If Evidence Of Official Witnesses Inspire Confidence, Lack Of Corroboration By Hostile Independent Witnesses Will...
The principle that “if evidence of official witnesses inspires confidence, lack of corroboration by hostile independent witnesses will not normally affect conviction”,
Legal Principle
In criminal law, the prosecution often relies on official witnesses—such as police officers, investigating officers, or other government officials—to establish the occurrence of a crime. A common defense tactic is to challenge the prosecution’s case by pointing out that independent witnesses are hostile or did not corroborate the official witnesses’ testimony.
However, courts have repeatedly held that:
If the testimony of official witnesses is credible, consistent, and inspires confidence, the conviction can safely rest on their evidence, even if independent witnesses turn hostile or fail to corroborate.
The rationale is that the quality and reliability of the evidence matter more than the number of witnesses or corroboration by others.
Key Observations by Courts
Official Witnesses Can Stand Alone:
Courts have recognized that official witnesses, such as police officers, are competent and trustworthy to testify about facts within their knowledge, investigation, or duties.
Hostility of Independent Witnesses is Not Fatal:
When independent or private witnesses turn hostile, it does not automatically render the prosecution’s case weak, especially if the evidence of official witnesses is strong and consistent.
Evaluation Depends on Judicial Scrutiny:
Courts must examine the evidence of official witnesses critically, considering:
Whether their testimony is consistent with the statements recorded at the time of investigation.
Whether they have personal knowledge of the facts they testify to.
Whether there is any evidence of bias or motive to falsely implicate the accused.
Chain of Circumstances:
Even in the absence of corroboration, the court may rely on circumstantial and documentary evidence provided by official witnesses.
Relevant Case Law
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Rajesh Gautam (2003) 6 SCC 401
Supreme Court observed that the testimony of official witnesses, if consistent and reliable, can form the basis for conviction.
Lack of corroboration by independent witnesses does not weaken the prosecution if the official witnesses inspire confidence.
State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh (1996) 2 SCC 384
Court held that hostile independent witnesses do not automatically destroy prosecution evidence.
Reliable police or official evidence can be sufficient for conviction, provided it is free from infirmities.
K. Venkatesan v. State of Tamil Nadu (2000) 8 SCC 678
Emphasized that courts should focus on the credibility and internal consistency of official witness testimony, not merely on lack of support from private witnesses.
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116
While dealing with circumstantial evidence, the Supreme Court laid down that evidence need not always be corroborated by independent witnesses, especially if the existing testimony is trustworthy, credible, and inspires confidence.
Practical Implications
Investigating Officer Evidence:
Courts can rely on statements of IOs or police officers regarding FIRs, recovery, and investigations, provided there is no suspicion of fabrication.
Witness Evaluation:
Even if neighbors or independent witnesses turn hostile, the conviction may still be upheld if official witnesses’ evidence is reliable.
Credibility Over Quantity:
The court’s primary concern is truth and reliability, not whether every witness supports the prosecution.
Safeguard Against Misuse:
While official witnesses can be relied upon, courts ensure that testimony is consistent and not motivated by malice, otherwise, reliance can be questioned.
Illustrative Example
Suppose in a theft case:
Police recover stolen property and testify about recovery.
Neighbors or shopkeepers (independent witnesses) turn hostile in court.
Even without corroboration from these independent witnesses, the conviction can stand, because the police testimony regarding recovery and investigation is credible and unimpeached.
Summary
| Principle | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Official witness evidence | Can form the basis of conviction if credible and consistent |
| Independent witness hostility | Does not automatically weaken prosecution |
| Court focus | Reliability, internal consistency, absence of bias or malice |
| Case support | Rajesh Gautam, Gurmit Singh, K. Venkatesan, Sharad Sarda |
| Practical effect | Conviction can stand based solely on official witness testimony |
RELATED Blog
0 comments