Open Access Research Article
CREDIBILITY OF AN EYEWITNESS
Published Paper
Article Details
CREDIBILITY
OF AN EYEWITNESS
AUTHORED BY - SAHIL GARG & RISHU
YOGESH PANDEY
ABSTRACT:
An eye
witness testimony is a piece of direct evidence which is so vital that it can
shape the whole trial and lead to conviction or acquittal.
An
eyewitness is someone who witnesses an offense directly and can establish the
link between the offense and the accused through his testimony. His/her
testimony is of so much importance that a conviction can also occur on the
basis of the sole testimony of that witness.
This paper
discusses at length, that there are several factors which makes the testimony
of an eyewitness questionable and raises some pertinent doubts on his
statement, thereby impeaching his very credibility.
Furthermore,
it aims to show that even the most “confident” witnesses can be fallible and
can very well possess ulterior motives to make certain statements. Such
misleading testimonies not only lead to wrongful acquittals or convictions but
throttle the entire justice administration mechanism. The role of an eyewitness
is to make the court see what he witnessed from his eyes, thereby assisting in
the judicial process. However, owing to certain factors (described in detail
through this research), they may very well be responsible for making a direct
source of evidence unreliable.
Hence,
evidently, the statement of an eye witness plays a crucial role in a trial.
However, it’s an unreliable source of evidence in many cases owing to its
several drawbacks. It would not be wrong to suggest that inaccurate testimonies
by eyewitnesses lead to numerous wrongful convictions, thereby resulting in
gross miscarriage of justice.
Keywords: Eyewitness, testimony, unreliable, memory,
credibility, confidence.
Aim & Objective:
-
To critically analyse the credibility of an eyewitness
-
To discover the factors responsible for reducing the accuracy
of a testimony
-
To analyse the problems faced by witnesses through various
articles and judgments
Hypothesis:
Relying solely upon the testimony of
eyewitnesses without other corroborating evidences can be fatal to the administration
of justice.
Research Methodology: This is a non-doctrinal research
and all sources collected and cited are
secondary data.
Research question: Is the testimony of an eyewitness credible enough for conviction or acquittal?
Chapterization
:
This research paper is classified into Four main chapters. The First
chapter essentially deals with the crux of the proposition, i.e. Credibility.
It enumerates the various factors responsible for the correctness of the
eyewitness testimony.
The Second chapter talks about the criteria of confidence and the role it
plays in affecting the testimony. The last chapter deals with the general
problems faced by the witnesses in different cases.
INTRODUCTION
As per the Interpretation
clause[1],
“Evidence” is of two types-: Oral evidence
and Documentary evidence.
It is evident from the very definition
that the testimony of an eyewitness, being
a direct piece of evidence, holds a very strong validity in a court of law.
Sec. 118 of the Indian Evidence Act,
1872 states that every person is competent to
testify unless they are
considered by the court of not being capable
of giving rational answers or understanding the questions put before them for them due to their tender age, extreme old age or any
mental or bodily diseases.
Furthermore, as per this section, even a lunatic person is competent to testify
if he is able to understand the questions and give rational answers.
The term ‘witness’ means a person who can provide
information by way of deposing as regards relevant facts, via an oral
statement, or a statement in writing, made or given in Court, or otherwise.[2]
In State (NCT of Delhi) vs
Pankaj Chaudhary[3], the top court held that “as a
general rule, if credible, a conviction of an accused can be based on sole
testimony, without corroboration. It is further observed and held that sole
testimony of prosecutrix should not be doubted by court merely on basis of
assumptions and surmises”.
As per S.134 Indian Evidence
Act, no particular number of witnesses
shall in any case be required for the proof of any fact.
In Sunil Kumar v. State (Govt. of NCT of
Delhi)[4],
the court classified oral testimony into three categories, i.e. (i) wholly
reliable, (ii) wholly unreliable, (iii) neither wholly reliable nor wholly
unreliable.
If the witness
is wholly reliable,
the court can convict or acquit on the basis of the testimony of that witness
beyond doubt.[5] If the witness
is found wholly
unreliable, the court
can easily discard his testimony. However,
if the witness falls within the third
category, the court has to analyse the corroborating evidence
as well and cannot completely rely on the testimony
of the witness alone.
Identifications
made by eyewitnesses play a crucial role in the investigation and prosecution
of crimes, but it is well-known that eyewitnesses frequently make errors with
grave consequences. In light of these concerns, it is necessary for the present
judicial system to conduct an exhaustive study of the current practise and
application of eyewitness testimony, with the goal of determining why
identification errors occur and what can be done to prevent them.
