Rohtash Kumar vs. State of Haryana, Criminal Appeal No. 896 of 2011, Decided on May 29, 2013
“The term
witness, means a person who is capable of providing information by way of
deposing as regards relevant facts, via an oral statement, or a statement in
writing, made or given in Court, or otherwise.
Thus, a witness is normally
considered to be independent, unless he springs from sources which are likely
to be tainted and this usually means that the said witness has cause, to bear
such enmity against the accused, so as to implicate him falsely. In view of the
above, there can be no prohibition to the effect that a policeman cannot be a
witness, or that his deposition cannot be relied upon.” [Para 23
The
Court referred following case laws:
Pradeep Narayan Madgaonkar
& Ors. v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1995 SC 1930, wherein the SC examined the
issue of the requirement of the examination of an independent witness, and whether the evidence of a police
witness requires corroboration. The Court herein held, that the same must be subject to
strict scrutiny. However, the evidence of police
officials cannot be discarded merely on the ground that they belonged to the police
force, and are either interested in the investigating
or the prosecuting agency. However, as far as possible the corroboration of their evidence
on material particulars, should be sought.
The Court also noted following
cases:
Paras Ram v. State of
Haryana, AIR 1993
SC 1212
Balbir Singh v. State, (1996) 11 SCC 139
Kalpnath Rai v. State (Through CBI), AIR 1998 SC 201
M. Prabhulal v. Assistant Director,
Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, AIR 2003 SC 4311
Ravinderan v. Superintendent
of Customs, AIR 2007 SC 2040
Nika Ram v. State of
Himachal Pradesh, AIR 1972
SC 2077
Ganeshlal v. State of Maharashtra,
(1992) 3 SCC
106)
To see full
text follow the link:
http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgs1.aspx?filename=40444