Can’t discard statements because witness is cop: High Court

Saurabh Malik

Chandigarh, November 7

In a departure from the perceived notion that the statement of official witnesses cannot be relied upon in the absence of corroborative testimony by independent witnesses, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that that their deposition cannot be summarily discarded solely because of their professional status. Justice Anoop Chitkara also made it clear that the absence of independent witnesses was not fatal to the prosecution case.

Justice Chitkara asserted that the statements of police officials could not be discarded “because they were police officials”. But their testimonies were required to inspire confidence before they could be relied upon. There could be no legal proposition that their evidence, unless supported by independent witnesses, was unworthy of acceptance.

There was no absolute command of law that the police officers could not be cited as witnesses and their testimony should always be treated with suspicion. The presumption that a person acted honestly applied as much in favour of police personnel as others.

It was not a proper judicial approach to distrust and suspect them without good grounds. It would be an erroneous proposition that the court must reject the prosecution version on the ground that an independent witness was not examined, if the evidence of a police officer was found acceptable.

Justice Chitkara stated: “If in the course of scrutinising the evidence, the court finds the evidence of the police officer as unreliable and untrustworthy, the court may disbelieve him but it should not do so solely on the presumption that a witness from the department of police should be viewed with distrust.”

He added that the absence of some independent witness of the locality to lend corroboration to their evidence did not affect the creditworthiness of the prosecution case.

Should inspire confidence

Where the evidence of the police officials after careful scrutiny inspires confidence … it can form basis of conviction. — Justice Anoop Chitkara