In general, eyewitnesses have a significant impact on the final result of a
charged. Because it is the duty of the eyewitness to come forward with the clear
and the unclouded truth about the happenings of a crime. Looking to this the
Jurors gave the judgement of the case. Besides this many a time the validity of
the eyewitness is challenged by many factors including Time, Age, Alcohol,
Gender and etc.
This puts a tremendous impact on the Jurors mindset regarding
the judgement of the case. In this paper it displays the various category of
people and how they have their perspective regarding the suspects. It also
displays the history and origin of the eyewitness testimony and how it evolves
in the foreign land. Discusses the various types of eyewitness testimony. Lastly
some recommendations are there how the legal system can use the eyewitness
especially the vulnerable eyewitness in a better and concise manner so that no
innocent person will face any injustice.
Introduction
Eyewitness testimony is crucial in identifying, charging, and convicting
criminals, impacting jurors' decisions. However, it's not always reliable and
can be influenced by various factors. Police and prosecutors must ensure fair
and unbiased collection and presentation. Researchers are developing improved
procedures for eyewitness evidence preservation.
Eyewitness testimony is a persuasive tool in criminal trials, but it can be
unreliable, biased, suggestible, and affected by cross-racial identification.
Factors such as stress, bias, leading questions, and biased procedures can
distort witness memories, leading to misidentification of suspects.
Eyewitness misidentifications can lead to wrongful convictions and imprisonment
of innocent individuals. These misidentifications may ensue as a loss of
liberty, stigma, as well as discrimination, it might have a detrimental
influence on the life of an individual and family. They may also face long-term
difficulties in finding employment, housing, and other opportunities due to
their criminal record. Depressive disorders, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress
disorder are examples of emotional trauma., can also occur as a result of being
wrongfully convicted and imprisoned.
Furthermore, these convictions can erode public trust in the justice system,
making it harder to ensure justice for all. To prevent these consequences, it is
crucial to improve the reliability of eyewitness identifications and implement
reforms that address estimator and system variables. This can include measures
such as expert testimony, proper police protocol, and limiting investigators'
influence over eyewitnesses. By addressing these issues, the justice system can
work towards ensuring justice for all.
Statement Of Problem
Because of concerns about their authenticity, eyewitness testimony in criminal
prosecutions is being investigated. Memory distortion, external influences,
identification errors, and witness susceptibility to persuasion are all
variables that contribute to the difficulty in assessing the validity of
eyewitness reports. This is especially important in circumstances where
identifying a suspect is vital to the prosecution's case, thereby endangering
the fairness of the criminal justice system.
Research Questions:
- What elements support the veracity and accuracy of eyewitness accounts?
- What effects do psychological and cognitive elements like external influences and memory distortion have on the veracity of eyewitness accounts?
- Which biases and mistakes are most frequently connected to eyewitness identification?
Literature Review?:
Research Paper No -1 A critical examination of the credibility
and admissibility of testimony on the Indian Evidence Act
Isha Ahlawat; Asian Journal of Multidisciplinary Research & Review (AJMRR);
2022; 3; 4; 134-141
The author talks about the noteworthiness of the eyewitness. She compares the
significance of eyewitness with the time immemorial history by giving the
instances of Jesus and other instances like the Nuremberg Trials and Holocaust
where it is due to the surviving eyewitness, we are able to acquire the details
of that period of time.
Remarks this the author also mentioned about the
historical aspects of the eyewitness. She conveys that utilization of the
eyewitness in both civil and criminal matters must be done very precisely.
Especially in case of Criminal matter because slight negligent on side of the
eyewitness while giving evidence may lead to the disastrous outcomes that is the
life of the accused gets ruined. She also in her research portrays various case
laws where the impact of eyewitness is clearly seen.
Research Paper No-2 Evaluating eyewitness trustworthiness
Bandr Fakiha; International Journal of Business and Social Sciences Academic
Research; 2018; 8; 10; 1-11
The author basically gave more emphasis on the role of the eyewitness in
determining the conviction/acquittal of the case. She also displays that the
presence of various factors affect the eyewitness testimony. She in her research
paper laid down the various instances of eyewitness testimony like children,
male, female and the aged person about their perspective in determining the
validity of evidences.
