Eyewitness retractions credible if police recorded false statement: HC

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that changes in the statement by an eyewitness during his deposition before the trial court, compared to his earlier statement recorded by the police in a criminal case, will be accepted as truthful if it can be proven that the investigating officer recorded a false statement.

The ruling by the Bench of Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Sudeepti Sharma is significant as it says the court is required to believe the eyewitness's revised statement if the one recorded earlier by the investigating officer is shown to be incorrect or misleading.

In its detailed order, the Bench asserted that the court will consider the implications of retraction, if the prosecution case was based on an eyewitness account and the eyewitness retracted his previous statement. It would lead the court to declare that the eyewitness's retraction was credible and valid compared to his earlier statement if the court during cross-examination by the public prosecutor became convinced that the investigating officer recorded a fabricated statement.

Referring to the implications of such a retraction, the Bench asserted the recoveries made by the investigating agency on the basis of the alleged disclosure statement made by an accused, even if proven, could lose its evidentiary value if the court was satisfied with the credibility of the eyewitness's retraction.

The Bench made it clear that the principle was not rigid. But it was required to be carefully applied based on the unique facts, circumstances, and evidence of each case. The court also stressed upon the need for a thorough comparative analysis.

The Bench stated that the court must weigh the credibility of the eyewitness's retraction against the proven recoveries made based on the basis of the disclosure statement by the accused. The court was required to reach a conclusion based on this comparison.

Referring to the importance of medical evidence in establishing the facts of a case, the Bench asserted clear cogent medical account too could impact the weight of the disclosure statement and the recoveries. The statements might lose their evidentiary strength, if the prosecution evidence did not link the recoveries to the medical findings.

The Bench added it was incumbent upon the prosecution not only to prove the charges, but also to discharge the onus of presenting a coherent chain of incriminating evidence to sustain the charges against the accused.