1ST INTERNAL ASSESSMENT

LAW OF EVIDENCE
CRITICAL ANALYSIS
“CREDIBILITY OF POLICE OFFICER AS A WITNESS”

SUBMITTED BY
TANMAY GUPTA
16010126334
DIVISION D
BBA.LLB 4TH YEAR
 “CREDIBILITY OF POLICE OFFICER AS A WITNESS”

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................. 1

2. INTRODUCYION & BACKGROUND .................................................................................. 2

4. ADMISSIBILITY AS WITNESS OF POLICE OFFICIALS ................................................. 5

5. TESTIMONY OF POLICE WITNESS ................................................................................... 6

6. CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................ 7

1. ABSTRACT

One of the several purposes of a criminal justice system is to ensure that the guilty are
brought to justice. However, in determining the existence of the guilt of alleged
offenders, several comprehensively defined rules of evidence have been incorporated in
the system, which look to concretise procedural regularity in the interest of the society.
This article will look into the contrasting approaches to this complex issue adopted in
India through various case laws regarding the credibility of police officer as a witness.
The Supreme Court examined the credibility of police officers in Gyan Singh1 which
states that conviction cannot be based on uncorroborated testimony of official witnesses.
However, it can be pointed out that this statement of law does not take into account
where it is a mere impossibility to find independent witnesses in the odd hours of
midnight and more so there was no human habitation in the nearby place when the
alleged crime took place. In pursuance of these objectives, the paper analyses the
differing approaches towards the issue of admissibility of testimony and evidences of a
police officer in the Indian jurisdiction, and the rationales which underlines the distinct
stances adopted.

Keywords: Evidence, identification, witness, testimony, corroboration, police officials,

Indian Evidence Act, 1872, CRPC, Fair Trial.

1
Gyan Singh v. State of UP, 1995 Supp (4) SCC.

1|Page
 “CREDIBILITY OF POLICE OFFICER AS A WITNESS”

2. INTRODUCYION & BACKGROUND

According to Bentham, "Witnesses are the eyes and ears of justice." The great
philosopher and the thinker of his time Bentham righty emphasized on the relevancy of
witnesses.

According to Black‟s Law Dictionary ,“Witness is one who sees, knows or vouches
for something or one who gives testimony, under oath or affirmation in person or by oral
or written deposition, or by Affidavit".

According to Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the term „Evidence‟
means and includes:

[1] All statement which the court permits or requires to be made before it by
witnesses, in relation to the matters of fact under inquiry; such statement are
called oral evidence.
[2] All document produced for the inspection of the court; such documents are
called documentary evidence.

Therefore, the term „Evidence‟ means and includes two kinds of evidence i.e.,
statement of witnesses and documentary evidence.

According to Section 118 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872, states as under: "All
persons shall be competent to testify unless the court considers that they are prevented
from understanding the questions put to them, or from giving rational answer to those
questions, by tender years, extreme old age, disease, whether of body or mind, or any
other cause of the same kind.”2

Explanation- A Lunatic is not incompetent to testify, unless he is prevented by his

lunacy from understanding the questions put to him and give rational answer to them.

2
Section 118 Of Indian Evidence Act,1872.

2|Page
 “CREDIBILITY OF POLICE OFFICER AS A WITNESS”

Evaluating evidence and rendering decisions is a great responsibility in criminal

cases. The credibility of any witness, who gives evidence as to the facts either for the
prosecution or the defence, is material to the issue. A witness is said to be competent, if
the court lawfully receives his evidence, and compellable if the court may require him to
give evidence over his objection. The proper time for determining the competence of a
witness is before the witness has begun to give evidence, unless his incompetence
emerges for the first time, at a letter stage, in which case the objection should be made at
that time. A person is not competent to give evidence in criminal proceedings if it appears
to the court, that he is not a person who is able to

[1] Understand the questions put to him as a witness , and

[2] Give answers to them which can be understood.

Section 118 to 121 and Section 133 of the Indian Evidence Act deal with
competency.