Research Paper No- 3 Eyewitness in criminal procedure
Sinisa Franjic; Clinical Research in Psychology; 2020; 3; 2; 1-5
The author talks about the biological aspect utilised in the Indian Evidence
Act. Most probably in the crime investigation scenes when the DNA analysis is
not available more emphasis is given on the eyewitness testimony. In case of
murder, robbery, shootings and muggings how eyewitness evidence is crucial. In
her paper it also can be clearly visible that despite the importance of
eyewitness many scholars are of the against of this due to the misidentification
in many cases leading to the convicts of the innocent people's.
The Beginnings, Ancient Situation, Along With Indian Evidence Act Of
Eyewitness Testimony:
India is home to the law of evidence's ancient origins. Sakshi, or the
"witnesses," were regarded by the Dharma Sastras as an essential resource for
determining the truth in matters that are up for debate. The eighth-century BCE
philosopher Yajnavalkya wrote a great deal about evidence and proof, both oral (śabdapramāṇa)
and documented (lekhya) forms. In contrast to today, there were stringent
restrictions on who might testify in a civil case.
Children, dependents, insane
people, women, and people in terror frequently had tainted evidence, and those
who were not above reproach were needed to qualify for the remainder of the
testimony to have any weight. It was generally believed that documentary
evidence was more reliable than oral testimony as oral testimony could be
influenced much more easily. In reality, an examination of all historical laws
indicates a pattern of purposeful witness exclusion intended to control their
credibility and exclude anyone whose legitimacy may be legally questioned. In
contrast, there were a lot less requirements for being a witness in a criminal
prosecution. It was reasoned that crimes may occur in locations like caverns,
woodlands, and other areas where it would be impossible to get enough evidence,
forcing investigators to rely on the testimony of the witnesses who are present.
The Latin proverb went something like this: "Only strumpets can be witnesses to
a murder that occurs in a brothel.
"With the arrival of the British, the way
criminal proceedings were conducted and evidence was gathered on the Indian
subcontinent underwent a radical change." During the early years of British
administration, courts located in the Presidency towns used evidence procedures
that were adapted from English common law. In some regions, a combination of
local customs and traces of Islamic law were in effect. Subsequently, the
previously Indian Evidence Act of 1872 was passed & continues to remain in
effect today. Witnesses are covered in Sections 118 to 134 of Chapter IX of the
Act.
According to Section 118, any competent individual "as long as the Court of
Appeal examines that their testimony is hindered through delicate decades,
extremely elderly status, ailments, irrespective in their bodies and
consideration, etc any other factor of the same kind," they may testify. from
understanding the questions posed to them, or from providing sensible responses
to those questions. Any eyewitness can, therefore, testify during a trial unless
the court specifically forbids them from doing so for the reasons outlined in
Section 118.
Since the (eye)witness is under oath, it is typically assumed that
they are stating the truth until it can be persuasively demonstrated otherwise.
This rule may not be very helpful if someone is claiming seeing a yeti or a UFO,
but it becomes crucial that trustworthy and truthful witnesses come forward when
major crimes like rape, murder, or arson are committed.
The problem lies in the
fact that most witnesses to severe and violent crimes are so traumatised and
disturbed by what they saw that they frequently have trouble recalling specific
information about the trial. Furthermore, the majority of individuals pay
insufficient awareness to their environment in order to accurately remember
little details that constitute required proof, for instance a phone call or an
image they seen just prior to it vanished from the offender's situation. This is
recognised by Indian evidence law jurisprudence.
A Testament Of An Eyewitness
Eyewitness testimony is the narrative provided to courts by an innocent party or
bystander of the precise event under investigation. This eyewitness must only
state what they saw, observed, experienced, smelt, and felt. Their own views and
ideas on the subject are unimportant. According to research, these attitudes and
convictions influence how an eyewitness recalls information.
Expert Testimony
The adequacy of a witness's testimony cannot be determined directly by expert
testimony on eyewitness reliability. However, expert testimony has the potential
to be useful to the trier of fact by providing a social framework and presenting
general social- sciences conclusions research in order to aid and in resolving
factual concerns in a specific case.
This scientific information may aid in
interpreting and evaluating what eyewitnesses report, but the ultimate
responsibility of evaluating the credibility of the eyewitnesses remains with
the trial judge or jurors. Eyewitness researchers do not rely on single cases,
as the conclusions are drawn from empirically-validated aggregate data on
various factors used to understand a single instance. Expert testimony related
to specific variables that have been determined through scientific research to
have a specific effect can be valuable in evaluating specific points that are at
issue.