This research focuses
on the issues that are present, along with brief discussions of how these
issues lead to specific recommendations for further research, best practises
for law enforcement, and court use of eyewitness evidence.
Owing to
several inconsistencies in Eyewitness testimony, despite being a crucial and
paramount source of evidence, can prove to be unreliable at times. The
testimonies may lead to wrongful convictions and that affects the credibility
of the Indian Justice System in a drastic manner which cannot be reversed by
giving any sympathetic view to the victim. As there are many factors that can
affect the observations of an eyewitness, it leads to unreliability.
Over the course of recorded history,
individuals have testified to their sensory experiences. We habitually share
first-person accounts of what we have seen or heard, and we do so in nearly
every form of discourse, from rumor-filled lift encounter descriptions to
precise laboratory observations. In fact, the ability to recount our
experiences is an irrepressible and highly prized human characteristic.
Numerous ancient texts, such as the Hindu Smriti (Sanskrit: "that which is
remembered"), contain allegory based on experience for the advantage of
society. Similarly, New Testament books are considered to be first-person
accounts, and contemporary memoirs do the same for modern life. As new sciences
evolve, reliance on sophisticated tools increases for improving the quality of
observations and, thus, the validity of the results.
Most of the time, an onlooker will
pay attention to the criminal's weapon. When someone is at the scene of a crime,
they tend to focus on the weapon used, such as what the other person is
carrying or the size, colour, type, or shape of the weapon that is pointed at
them or another victim. But because the mind is focused on the weapon, it does
not notice the facts about the people who committed the crime. Most of the
time, a witness can remember all the details about the weapon but can't
remember exact details about the perpetrator. This kind of weapon focus makes
it hard to believe what eyewitnesses say.
Whether a person is a victim or not,
he is under a lot of stress at the scene of a crime. When we are under a lot of
stress, our minds and bodies go into survival mode, and the person's mind works
to help him stay alive instead of focused on the person who hurt him. When
someone is in a stressful situation, it makes it harder for them to pay
attention and remember what happened. Even when someone is a victim, it can
make them feel numb, which makes it hard for them to pay attention. Traumatic
events leave both the victim and the people who saw what happened in a state of
shock, which makes it harder to make accurate observations. Any traumatic
event, like a murder, a rape, an attack, or a robbery, can cause a person to be
mentally traumatised. Mental trauma has a big effect on people's thoughts, and
this can make it hard for the victim or a witness to see the real criminal at
work. When the words of such eyewitnesses are written down, they might not be
very accurate.
Pieces of memories are stored in bits
and pieces in the brain. Even when we walk down a street, it is hard for our
brains to remember everything about it. When we cannot remember something, our
brain fills in the missing pieces on its own. Similarly, when details are asked
of a witness during a police investigation, the mind can't remember exact
details and fills in the blanks on its own. Often, this means that the wrong
person is charged. Another part of this reason is that over time, people's
memories start to get worse. As time goes on, memories become less clear and
start to break up. When we try to remember something, our brains often fill in
the blanks by trying to figure out what we were trying to remember. This can
lead to wrong identification and misunderstanding.
One of the main problems with
eyewitness evidence is that it can lead to a false identification. Suggestive
identity is when a witness is shown photos that might help them figure out who
did something wrong. How the investigator shows the suspect to the witness can
make a big difference in how the witness identifies the person who did the
crime.
The testimony of witnesses is crucial
to the trial process. In some cases, they play a crucial role in determining
the fate of the accused. However, numerous factors render it unreliable, and it
frequently results in wrongful convictions.
Due to the inadmissibility of
forensic reports in legal proceedings, the fate of the case rests on the
testimony of witnesses and other forms of evidence. The court relies on the
testimony of eyewitnesses who have taken an oath, and whenever that testimony
is misleading, it results in the conviction of the innocent.
Cases that rely solely on eyewitness
testimony are more likely to result in wrongful convictions. In some instances,
its failure is attributable to the factors contributing to its deficiency.
DNA or Forensic Science reports are
more accurate than eyewitness testimony, as eyewitnesses are frequently
unreliable, whereas forensic reports are less likely to be incorrect. Numerous
factors, including memory loss, absence of observation, mental shock, and
trauma, all contribute to the unreliability of eyewitness testimony. This makes
it a conduit for wrongful convictions, and when someone is wrongfully
convicted, it results in a miscarriage of justice.
I) THE CREDIBILITY
Multiple factors[6] are at play
which can severely affect and reduce the accuracy of an eyewitness’s testimony,
thereby questioning the very credibility of that witness:
1.
