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 

CORAM : S. V. Gangapurwala &

M.G. Sewlikar, JJ.

PRONOUNCED ON : 11th September, 2020.

JUDGMENT : ( PER M. G. SEWLIKAR, J.).
Read full judgment here: Click here

Print Page