What are parameters for appreciating the evidence of chance witness?

 Learned counsel Shri Ghanekar branded this witness as a

chance witness. He argued that this witness could not account for his presence at the spot of the incident. According to learned counsel Shri Ghanekar, the evidence of chance witness is a weak type of evidence and reliance cannot be placed on it. The Honourable Supreme Court, in the case of Sachchey Lal Tiwari vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2004) 11 Supreme Court Cases 410 has held as under:-

7. Coming to the plea of the accused that PW

2 was a “chance witness” who has not explained

how he happened to be at the alleged place of

occurrence it has to be noted that the said witness

was independent witness. There was not even a

suggestion to the witness that he had any

animosity towards any of the accused. In a

murder trial by describing an independent

witness as “chance witness” it cannot be implied

thereby that his evidence is suspicious and his

presence at the scene doubtful. Murders are not

committed with previous notice to witnesses –

soliciting their presence. If murder is committed

in a dwelling house, the inmates of the house are

natural witnesses. If murder is committed in a

street, only passers-by will be witnesses. Their

evidence cannot be brushed aside or viewed with

suspicion on the ground that they are mere

“chance witnesses”. The expression “chance

witness” is borrowed from countries where every

man’s home is considered his castle and everyone

must have an explanation for his presence

elsewhere or in another man’s castle. It is quite

unsuitable an expression in a country where

people are less formal and more casual, at any

rate in the matter of explaining their presence.

The courts below have scanned the evidence of

PW 2 in great detail and found it to be reliable.

We find no reason to differ.

Even if it is accepted for the sake of argument that this

witness is a chance witness, still the evidence of chance witness cannot be discarded simply he being a chance witness. If his testimony is otherwise trustworthy, the Court can place reliance on it. This witness has assigned reason for his presence at the spot of the incident. He was plying auto rickshaw and owing to a mechanical defect, he had brought his auto rickshaw to Ladke garage and had parked it infront of the said garage. Therefore, this witness has explained his presence at the spot of the incident. His testimony is trustworthy. Nothing adverse to the prosecution could be extracted from this witness.{Para 46}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 268 OF 2014

 Shyamsundar Vithal Pawle Vs The State of Maharashtra 

Print Page

Basic concept of Chance Witness

CHANCE WITNESS. “If by coincidence or chance a person happens to be at the place of. occurrence at the time it is taking place, he is called a chance witness." The expression chance witnesses is borrowed from foreign countries.

 The defining attributes of a ‘chance witness’ were

explained by Mahajan, J., in the case of Puran Vs. The State

of Punjab, AIR 1953 SC 459. It was held that such witnesses

have the habit of appearing suddenly on the scene when

something is happening and then disappearing after noticing

the occurrence about which they are called later on to give

evidence.

Print Page

Leading judgment on chance witness

Before the High Court, it was urged that PWs. 1 and 2 were related to the deceased, and PW-3 was a chance witness and no credence should be put on their evidence. The High Court did not accept the plea and finding the analysis of evidence by the trial Court to be in order, upheld the conviction and sentence.

8. Coming to the plea of the accused that PW-3 was 'chance witness' who has not explained how he happened to be at the alleged place of occurrence, it has to be noted that the said witness was an independent witness. There was not even a suggestion to the witness that he had any animosity towards the accused. In a murder trial by describing the independent witnesses as 'chance witnesses' it cannot be implied thereby that their evidence is suspicious and their presence at the scene doubtful. Murders are not committed with previous notice to witnesses; soliciting their presence. If murder is committed in a dwelling house, the inmates of the house are natural witnesses. If murder is committed in a street, only passersby will be witnesses. Their evidence cannot be brushed aside or viewed with suspicion on the ground that they are mere 'chance witnesses'. The expression 'chance witness' is borrowed from countries where every man's home is considered his castle and everyone must have an explanation for his presence elsewhere or in another man's castle. It is quite unsuitable an expression in a country where people are less formal and more casual, at any rate in the matter explaining their presence. Therefore, there is no substance in the plea that PW-3's evidence which is clear and cogent is to be discarded.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 1456 of 2004 

Decided On: 08.12.2004

Thangaiya  Vs. State of Tamil Nadu

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Dr. Arijit Pasayat and S.H. Kapadia, JJ.

