Chance witness and its evidentiary value

 

Chance witness is that witness who happens to be at the place of incident by coincidence and without prior intention to be witness to it. In most of the cases, such witness has no explanation regarding his presence at the crime scene. Courts  consider evidence by such witness as weak type of evidence and they have the liberty to brush aside the evidence if it deems fit. But   testimony of such witness can be accepted after scrutiny of the explanation of their presence.

                                                

Evidentiary value of chance witness

The value of testimony of chance witness is weak but is cannot be brushed or ignored. All depends on the series of corroborative evidence that supports another piece of evidence, i.e his explanation for being present at the scene of crime. Chance witness must convincingly explain his reason for his presence. Such testimonial can be valued by the Court.

In several decisions, the Supreme Court has emphasised on the evidentiary value of the chance witness. Court has held that the deposition of a chance witness whose presence at the place of incident is doubtful should be discarded, or at least be treated with great caution and close scrutiny.

 

Cases on Chance Witness.

Ravi Mandal vs State of Uttrakhand (2011), judgment passed in the year 2023, raised a question as to when testimony of a chance witness could be relied. The Supreme Court said, it is well settled law which is that the evidence of a chance witness requires a very cautious and close scrutiny and a chance must adequately explain his presence at the place of occurrence. Deposition of a chance witness whose presence at the place of incident remain doubtful should be discarded.

Similar decision was also followed in the most recent case, Rajendra Singh and Ors versus State of Uttranchal ETC. (Criminal Appeal No. 476-477 of 2013) regarding admissibility of Chance Witness.

 

Rajesh Yadav vs State of Uttar Pradesh(2022)

The Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated the position held in the case of Sachchey Lal Tiwari vs. State of U.P (2004) and Jarnail Singh vs. State of Punjab (2009)

“If the offence is committed in a street only a passerby 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.”  

Thus, the evidence of chance witness cannot be ignored or accepted by the Trial Court as evidence, all depends on the series of circumstances. The expression 'chance witness' is of dubious coinage of no precise import, and often misunderstood than understood. The expression may convey is that the witness is not a probable witness or a likely witness.