Fear,
stress, mental trauma: During or moments after the commission of a crime, an eyewitness may be in a state of distress,
having witnessed the crime. During
such an event, the survival
instincts kick in and a person’s emphasis is on his/her own safety
rather than identifying the perpetrator.
(a)
Mental trauma: Sometimes the nature of the
crime, i.e. murder, rape, etc is so gruesome
that it can render the witness completely traumatic and even cause PTSD. Due to this reason, this trauma
takes a huge mental toll on the mind, and proper identification of the accused
or other details
of the crime may be severely compromised.
(b)
Presence of weapon: Due to this highly
stressful environment of fear, a person may usually
first focus on the weapon
being held by the perpetrator. Due to the eyewitness’s
attention towards the weapon first, he might be able to recall all the distinguishing features of the weapon
during trial; however, the details regarding the perpetrator might
not be completely accurate as witnessed by him.
2. Misidentification: Due to the above-mentioned
factors, the probability of misidentification of an accused
during the Test Identification Parade may become
quite high. It could be due
to a variety of reasons like any kind of obstruction between the eyewitness and the perpetrator,
be it the distance between them, darkness,
weak eyesight of the eyewitness, etc.
(a)
Memory: It is a general fact that
whenever we perceive a certain event, it does not get stored in the brain in
whole. Our brain forms connections with various details by associating them
with different segments, thereby resulting in a complete memory. Hence, it is
humanly impossible for a person to remember a complete event as it actually
happened.
So naturally, there’s a high
risk of misidentification whenever a witness is
called for examination or during identification because the brain of the witness
cannot recall the entire event. The missing details of a particular memory are
filled by an illusion of the mind itself.
(b)
Distinguishing
features: There is a possibility that while committing a crime, the
accused might be in disguise. Hence, this could increase the chances of
misidentification.
(c)
Lack of proper viewing
time or stress or fear during the TIP or during the commission of crime may also
result in misidentification.
3.
Time: Often,
memories do not remain intact for long. The memory of the eyewitness containing certain details pertaining to
the offence or the accused may fade with the
passage of time. This may
result into wrongful conviction or acquittal.
In this regard, the accuracy of the testimony may be reduced due to delay
in the legal proceedings.
4.
Influence: Witnesses turning
hostile or retracting from their initial statements is not a rare occurrence. A
witness may turn hostile if he is paid off by a rich or powerful accused, or he
could be influenced due to threat or coercion. In many cases, there could be
societal pressure too. For instance, the prosecutrix could find herself in a
position where she has to turn hostile due to her family’s pressure, a wife
might be forced to retract her statements against her husband in a domestic
violence case, etc. Witnesses are often harassed by the counsels, manipulating
them and twisting their testimonies.
In
Himanshu Singh Sabharwal v. State of MP & Ors.[7], it was stated “The
State has a definite role to play in protecting the witnesses, to start with at
least in sensitive cases involving those in power, who has political patronage
and could wield muscle and money power, to avert trial getting tainted and
derailed and truth becoming a casualty. As a protector of its citizens, it has
to ensure that during a trial in Court the witness could safely depose truth
without any fear of being haunted by those against whom he has deposed.”
All these
factors are somewhat
interlinked and can significantly lower the accuracy
of the eyewitness’s testimony, thus making him quite unreliable.
As per State v. Murli,
“four ways were stated by which a
trial court can hold a witness
unworthy of belief :
a)
The witness’s statement is inherently improbable or
contrary to the course of nature, e.g. he
says that he identified the accused by face in pitch darkness, or that he
recognized his voice from a mile away
or that he saw the accused killing the deceased with a lathi whereas medical
evidence proves he died of a bullet wound
b) The witness’s
deposition contains mutually contradictory or inconsistent passage, e.g. at one place he says
'A' was the murderer but at another
that it was 'B'.
c)
The witness is found to be a bitter enemy of the opposite party and therefore, possesses ample motive for wishing him harm
The accused
got arrested on May 28th, 1988. However, he refused to participate in the TIP
on June 2nd, 1988.
The actual
identification was done about 8 years later by the witnesses in court.
In response
to the contention that the testimonies could be inaccurate, the court stated “Courts
ought not to increase the difficulties by magnifying the theoretical possibilities.
It is their province to deal with matters actual and material to promote order and
not surrender it by excessive theorizing or magnifying what in practice is
really unimportant.”
Furthermore,
the Court had no reason to doubt the reliability of the witnesses because the
specific physiognomy of the accused was already given by the witness.
As per the
eyewitness, he could identify the appellant / accused even after removing his
spectacles.
The court,
while referring to the testimony of the second eyewitness, “her evidence is
so natural that it is impossible to believe that she is falsely involving the accused-appellant.” Based on this
testimony, the Court found no reason to doubt the accuracy of the witness considering he was quite
confident about his statement and had no motive to falsely implicate
the accused.
