Eyewitness testimony remains crucial, but it exists in the shadow of memory bias and quantity of witness. Many studies over the years have suggested that memory biases of eyewitness testimony can wrongly steer the outcome of the case.
In February 2023, in Ajai alias Ajju and others vs State of Uttar Pradesh, the eyewitness ,Smt. Pinky’s parents and close family were killed. The few important points of the case were that witness was a solitary witness, she did not disclose the names of the assailants at the first instance and witness had enmity with appellants.
However, a division bench of Justices BR Gavai and Vikram Nath that it is the discretion of the prosecution to lead as much evidence as is necessary for proving the charge. It is not the quantity of the witnesses but the quality of witnesses which matters.
According to The Innocence Project at Cardozo Law School, of the seventy-seven men whose convictions were overturned after DNA testing proved their innocence, sixty-five had been found guilty because of faulty eyewitness statements. Faulty eyewitness testimony has been implicated in at least 75% of DNA exoneration cases—more than any other cause (Garrett, 2011). In a particularly famous case, a man named Ronald Cotton was identified by a rape victim, Jennifer Thompson, as her rapist, and was found guilty and sentenced to life in prison. After more than 10 years, he was exonerated (and the real rapist identified) based on DNA evidence.
Eyewitness testimony can be of great value to the legal system, but decades of research now argues that this testimony is often given far more weight than its accuracy justifies.
Due to high fallibility of eyewitness testimony, it is often suggested that there should be quantitative evidentiary standard. The Treason Act of 1547 incorporated for the first time, the “Two witness rule”, where two witness were needed to prove a charge of treason. It is still used in perjury cases in USA.
The other part of argument is quantity or witness vs quality of witness. The question whether one eyewitness is enough especially when deciding more grave offences ? Sec 134 of Evidence Act clearly states that “No particular number of witnesses shall in any case be required for the proof of any fact.”
The efficacy however has been questioned in witness testimony.
In Namdeo vs State of Maharashtra (2007), Namdeo killed Ninaji with an axe while Ninaji was asleep outside his house. Sopan, son of Ninaji was the star eyewitness. Since he was the son of deceased, it was said that he was an “interested witness”. The Honourable Apex Court held that the testimony of a solitary witness can also be a basis for conviction. It was also held that merely because a witness is related to the deceased or the victim of a crime, such witness cannot be characterized as an interested witness. It has been observed in cases that when the eyewitness identifies the wrong person, the real perpetrators are set free, where the real perpetrator commit more crime and the innocent remains incarcerated. Jee Park in “Eyewitness identification and innocence” has discussed the trial of Wilbert Jones. “Jones was wrongfully imprisoned for forty-five years, ten months for rape, that he did not commit. The only evidence against Mr. Jones was the testimony of a single eyewitness, and she made a mistake. A mistake that could have been prevented. A mistake that cost a young man his youth, and his dreams of having a family and doing meaningful work.
One Narayanbuva Gosavi, a descendant of a Sant was vested with the exclusive right to carry the Palki and Padukas of the Sant. He died in 1951, leaving behind his widow,Smt. Laxmibai, who adopted a son called Raghunath, who was not from within the family. Raghunath was adopted by Smt. Laxmibai after the performance of all requisite ceremonies which were conducted in the presence of a huge crowd, wherein the process of giving and taking of the child by the parents of Raghunath and by Smt. Laxmibai respectively.The ceremony was performed by a priest, and several photographs were also taken on this occasion. On the same day, an adoption deed was executed and registered in this respect, and the said deed was duly signed by seven witnesses.
The respondents who were also descendants of the Sant, had proved, that there did in fact exist a custom which prohibited the taking of a male child in adoption from outside. The adoption itself was suspicious as independent witnesses were not examined. The witnesses who proved the validity of the adoption were interested witnesses, and the adoption deed was also suspicious.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case Laxmibai and another Vs. Bhagwantbuva and others (2013) 4 SCC 97 has held that in the matter of appreciation of evidence of witnesses, it is not the number of witnesses but quality of their evidence which is important, as there is no requirement in law of evidence that any particular number of witnesses is to be examined to prove/disprove a fact. It is a time- honoured principle, that evidence must be weighed and not counted. The test is whether the evidence has a ring of truth, is cogent, credible and trustworthy or otherwise.
The Hon’ble Apex court held “the adoption ceremony and the adoption deed, have been disregarded on the basis of mere surmises and conjectures. The correctness or authenticity of adoption deed is not disputed. What is disputed is that the natural parents of adoptive child who were definitely executing parties of the deed have signed as witnesses along with 7 other witnesses. In such a fact-situation, by gathering the intention of the parties and by reading the document as a whole and considering its purport, it can be concluded that the adoption stood the test of law.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court has always abided by quality of witness, over quantity, which is a relief in many criminal cases with solitary witness. Though wrongful conviction remain a problem worldwide, but there is always eventual Justice
