Punjab and Haryana High Court: Judge's job is to mine truth

Saurabh Malik

Chandigarh, November 8

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that a judge’s job is to “mine and refine the truth”, making it clear that a judicial officer was required to dig out the truth from the testimonies presented.

Justice Anoop Chitkara of the high court also made it clear that central to the pursuit of ascertaining the truth was the pivotal role played by the witnesses during the trial proceedings.

Delving into the significance of their testimony within the framework of the Indian Evidence Act of 1872 and the role of a judge in the trial proceedings, Justice Chitkara added that the definition of a witness was not explicitly provided in the statute. But it was required to be fathomed from the definition of ‘’fact’’ within the Act, which highlighted that a witness was someone who perceived, inferred, or possessed knowledge of a given fact.

In his detailed order, Justice Chitkara also underscored British philosopher, jurist and social reformer Jeremy Bentham’’s conviction that a witness was a cornerstone of a fair judicial system when he articulated, adding that “witnesses are the eyes and ears of justice”.

Justice Chitkara also indicated that the elements of bias, prejudice and interest could impact the reliability of a witness’’s testimony. It was within the crucible of the trial that these critical elements were assessed, dissected, and scrutinised. Judges, as impartial arbiters of justice, had to bear the critical responsibility of navigating through these challenges to unearth the truth.

“It is in the trial that elements of bias, prejudice and interest are assessed and, resultantly, the admissibility and quality of the evidence are evaluated. A witness is a person who, based on their conscious observation or experience, has relevant knowledge of the happening or non-happening of an event and states or testifies about it,” Justice Chitkara observed.

The ruling came on a bunch of appeals filed more than two decades back by four accused convicted in a drugs case registered in May 1997.

Their 10-year rigorous imprisonment sentences were suspended since the appeals were not heard within a reasonable time. Three accused died during the pendency of the appeals, while Justice Chitkara dismissed the appeal filed by the surviving accused.