Analysis:
1) The time delay of 8 years cannot be considered as “magnifying the theoretical possibilities”. The memories of the eyewitnesses regarding the details
are bound to have
somewhat
faded in the span of 8 years. This reason simply should not have been considered as “unimportant”. Considering their testimonies to be completely reliable is ,
in fact, quite
ridiculous.
Henry L. Roediger
III[10] is of the opinion
that false memories can be created quite easily. This usually happens when one
attempts to remember or recall something that never actually occurred or to
have associated a rather different memory with those events, thereby having
them stored in the brain differently than the way they happened. The manner in
which a particular event or information is stored in the brain and the duration
for which a person could retain it could vastly vary from person to person. Hence,
naturally, the degree of correctness of the testimony of a witness is doubtful.
As per a 1977
study[11],
the subjects were instructed to watch a video of an armed robbery and shooting. They were later
asked to recall certain events from the video. It was found that the recall
value for those who were examined a week later was much lower in comparison
to the group that was examined straight away after the video.
Hence, it
can be stated quite evidently that the court made an error by not considering that
a serious doubts
should have been raised pertaining to the accuracy
of the witnesses considering the gap interval of 8 years.
2) As far as
the point of correctly identifying and providing the physiognomy of the accused is concerned, the eyewitness
had identified the accused by stating that the accused was having “catty
eyes”. And by catty eyes, the eyewitness simply stated, “eyes like a cat”. This very description speaks
for itself and certainly raises doubts upon the credibility of the
witness.
As mentioned earlier that the accuracy
of an eyewitness’s statement depends upon the duration for which the
witness actually sees the perpetrator. In this
regard, in the case, both the eyewitnesses were initially involved in a
scuffle with the terrorist. During
such a state, naturally the primary focus of the witnesses would have been to defend themselves, rather than
closely analysing his features. Besides, soon
after this scuffle, one eyewitness “rushed to his room to make a
telephone call and inform at police station that he was attacked and shots were
being fired.”
It is obvious that there would have been an atmosphere of high stress,
fear and anxiety.
Even after knowing
about all these circumstances, the court didn’t
have an iota of doubt upon the very
credibility and the accuracy of the eyewitnesses’ statement.
3) The court didn’t
doubt the authenticity and the accuracy of the eyewitness’ statements,
considering that they could recall the events quite clearly with confidence.
In this regard, an experiment conducted by Elizabeth Loftus[12]
needs to be analysed in which some
college students were shown a car accident and afterwards, they were subjected
to a complex series of questions with the aim to provide
misleading information. So, a question was asked to them, “How fast was the white sports
car going when it passed the
barn while traveling along the country road?” The subjects gave answers while recalling to have seen the
“barn” in the film. However, no barn actually existed in the film. This experiment shows that memory is
an active reconstructive process in
which humans interpret and transform information that they encounter[13].
It involves people picking up information, whether
it is true or false,
and integrating it into their
memory, thereby supplementing and altering their recollection.
Therefore, in light of all these
flaws observed and analysed, it can be strongly suggested
that the court
should not have relied
upon the testimonies of the eyewitnesses as heavily as they did while arriving at conclusion
regarding the guilt of the accused. Certain doubts
should have been raised concerning with the accuracy of the statements and the court has quite evidently failed
to consider the points derived
from all the research and data
on the testimony and credibility of an eyewitness. Elizabeth Loftus has very
well written that the testimonies of
even the most honest and best intentioned witnesses are fallible.
II) CONFIDENCE:
If a person is really confident about
his belief or his recollection of a particular memory, it would certainly seem that
it is more likely to be an accurate memory. But on the contrary, confidence
cannot be a benchmark for assessing the accuracy of a memory because even a lie
can be expressed with as much detail, confidence, and emotion. Hence, it would give the illusion that someone is stating the
truth based on their memory, and relying on such a person’s testimony could
prove to be detrimental.
Therefore, the accuracy of an eyewitness’s statement cannot be judged by
their “ability to recall a memory confidently”. In fact, an eyewitness’s
confidence, during a trial, is susceptible
to change and manipulation. For instance, if a counsel
during a trial wants to raise the accuracy of the testimony of
the witness, he has to make him more confident and for that, he needs to provide some encouraging feedback or respond in a positive
manner. But if the eyewitness were to be made less confident, the
counsel would influence the witness in a way by implying that he might have
made an error. Certain statements like “From such a considerable distance,
can you speak with absolute
certainty that you saw the accused clearly?" or “Considering the
dark and your poor eyesight, would you be certain as to the identification of
this person?”