In Nagina Sharma v. State of Bihar3, the court held that the investigating officer is a
material witness, as he investigates the case, maintains the case diary, goes to the place of
occurrence, and sends the dead body, after preparing inquest report, for post-mortem
examination. He also sends the injured for medical examination and then gets the
postmortem report. He collect the materials and evidence for the prosecution so that
conviction is outrightly based on it. It is he who has to explain each and every action, at
every stage of the investigation. His objective finding become relevant for the
prosecution as well as the defence. Thus, investigation officer is a material witness whose
examination cannot be ignored and the court cannot collect material for conviction of an
accused from the investigation expert or a case diary unless he has been examined as a
witness.

3
Nagina Sharma v. State of Bihar, 1991 Cri.L.J 1195.

3|Page
 “CREDIBILITY OF POLICE OFFICER AS A WITNESS”

3. POLICE WITNESSES: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS

The Term police witness has not been defined under the Code or in the Evidence act.
A police officer is one who is considered to be a police officer in a "common parlance"
keeping into focus the consequence provided under the Act and is capable of exercising
influence or authority over a person from whom a confession is obtained.4

In Suresh Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh5, Supreme Court in this case held that
the police personnel could have been relied upon only, had the prosecution been able to
otherwise prove by way of cogent and reliable evidence, the manner in which the
occurrence took place.

In C. Ronald v. State, UT of Andaman and Nicobar Island6, The witness whose

statement was recorded u/s 164 Cr P.C turned hostile. The accused was convicted on the
basis of the evidence produced by police witnesses. It was held that:-

[1]. “There is no principle of law that a statement made in the court by a police
personnel has to be disbelieved. It may not be believed. It is not that all policemen
will tell lies. There are good and bad people in all walks of life. There are good
and bad policemen as well. Court cannot assume that every statement of a
policeman is necessarily false”
[2]. In Madhu Madhuranatha v. State of Karnataka7, held that “Evidence of
police officials cannot be discarded merely on the ground that they belong to the
police force or are either interested in the investigation or the prosecution.
However, as far as possible, the corroboration of their evidence on material
particulars should be sought.”

4
Tofan Singh V. State of Tamil Nadu, 2013(4) RCR (Cri) 631 (SC).
5
Suresh Kumar V. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2014 (8) RCR (Cri)
6
C. Ronald v. State, UT of Andaman and Nicobar Island, 2011 (4) RCR (Cri) 30 (SC).
7
Madhu Madhuranatha v. State of Karnataka, 2014 (2) Kant LJ 158

4|Page
 “CREDIBILITY OF POLICE OFFICER AS A WITNESS”

4. ADMISSIBILITY AS WITNESS OF POLICE OFFICIALS

In Pritam Singh v. State of Punjab,8 the high court of Punjab and Haryana has held
that “there is no bar in recording the conviction by relying upon the statements of police
officers. The statements of police officials are to be weighed on the same scale as of
others. Witnesses, of course the statements of the police officials are to be scrutinized
with due care and the caution.”

In Gora Singh v. State of Punjab9, “Weapon of offence were recovered from accused
on basis of their disclosure statements. Mere fact that a public witness associated at the
time of disclosure statements and recoveries, has not been examined. It is no ground to
disbelieve the consistent testimonies of Investigating officer and head constable.”

In Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab10, “The police witnesses are said to be partisan
witness, as they are interested in the success of the trap laid by them, but it cannot be said
that they are accomplices. There evidence must be tested in the same way as any other
interested witness is tested and the court may look for independent corroboration before
convicting the accused person.”

In Suresh Kumar v. State of H.P11, the police personal could have been relied upon,
had the prosecution been able to otherwise prove by way of cogent and reliable evidence,
the manner in which the occurrence took place. There is no bar in recording the
conviction by relying upon the statements of police officers. The statements of police
officials are to be weighed in the same scale as of other witnesses. The statements of the
police officials are to be scrutinized with due care and caution.

Police officials are responsible persons and there evidence cannot be discarded
merely on ground that same is not corroborated by independent witness. A person in
possession of huge quantity of contrabands must be deemed to be having knowledge of
facts of such articles unless , it is rebutted by cogent evidence.