Types Of Eyewitness
Eyewitness testimonies can be classified into two types: recognition and memory
of eyewitnesses. In cognitive psychology, firsthand recollection is associated
with remembering while identifying eyewitnesses is associated with recognition.
Eyewitness recall is crucial for collecting data about the person who commits a
crime and the details of the offence itself. This includes the physical
description of the suspect such as height, clothing, voice, and other features
that may aid in identifying the culprit.
Additionally, eyewitnesses may be
questioned about the order of events to help piece together the entire crime
episode. To ensure the accuracy of the information, eyewitnesses are questioned
multiple times, and the repetition also helps identify any coaching that may
have taken place. However, studies have shown that several factors can influence
the quality of eyewitness memory.
During Trials, The Convenience Of Eyewitness Testimony?
The credibility of eyewitness evidence in court is questioned and influenced by
various factors. Observational conditions, stress, and time delays can impact
accuracy. Cognitive and psychological factors, such as memory distortion and
suggestion, further affect reliability. Common errors include misidentification,
unconscious transference, lineup biases, and confirmation bias. Recognizing
these influences is crucial for evaluating the credibility of eyewitness
accounts in legal proceedings and implementing measures to enhance their
reliability.
Admissibility Of Eyewitness Testimony In Trials?
The admissibility of eyewitness testimony in trials hinges on factors like the
reliability of the testimony and adherence to legal standards. Challenges arise
from cognitive and psychological influences on eyewitness accounts. The accuracy
of identification procedures and potential for biases impact admissibility.
Ensuring fair and consistent standards for admitting eyewitness testimony is
essential for maintaining the integrity of legal proceedings.
Factors Affecting Eyewitness Testimony
A number of variables can influence eyewitness recall, including weapon
concentration, stress, reconstructive memory, erroneous data, alcohol, time,
age, and gender. It is critical to comprehend how these factors impact the
standard of eyewitness testimony, as mistakes with identifying witnesses account
for 70% of erroneous convictions.
Weapon Focus
The presence of an arsenal during the carrying out of a crime can have a
significant impact on eyewitness recollection. This is because the weapon
becomes a focal point of the witness's attention, leading to a decrease in the
accuracy of their description of the suspect. Research has shown that while
witnesses accurately describe the weapon used, because their attention is
diverted to the weapon, they find themselves less able to adequately
characterise the suspect.
A study by Johnson & Scott found that exposure to a
bloody knife caused witnesses to describe the suspect with 33% accuracy,
compared to 49% accuracy when the suspect was holding a pen. People who are shy
or autistic prefer to focus on the suspect instead of the weapon in their
possession, making them possibly more trustworthy eyewitnesses. It is important
to consider these factors when evaluating eyewitness testimony, as errors in
identification can lead to wrongful convictions.
Stress
It is generally known that various stress levels have varying impacts on
eyewitnesses' capacity to remember information from an incident site and
identify the perpetrator. Moderate stress might assist an individual in
remembering more information about an incident they have observed. According to
research, as long as stress levels do not cause anxiety in the eyewitness, they
will describe the incident and the others there throughout the time more
accurately if they are not in a heightened mental state.
Yet, if the eyewitness
is subjected to high amounts of stress, their capacity to recall information
suffers, and they are unable to correctly recount what happened. For example, if
a gun is aimed towards an eyewitness, their recall on the events will be weaker
than someone else whom did not possess a weapon aimed at them. Sauerland et al.
performed an investigation on the impact of stress levels among two teams in the
London Dungeon in 2016. The actor terrified both groups by startling everyone in
a dungeon.
The character followed the members of the initial group while
brandishing a weapon in his left hand then approaching individuals of unit two.
forty-five minutes after the shows aired, participants in both categories were
asked to characterise the actor. People of group one was 75% accurate, whereas
those from group two were just 17% accurate in characterising the performer.
Group two provided fewer precise details since their levels of anxiety were
elevated as an outcome of the actor brandishing a club. Participants of this
team acknowledged that they were horrified by the actor wielding a club and
feared for their life given that the character was being hired to prank the two
teams with no previous information of what to anticipate in the dungeon.