In
such cases, the accuracy of an eyewitness’s memory can totally be proved to be unreliable.
Hence, considering confidence to be a strong factor
to determine the accuracy of the testimony by an eyewitness could
definitely prove to be fatal
to justice.
III)
EVIDENCE
BY AN EYEWITNESS VS. EVIDENCE BY
FORENSIC REPORTS:
In Edward v. Inspector of Police[14], the court
did not find any doubt on the reliability of the evidence produced by the
prosecution witness, despite there being a difference between the ocular and
medical evidence.
Surprisingly,
the testimonies of witnesses are given precedence over DNA, medical or forensic
reports. The medical evidence is considered corroborative and cannot outweigh
the eyewitness’s testimony. Even the Gauhati High Court is of the view that the
evidentiary value of a medical report is only substantial and “the testimony
of eye witness would be preferable to medical evidence, unless the medical
evidence completely rules out the eye witness version.”[15]
Hence, the chances of wrongful acquittals or convictions
can surely be reduced if medical / forensic reports are considered on par
with the ocular evidence.
IV) PROBLEMS FACED BY WITNESSES
"Witnesses"
are considered to be the eyes and ears of justice and rightly so. If the witness himself is incapacitated from acting
as the eyes and ears of justice, the trial becomes putrefied and paralysed, and
it no longer can constitute a fair trial. The incapacitation may be due to
several factors like the witness being not in a position for reasons beyond
control to speak the truth in the Court or due to negligence, ignorance or some
corrupt collusion. A witness needs to be protected from the usual
corrupt practices employed by powerful people that influence him to turn
hostile.[16]
CONCLUSION
The admissibility of an eyewitness
statement hinges upon the foundational presumption that the individual,
speaking under the solemnity of oath, is recounting events truthfully. This
presumption serves as the bedrock, except when a compelling demonstration,
surpassing reasonable doubt, establishes the unreliability and falsehood of
their testimony. The admission of a witness's statement into evidence mandates
a meticulous and comprehensive evaluation, delving into various facets.
Within this framework, the burden
rests upon the court to ascertain whether any extraneous factors may have
influenced the eyewitness while offering their account. Scrutiny extends to
uncovering whether the witness encountered any undue duress, coercion, or
intimidation that could have tainted their recollection. This obligation to
ensure untainted testimony underscores the critical role witnesses play in the
administration of justice. An impartial and veracious statement from them
assumes paramount significance, as it guides the path toward a just verdict.
Nonetheless, the dynamics of evidence
sometimes lead to a divergence between oral and documentary sources. Documented
evidence gains prominence due to its inherent stability compared to oral
recollections, which can be susceptible to inconsistencies and lapses. This
divergence arises from the inherent fallibility of human memory, making eyewitnesses
potentially unreliable sources. This contrast is amplified by the tangibility
and permanence of documentary evidence, rendering it less prone to inaccuracies
that might arise from the vagaries of human recall.
In conclusion, the admissibility of an
eyewitness statement rests on the presumption of truthfulness, tempered by the
rigors of rigorous examination. The court's vigilance in assessing potential
biases or external influences is pivotal in upholding the integrity of the
legal process. The juxtaposition between oral and documentary evidence
underscores the nuanced challenges of reconciling human testimonies with more
concrete forms of proof. Balancing these aspects ensures the pursuit of a fair
trial, where both the frailties of human memory and the stability of
documentary evidence find their place in the pursuit of justice.
[4] (2003) 11 SCC 367.
[6] Subodh Asthana, “Eyewitness Testimonies: A Gateway
To Wrongful Convictions”.
[10] Henry L. Roediger, "Misinformation Effects in Recall: Creating
False Memories through
Repeated Retrieval".
[11] Vladimir J. Koneni and Ebbe B.
Ebbesen, "Courtroom testimony by psychologists on eyewitness
identification issues: Critical notes and reflections."
(1986) 10 Law and Human Behavior 11118-121.
[12] Elizabeth F. Loftus,
"Eyewitness Testimony: Psychological Research and Legal Thought" (1981) 3 Crime and Justice
109.
[13] Emory Smith, "The
Fallibility of Eyewitness Testimony" (2003) 1 The American
Journal of Police
Science 492-495.
[14] AIR 2015 SC 2374.
Article Information
CREDIBILITY OF AN EYEWITNESS
Authors: SAHIL GARG, RISHU YOGESH PANDEY
- Journal IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Published 2024/06/17
About Journal
International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis
- Abbreviation IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Access Open Access
- License CC 4.0
All research articles published in International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis are open access and available to read, download and share, subject to proper citation of the original work.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis.