conviction of the accused. Moreover, presumption to be drawn as to absence of consent in certain prosecution for rape.
14. Investigating Officer:
The investigating officer is a corporeal witness because he investigates the proceeding, records the statement of the witnesses, goes to the spot for the impartial findings, makes the case diary, receives the documents during investigation and after gathering the relevant evidence in support of the prosecution or beside the prosecution he submits his report for or against the prosecution. If he gives in to report in the form of charge-sheet or in the method of final report, then it is for the Court to consider the same and pass orders as provided under law. But the role of the investigating officer is actual relevant and material. He gets the first form of the witnesses from which later on the court is capable to judge the genuineness of the evidence, as to whether the witnesses are telling, the veracity or not.
The IO (Investigating Officer) has to place his case factual before the Court as it is. In the situations, a very substantial rather tremendously substantial duty lies upon the Investigating Officer in selecting a method of investigation and submitted impartial report about the commission of crime and discovered materials evidence through investigation.
In Jamuna Chaudhary v. State of Bihar, 1974, CriLJ 890 case, the Court observed that the duty of the investigating officer is not merely to bolster up a prosecution case with such evidence as may enable the court to record a conviction but to bring out the real unvarnished truth.
If the police office himself is a witness of some crime, then as a witness he is called official witness. For example, suppose A is a police officer performing his night duty. Suddenly, A saw a man who is drunk and running towards a street. A follows that man. When A reaches the place, he saw that the man was trying to kill his wife with a knife. So here A is considered as the official witness because the crime scene took place in front of A.
15. Victim/Injured Witness
Victim witness or injured witness is a witness who is victim of the crime himself/herself.
In Daya Nand Yadav v. State of UP 2002, Crimes 7 (All.) case, the Court observed that the evidence of injured witnesses has greater evidentiary value and unless compelling reasons exist, their statements are not to be discarded lightly. When the witness was himself injured during the course of occurrence, then there can be hardly any doubt regarding his presence at the spot. When the injured victim witness is found not wholly reliable, to base conviction on his evidence, corroboration was needed.
16. Trap Witness:
A trap witness is not an approver, but he is certainly an interested witness, in the sense that he is interested to see that the trap laid by him succeeds. He can at least be equated with a partisan witness(interested witness), and it is not safe to rely upon his evidence without corroboration. It is also equally clear that his evidence is not tainted, but it would only make a difference in the degree of corroboration required rather than the necessity for it.
In State of Bihar v. Basawan Singh, AIR 1458 SC 500 case, the Supreme Court held that however, inexpedient it may be to employ Magistrates as trap witnesses, their evidence has to be judged by the same standard as the evidence of other partisan or interested witnesses and the inexpediency of employing Magistrates as trap witnesses cannot be exalted into an inflexible rule of total rejection of their evidence in the absence of independent corroboration.
17. Natural Witness
A witness who is a natural one and is the only possible eyewitness in the circumstances of the case cannot be said to be interested.
In State of Rajhasthan v. Smt. Kalki, 1981 CriLJ 1012 case, where the witness was the widow of deceased and was the only and most natural witness present at the time of occurrence. The Court held that she cannot be called an interested witness. She is related to the deceased. She had no interest in protecting the real culprit and falsely implicating the accused.
In Binod Sinku v. State of Jharkhand, 2018 SCC OnLine Jhar 360, dated 17-05-2018 case, the High Court considered the submissions made on behalf of the appellants only to reject them. The Court held that the witnesses in the case, although being the brother, mother, and daughter of the deceased, were the only natural witnesses as the incident took place late at night outside their house. Further, the case of the prosecution was also supported by the brother of one of the appellants. The Court held that only because the witnesses were related to the deceased, that fact by itself does not render their evidence to be inadmissible, especially when they were the natural witnesses to the incident. Therefore, the High Court held that there was no infirmity in the order passed by the trial court. The appeals were accordingly dismissed.
18. Material Witness:
Some court trials require witness testimonies as evidence in a case the duty of the witness is to provide an account that may prove to be useful to the legal counsel that he or she is supporting. There exist different kinds of witnesses within the court system A material witness is crucial to a court case because his or her testimony is absolutely essential to the court proceedings. A witness who possesses information going to some fact that affects the merits of the case is called material witness. Thus, a material witness presents a testimony that is of material importance.
Generally, the information the material witness possesses has strong probative value and few, if any, other witnesses possess the same information. Because of the importance of a material witnesses’ testimony, judges usually make every reasonable effort to have such witnesses made available to testify.
These types of witnesses are only present during the sentencing hearing in order to determine the extent of the punishment to be given. Special circumstances can be prescribed to a material witness since his or her testimony is absolutely relevant.
19. Court Witness:
According to Section 311 of CrPC, 1973 any court may, at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code, summon any person as a witness, or examine any person in attendance, though not summoned as a witness, or recall and re-examine any person already examined; and the court shall summon and examine or recall and re-examine any such person if his evidence appears to it to be essential to the just decision of the case
In Jamat Raj K. Govanini v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1968 SC 178 (180) case, the Supreme Court observed that Section 311, Cr.P.C., 1973 empowers a court to summon material witness or examine any person present in the court. This section gives a power to the court to summon a material witness or to examine a person in court or to recall a witness already examined. It confers a wide discretion on the court to act as the exigencies of justice would require. Another aspect of this power is to be found in section 165, I.E.A., 1872.
In Assam v. Muhim Barkatak, AIR. 1987 SC 98 case, the Supreme Court held that when a particular witness is an important witness of the case and his examination was for the Just decision of the case, then the trial court is justified in examining such witness as a court witness.
20. Lay Witness
A lay witness is an ordinary person who has first-hand knowledge about pertinent facts related to the case. A lay witness testifies based on personal knowledge and life experiences. Generally, the lay witness’ testimony is limited to facts; however, some jurisdictions now allow opinions from the lay witness. In order to do so, the opinion must be reasonably based on the perception of the witness and may not be established on knowledge beyond that of an ordinary person. Unlike an expert witness, a lay witness may not testify to anything based on scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge.
21. Character Witness
A character witness is a person who provides testimony about the character of someone involved in a case, usually the defendant. Character witnesses can testify on behalf of another as to that person’s positive or negative character traits and the person’s reputation in the community. There are different situations where one may be called as a “character witness”:
- One may be called as a character witness to give evidence of the good character of the accused in a criminal case.
- One may be called as a character witness to give evidence of the good character of a person who has already been convicted of a criminal offence.
- One may be called as a character witness to give evidence about the good or bad character of a party in a civil trial if that party’s character is an important issue in the case.
22. Caste and Community Witness
From a long line of weighty authorities, it is well settled that a witness can be disbelieved, because he is of the same cast and community as the person in whose favor he states.
In Surendra Pratap Chauan v. Ram Naik, 2001 CriLJ 98 (SC) case, the Court held that evidence of eye-witnesses who are caste fellows of complainant need not be discarded on the ground. Their evidence however, needs to be scrutinized with caution.
23. Convicted Witness
The evidence of a witness is not to be rejected merely on ground that he was once convicted. Person who erred once may also speak the truth. Similarly conviction of witness in murder trial 43 years back is no ground to discard his testimony.
In State of U.P. v. Kalyan Singh, 1984 CriLJ155. Case, the Court held that mere fact that witness was once convicted for possession of opium does not make him a witness of shady character.
24. Professional Witness
In Hira Lal v. State of Haryana, 1971 CriLJ 290 case, the Court observed that the witness on his own admission has appeared as a prosecution witness four or five times in
25. Reluctant Witness
They are not ready to testify. To deal with such a witness, the cause of reluctance has to be determined first of all and attempts to be made to remove the cause or causes and gain his confidence and then only he should be interrogated. Reluctance or unwilling of such witnesses may come from a variety of reasons, such as-
- Feeling of inconvenience or hardship by being required to attend the p.s. or court on many occasions and suffering from the attendant harassments;
- Fear of harm by the offender or his friends or associates;
- Dislike for the police in general and may be the I.O. in particular;
- Friendship, relationship or other form of association with the suspect and inclination to safeguard letters interest;
- Aversion against publicity;
- General indifference or callousness.
Right of Witness:
- Right to refuse to testify if the accused is a relative of a witness.
- It has given the right to testify in a language familiar to the witness.
- Witness has the right to seek legal aid.
- Witness also has the right to see the fees for any expenses.
- It is important to have a safe waiting area during court proceedings.
- Witness Should have the right to know the status of investigation and prosecution of crime.
- Witness has the right to be dealt with compassion and honour.
- Witness has the right to be protected from harm and threat.
- Witness has an important right to give evidence while remaining anonymous.
- Right to stay in a safe place and transport.
Conclusion
In a matter before a Court, witnesses play a significant function in bringing justice. Their testimonies are important in bringing out the truth. There are different types of witness but all the witness has only one purpose to guarantee a fair and just treatment in the society.