Citation: (2005) 9 SCC 650

Print Page

Leading Supreme Court Judgment on appreciation of evidence of Chance witness

It is a well settled legal principle that
the evidence of a chance witness cannot be brushed
aside simply because he is a chance witness but his
presence at the place of occurrence must be
satisfactorily explained by the prosecution so as
to make his testimony free from doubt and thus,
reliable . This Court in the case of Jarnail Singh
v. State of Punjab  (2009) 9 SCC 719
has elaborately explained the
reliability of a chance witness as under:
“21. In Sachchey Lal Tiwari v. State of
U.P. this Court while considering the
evidentiary value of the chance witness

in a case of murder which had taken place
in a street and passerby had deposed that
he had witnessed the incident, observed
as under:
If the offence is committed in
a street only passer-by will be the
witness. His evidence cannot be
brushed aside lightly or viewed
with suspicion on the ground that
he was a mere chance witness.
However, there must be an
explanation for his presence there.
The Court further explained that the
expression “chance witness” is borrowed
from countries where every man's home is
considered his castle and every one must
have an explanation for his presence
elsewhere or in another man's castle. It
is quite unsuitable an expression in a
country like India where people are less
formal and more casual, at any rate in
the matter of explaining their presence.
22. The evidence of a chance witness
requires a very cautious and close
scrutiny and a chance witness must
adequately explain his presence at the
 place of occurrence (Satbir v. Surat
 Singh, Harjinder Singh v. State of
 Gujarat, Acharaparambath Pradeepan and
 Anr. v. State of Kerala and Sarvesh
 Narain Shukla v. Daroga Singh).
Deposition of a chance witness whose
presence at the place of incident remains
doubtful should be discarded
 (vide Shankarlal v. State of
Rajasthan).”
 (emphasis supplied by this Court)
NON-REPORTABLE
 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 952 OF 2010

BABY @ SEBASTIAN  Vs. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

Dated:26th July, 2016.
Citation:(2016) 13 SCC333

Print Page

Precaution to be taken by court while accepting evidence of chance witness

 Similarly P.W.2-Kalyani is sought to be branded as chance witness by appellants/accused and for this purpose, reliance is placed on Jarnail Singh & Ors. (Supra). In para 21 to 23 of judgment in the matter of Jarnail Singh, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has crystallized the law regarding appreciation of evidence of chance witness. Those read thus :-

"21. In Sachchey Lal Tiwari v. State of U.P. MANU/SC/0865/2004 : (2004) 11 SCC 410, this Court while considering the evidentiary value of the chance witness in a case of murder which had taken place in a street and passerby had deposed that he had witnessed the incident, observed as under:

"If the offence is committed in a street only passer- by will be the witness. His evidence cannot be brushed aside lightly or viewed with suspicion on the ground that he was a mere chance witness. However, there must be an explanation for his presence there."

The Court further explained that the expression 'chance witness' is borrowed from countries where every man's home is considered his castle and every one must have an explanation for his presence elsewhere or in another man's castle. It is quite unsuitable an expression in a country like India where people are less formal and more casual, at any rate in the matter of explaining their presence.

22. The evidence of a chance witness requires a very cautious and close scrutiny and a chance witness must adequately explain his presence at the place of occurrence (Satbir v. Surat Singh MANU/SC/1132/1997 : (1997) 4 SCC 192; Harjinder Singh v. State of Gujarat MANU/SC/0553/2004 : (2004) 11 SCC 253; Acharaparambath Pradeepan & Anr. v. State of Kerala MANU/SC/8785/2006 : (2006) 13 SCC 643; and Sarvesh Narain Shukla v. Daroga Singh and Ors. MANU/SC/8056/2007 : (2007) 13 SCC 360). Deposition of a chance witness whose presence at the place of incident remains doubtful should be discarded (vide Shankarlal v. State of Rajasthan MANU/SC/0507/2004 : (2004) 10 SCC 632).
23. Conduct of the chance witness, subsequent to the incident may also be taken into consideration particularly as to whether he has informed anyone else in the village about the incident. (vide Thangaiya v. State of Tamil Nadu MANU/SC/1046/2004 : (2005) 9 SCC 650)."

