appreciation of evidence of ordinary witness

In Bhogin Bhai Kirji v. State of Gujrat - AIR 1983 SC 753, the apex court

observed certain characteristics about an ordinary witness.

1) By and large a witness cannot be expected to possess a photographic memory

and to recall the details of an incident. It is not as if a video tape is replayed on



the mental screen.

2) Ordinarily it so happens that a witness is overtaken by events. The witness

could not have anticipated the occurrence which so often has an element of

surprise. The mental faculties, therefore, cannot be expected to be attuned to

absorb the details.

3) The powers of observation differ from person to person. What one may

notice, another may not. An object, or movement might emboss its image on

one person's mind whereas it might go unnoticed on the part of another.

4) By and large people cannot accurately recall a conversation and reproduce

the very words used by them or heard by them. They can only recall the main

purport of the conversation.


tape recorder.

5) In regard to the exact time of an incident or the time duration of an

occurrence, usually people make their estimates by guess work on spur of the

moment at the time of interrogation and one cannot expect people to make very

precise or reliable estimates in such matters. Again it depends on the time sense

of individuals which varies from person to person.

6) Ordinarily a witness cannot be expected to recall accurately the sequence of

events which take place in rapid succession or in a short time span. A witness is

liable to get confused or mixed up when interrogated later on.

7) A witness though wholly truthful, is liable to be overawed by the court

atmosphere and piercing cross-examination made by counsel and out of

nervousness mixes up facts, gets confused regarding sequence of events, or fills

up details from imagination on the spur of moment. The subconscious mind of

It is unrealistic to expect a witness to be a human



the witness sometimes so operates on account of the fear of looking foolish or

being disbelieved though the witness is giving a truthful and honest account of

the occurrence witnessed by him. Perhaps it is a sort of psychological defence

mechanism activated on the spur of the moment.

Every person who witnesses a murder reacts in his own way. Some are

stunned, some become speechless and some stand rooted to the spot. Some

become hysteric and start wailing, some start shouting for help. Those others

who run away to keep themselves as far removed from the spot as possible are

not necessarily incredible yet others rush to the rescue of the victim even going

to the extent of counter attacking the assailants. Every one reacts in his own

special way. There is no set rule of natural reaction. To discard the evidence of

witnesses on the ground that they did not react in a particular manner is to

appreciate the evidence in a wholly unrealistic unimaginative way. (Vide Rana

Pratap v. State of Haryana - AIR 1983 S.C. 680).