Sauerland et al. contend that cortisol levels have an effect on eyewitness
perception, and they claim that very excessive amounts of cortisol detrimentally
harm witness vision because their fight-or-flight reactions take away their
capacity to see or hear happenings. As a result, while establishing the
credibility of eyewitness testimony, the judicial system should consider the
degree of stress that these witnesses encountered at the time when the crime was
committed.
Memory Reconstruction
Reconstructing past memories refers to the human inclination to patch holes in
memories by generating assumptions based on cultural prejudices and conventions.
For instance, someone who was present could say that they observed a lady
fleeing a crime scene even if they did not observe the suspect's face. This
might be because the person in question had blond locks or was decked out in
feminine attire, causing the eyewitness to form assumptions based on these
facts.
However, the accused person may have been away for lengthier lengths of
time between the offence and the interrogation procedure. As a result of this,
witnesses may forget some information of the incident, and memory reconstruction
is utilised to fill in the blanks.
Misleading Information
Behavioural studies have revealed that the human brain may generate erroneous
recollections. Experiments conducted in the 1990s proved that individuals
undergoing psychotherapy may be induced to remember fictitious experiences, such
as participation in demonic black masses. In some instances, ladies claimed to
be pregnant while they were not. This demonstrates that false memories may be
imprinted in the brain by employing deceptive information. Interrogators can
modify the replies that witnesses provide by using language.
A group of
onlookers, for example, were tasked to figure out the velocity of two
automobiles that had crashed head-on. Participants draw conclusions about those
terms which an investigator uses, as demonstrated by the initial group's lower
appraisal of value than the second. Police should question witnesses using
proper language to prevent deceiving them and influencing their recollections of
the incident, according to McPhee, Paterson, and Kemp (2014). How to employ
language to aid eyewitnesses in recalling specifics about the perpetrator and
the site of the crime requires more investigation.
Someone might have witnessed
glimpses of the real criminal or criminals even if their focus was diverted to
the weapon, and the interrogator will only find these facts if they ask the
correct questions. The necessity for study on phrases that may be correctly utilised to explore eyewitness reports is highlighted by the fact that existing
research mainly focuses on the impact of incorrect information.
Alcohol
The effect of drinking on the veracity of eyewitness evidence is currently being
debated. Some academics contend that alcohol hinders eyewitnesses' capacity to
remember events, while others contend that there aren't only minor changes in
the evidence presented by sober and drunk eyewitnesses. Soraci et al. contend
that drunk persons have impaired coordination, making it difficult for them to
correctly perceive and explain occurrences.
Conversely, Hagsand et al. believe
that the quality of intoxicated eyewitness testimony can be validated by
checking for consistency after having the witness narrate their experiences
multiple times. As there is no consensus between these two viewpoints, it is
important to corroborate evidence from intoxicated witnesses with accounts from
other individuals present at the scene who were not under the influence of
alcohol.
Time
Time is another factor that influences the trustworthiness of testimony from
witnesses since the witness's ability to recall activities and persons at a
crime scene declines with time. As a consequence, some of the details that
witnesses might have recalled about the assassination fade over time. This trend
is continuing. Usually, fading curves is utilised to outline. As an outcome,
witnesses should be interviewed as soon as feasible. They should understand
everything they may know the offence in order to offer accurate descriptions.
The influence length of exposure upon those calibre of witness statements is
that victims who have been subjected to criminal processes and suspects
comprehend the offence better than witnesses who have been exposed to the same
stimuli for a shorter period of time
Age
The reliability of eyewitness's testimony is also influenced by age, as
witnesses who are younger or older tend to be less able to describe the
suspect's facial features than those who are younger or middle-aged. Due to the
fact that most of their encounters are with others who are roughly the same age,
people have a tendency to be skilled at identifying the faces of their peers.
Since the majority of the suspects are young or middle-aged people, those who
are similar to them in age will be better able to identify them, making
youngsters and the elderly less reliable suspect identification candidates.
Gender
When it comes to recounting what happened at a crime scene, men and women are
not as good at it. Research suggests that males are more likely to recall what
happened there but to overlook the suspect's facial traits. However, women can
recall suspects' faces more vividly than males do. Interrogators should thus
depend on female details for recognising suspects and male details to put
together what transpired at the crime scene. Both sexes are more adept at
spotting suspects who are similar to them, according to research. As a result,
whereas male witnesses are more adept at identifying male suspects, female
witnesses are more adept at identifying female ones.