8
2013 (2) Cri C.C 734: 2013 (2) RCR (Cri) 801 (P&H).
9
2015 (1) RCR (Cri) 603 (P&H) (DB).
10
2015 (1) RCR (Cri) 647 (SC).
11
2014 (8) RCR (Cr) 223.

5|Page
 “CREDIBILITY OF POLICE OFFICER AS A WITNESS”

5. TESTIMONY OF POLICE WITNESS

Conviction can be based on the testimony of a police witness but their testimony will
have to be scrutinized with caution and it has to be determined whether the same is
reliable or not.

In Sumit Tomar v. State of Punjab12 The Accused was convicted on the testimony of
the official witness resulting in the recovery of 70 kg poppy. Further, who joins the
investigation but has yet not been examined, as he did not turn up. Accused can be
convicted relying on the testimonies of official witnesses. Though, as a rule, it is
desirable to examine independent witness, but in the absence of any such witness, if the
statement of the police officer is reliable and there is no animosity established against
them by the accused, conviction based on their statement cannot be faulted. No animosity
established on the part of official witness.

In Pritam Singh v. State of Punjab13, the court held that, There is no bar in recording,
the conviction by relying, upon the statement of police officers. The statement of police
officials are to be weighed in the same scale, as of other witnesses. In Rohtash Kumar v.
State of Haryana14, it was held that evidence of police witness must be subject to
scrutiny. The evidence of the police officer cannot be discarded merely, on the ground
that they belonged to the police force and are either interested in investigating or are in
the prosecuting agency. However, as far as possible the corroboration of their evidence
on material particulars should be sought.

In Banshilal v. State of Rajasthan15, the Supreme Court observed that it is no doubt

true, that the evidence of a solitary witness who has rescinded from his earlier statement,
has to be treated with caution but where there is other independent corroboration in the
form of first information report, and the report of the ballistic expert and the statement in
the committing court to support his earlier statement, reliance can be placed on the earlier
statement of the such a witness.

12
2012 (4) RCR (Cri) 948: 2012(6)
13
2013 (2) Cri. C.C. 734:2013(2) RCR (Cri) 801.
14
2013 (127) AIC 252; 2013 (3) Cri. C.C 341.
15
AIR 1971 SC 1116.

6|Page
 “CREDIBILITY OF POLICE OFFICER AS A WITNESS”

6. CONCLUSION

Police officers are human beings. They are subject to the same motivations that are
attached to everyone else i.e. love, hate, greed, jealousy, anger, etc. Defense counsel may
have cases in which one of these becomes an officer‟s inspiration to act. There are forms
of bias and can flow from his position; alignment with the State‟s goals; desire to solve
the crime; motivation to get promoted or otherwise advance his career; need to prove his
value; need to lay low and not ruffle feathers close to retirement; relationship to the
alleged victim; negative feelings towards the accused; prior experiences with the accused;
desire to catch the perpetrator under pressure; attempt to cover up a failure to follow
departmental procedures; loyalty to another officer; anger at the suspect or the crime
itself; history of excessive force or misconduct; or self-preservation to avoid disciplinary
action. Even when no other bias is evident, an officer is always an agent of the state
which is trying to convict defense counsel‟s client.

There can be no prohibition to the effect that a policeman cannot be a witness or that
is deposition cannot be relied upon. The rule of prudence, however, only requires a
greater degree of scrutiny of their evidence. As they may be said to be interested in the
result of the case .No infirmity is attached to the testimony of police official merely,
because they belong to the police and there is no rule of law or evidence which lays down
that conviction cannot be recorded on the evidence of the police official if it is found to
be reliable. As a precaution it must be corroborated by some independent evidence .There
is no principle of law that a statement made in court by police personnel has to be
disbelieved. Court cannot assume that every statement of policeman, as a necessity, has
to be false.

Thus, investigation officer is a material witness whose examination cannot be ignored

and the court cannot collect material for conviction of an accused from the investigation
expert or a case diary unless he has been examined as a witness.

7|Page