Similar is the ratio of judgment in the matter of Harjinder Singh alias Bhola (Supra) relied by the learned Counsel for appellants.

13. To put it briefly the finding of guilt can be recorded relying upon the evidence sole eye witness provided such evidence is trustworthy and reliable and gaining corroboration from other evidence of the prosecution. The evidence of chance witness can be accepted provided statement of such witness adequately explain presence of said witness and such evidence stands test of caution and close scrutiny. Similarly conduct of the chance witness is also a relevant factor while appreciating his evidence.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Criminal Appeal Nos. 109 and 110 of 2011

Decided On: 10.01.2017

 Pravin Dhondiram Chorge Vs.  The State of Maharashtra

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:V.K. Tahilramani and A.M. Badar, JJ.

Citation: 2017 ALLMR(CRI)1196

Print Page

How to appreciate evidence of chance witness?

 The defining attributes of a ‘chance witness’ were
explained by Mahajan, J., in the case of Puran Vs. The State
of Punjab, AIR 1953 SC 459. It was held that such witnesses
have the habit of appearing suddenly on the scene when
something is happening and then disappearing after noticing
the occurrence about which they are called later on to give
evidence.
24. In Mousam Singha Roy and Ors. Vs. State of W.B.,
(2003) 12 SCC 377, this Court discarded the evidence of
chance witnesses while observing that certain glaring
contradictions/omissions in the evidence of PW2 and PW3 and
the absence of their names in the FIR has been very lightly
discarded by the Courts below. Similarly, Shankarlal Vs.
State of Rajastahan, (2004) 10 SCC 632, and Jarnail Singh
& Ors. Vs. State of Punjab, (2009) 9 SCC 719, are authorities
for the proposition that deposition of a chance witness, whose
presence at the place of incident remains doubtful, ought to be
discarded. Therefore, for the reasons recorded by the High
Court we hold that PW5 and PW6 were chance witnesses and
their statements have been rightly discarded.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.1624-1625 OF 2013
HARBEER SINGH 
Ve
SHEESHPAL & ORS. 
Citation: 2017 CRLJ 169 SC

Print Page

How to appreciate evidence of chance witness?

The High Court has attached a lot of weight to the evidence of the
said Madho Singh (PW 9) as he is an independent witness. On
perusal of the record, it appears that the said person already had
deposed for the victim family on a number of previous occasions, that
too against the same accused. This being the fact, it is important to
analyze the jurisprudence on interested witness. It is a settled
principle that the evidence of interested witness needs to be
scrutinized with utmost care. It can only be relied upon if the evidence
has a ring of truth to it, is cogent, credible and trustworthy. Here we
may refer to chance witness also. It is to be seen that although the
evidence of a chance witness is acceptable in India, yet the chance
witness has to reasonably explain the presence at that particular
point more so when his deposition is being assailed as being tainted.
19. A contradicted testimony of an interested witness cannot be usually
treated as conclusive. The said Madho Singh (PW 9) has admitted
that he has been a witness in another case against the accused for
the deceased. Here it is to be seen that the said Madho Singh
(PW 9) has been acting as a pocket witness for the family.
Further, the credibility of this independent witness can be
challenged on the fact that the commotion was only heard by the
said Madho Singh (PW 9) whereas the rest of the members of the
locality did not come for help. As Madho Singh (PW 9) is a chance
witness as well as an interested witness herein, causes suspicion and
does not inspire confidence. This admission by Madho Singh (PW 9)
not only forces us to doubt the veracity of his own deposition but also
has created doubts on the version of Gambhir Singh (PW 7).
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1141 OF 2007
MAHAVIR SINGH 
VERSUS
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 
Citation:(2016) 10 SCC220
Dated:NOVEMBER 09, 2016

Print Page