Case Laws:
- Madhu Madhuranatha V. State of Karnataka[1] The decision in this case defines a witness as someone who is qualified to testify in court, offer information in an oral or written deposition, or do both. Until witnesses fall prey to fraud, extortion, or other unethical behaviour, they are typically seen as objective parties.
- Vikas Kumar Roorkewal v. State of Uttarakhand & Ors[2] The Court of Appeals conducted research to how witnesses are used in the penal justice system. The court ruled that the function of witnesses in the federal justice system is crucial. Enforcing rules protecting witnesses can help to a fair trial, as the Supreme Court found in the same instance.
- Gangadhar Behera and others vs State of Orissa[3] In this case certain criterion has been laid down to determine the credibility of a witness, which is as follows:
- Are witnesses able to obtain trustworthy information?
- When testifying, do they agree with each other?
- What reason, if any, do witnesses have to conceal the truth?
- Bishan Das vs Crown[4] It was determined that the mere fact that testimony submitted by a spouse opposing her husband was admissible in the courtroom during the course of session without objection, although it was obtained by or on favour of the husband, did not remove the obstacle established by section 122 of the IEA. Related does not imply interested. A witness's mere connection would not be grounds for dismissal. A family member who is a genuine witness to the case's circumstances cannot be considered an interested witness.
- Raja Gounder vs State of Tamil Nadu[5] The court, in a murder case where Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was applied along with Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, held that even though there were no impartial witnesses, the conviction based on the testimony of a relative was upheld. The case involved a conflict between two brothers over a piece of land, and the dispute was within the family. Since no unbiased witnesses were present, the conviction relied on the account of the wife of the deceased. Her testimony was considered trustworthy because she was unlikely to falsely implicate the accused, who were her brothers-in-law.
- Takdir Samsuddin Sheikh vs State of Gujarat[6] In this instance, it was determined that the definition of the phrase "interested" implies that the witness has a direct interest in seeing the accused guilty for whatever reason. It is well established that the proof of interested witnesses is very untrustworthy, and some cannot be believed without verification.
- State of Haryana vs Shakuntala[7] The Supreme Court endeavours to establish the reliability of a witness with a vested interest, defining such a witness as an individual connected to the convicted accused either directly or indirectly due to bias or other hidden motives. It is widely acknowledged that testimony from a witness with a personal stake is deemed unreliable and necessitates thorough verification before being deemed credible.
- Mano Dutt and Anr vs State of U.P.[8] It is well known that the confession of a curious witness cannot be dismissed on the grounds that it is political evidence. However, courts must exercise caution when scrutinising evidence that requires verification to a significant level. In this case, the admission of evidence is reliant on two factors: first, the court's inspection and, second, care while assessing such evidences.
Conclusion
It is the duty of a witness in criminal proceedings to give a factual account of
what happened rather than to voice personal thoughts or convictions. If the
witness has pertinent information that will help the court proceedings, their
main goal in testifying is to address inquiries about the specifics of what
happened, when it happened, and who was involved. Two sorts of witnesses can be
distinguished: direct witnesses, who saw the incident under discussion, and
indirect witnesses, who heard about it through conversations with other people.
Recommendations
To increase the precision of witnesses' observations and memory recall,
strengthen witness education and training programs. This may entail teaching
witnesses about elements like stress and surroundings that might influence their
view.
As soon as feasible following the incident, ensure that eyewitnesses offer a
detailed account of what happened. The credibility of the testimony can be
retained by promptly capturing the specifics.
Think about how biases such as cross-racial identification and others might
affect eyewitness evidence. Urge jurors and judges to consider these biases when
assessing the reliability of identification evidence.
References:
End Notes:
- Criminal Appeal No. 109 of 2013
- Transfer Petition (CRIMINAL) No. 29 of 2008
- 2001 CriLJ 2643, 2001 I OLR 277
- 27 PR. 1913(Cr); 1914 Cr. LJ 316
- Criminal Appeal No. 632 of 2005
- Criminal Appeal No. 831 OF 2010
- Criminal Appeal No. 658 of 2008
- (2012) 4 SCC 79
Please Drop Your Comments