DISCUSS THE EVIDENTIARY VALUE OF PUBLIC SERVANT TESTIMONY

ABSTRACT

The evidential value of public servant’s testimony in court is examined in this article. Taking into account their professional obligations, the veracity of their testimony, and the consequences for court decisions, it investigates the special role that public employees play as witnesses. The legal requirements limiting the admissibility of testimony from public servants, the possibility of prejudice or conflicts of interest, and the variables influencing the weight that courts assign to their testimony are all covered in detail. The article seeks to give readers a thorough grasp of how public servant testimony is assessed in various legal circumstances, highlighting both its advantages and disadvantages as evidence, by reviewing case law and statutory standards. The article also examines more general topics, like how public servant testimony may affect public confidence in the justice system and how to strike a balance between openness and privacy.

KEYWORDS

Public Servant, Testimony, Indian Evidence Act 1872, Criminal Procedure Code, Investigation, Admissible.

INTRODUCTION

The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 largely governs the evidential value of public servant testimony in India. Like all witnesses, public employees are able to testify in court. In court, public servant testimony can significantly influence how cases turn out, especially when it comes to administrative rulings, regulatory enforcement, or governmental activities. As those charges with maintaining the rule of law and guaranteeing the well-being of the public, public servants are frequently asked to testify in both criminal and civil proceedings. Their testimony’s evidentiary significance isn’t always clear-cut, though. Their experience and professional responsibilities may give them credibility, but it’s also important to take into account their role’s context and any potential biases. By examining how courts evaluate the relevance, dependability, and weight of public servant evidence in diverse legal circumstances, this article aims to offer a thorough analysis of the evidentiary value of such testimony under Indian law. While taking into account the more general practical ramifications of public servant evidence in both criminal and civil matters, we will also examine the legal requirements established by the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. We want to comprehend the subtleties of its use in the legal system by exploring the elements that influence the reliability of such testimony. Through this investigation, we seek to provide a better understanding of how courts assess and consider public servant testimony and how this assessment may eventually affect how judicial processes turn out.

DEFINITION OF EVIDENCE AND PUBLIC SERVANT TESTIMONY

What do you mean by the word ‘evidence’?

The term ‘evidence’ is derived from the Latin word ‘evident’ or ‘evidere’, which means “to show clearly, to discover clearly, to ascertain, to prove.”

“Evidence is either written or unwritten, of allegations in issues between the parties”

“Evidence is something, including testimony, documents and tangible objects that tends to prove or disprove the existence of an alleged act.”

“Evidence is something which ascertains the truth of the fact or print in question.” [1]

“Any statements which the court permits or requires to be made before it by witnesses, in relation to matters of fact under investigation,” is what the Indian legal system defines as evidence. All records provided for the court’s review are referred to as documented evidence, and such utterances are known as oral evidence. The purpose of the rules of evidence is to assist the courts in determining the truth and to prevent judges from being confused as a result of too much evidence being admitted. Therefore, by establishing a proper and consistent rule of practice, the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was created with the primary goal of preventing indiscipline in the admission of evidence. The lex fori that governs the courts is the law of evidence. The law of the nation where the issue occurs, where the remedy is sought to be enforced, and where the court sits to enforce it will determine whether a writer is competent, whether a fact must be proven by writing, and whether a particular piece of evidence proves a fact.

PUBLIC SERVANT TESTIMONY

A public servant is generally defined as an individual who works for the government or a public organization in various capacities, such as elected officials, civil servants, law enforcement officers, and other government employees. Their role is to serve the public interest and carry out duties that benefit society.

A public servant’s testimony usually takes place in a court of law, a parliamentary hearing, or an investigation. It entails the public official giving details, responding to inquiries, or offering proof pertaining to their position, deeds, or expertise on a particular subject. Anything within their official scope, including their professional responsibilities, activities, or information pertaining to an investigation, could be the subject of their testimony.

The testimony of a public servant is typically seen as significant because they are entrusted with carrying out responsibilities that affect public policy, governance, and the community. Their testimony may be used to clarify facts, explain policies, or provide insight based on their expertise and role in the government.

Testifying as a public servant may involve an obligation to tell the truth, and they are often subject to legal and ethical standards related to their statements, ensuring that the information they provide is accurate, unbiased, and in the public’s best interest.

LEGAL PROVISIONS: RELATED TO EVIDENTIARY VALUE OF PUBLIC SERVANT TESTIMONY

The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 govern the evidential value of Public Servant testimony in India. Like other witnesses, public servants are permitted to testify in court, but the admissibility and weight of their comments may be impacted by their position as law enforcement or government representative. The main Indian legal laws that affect the evidentiary value of public servant testimony are;

Section 124 of Indian Evidence Act:[2] No public officer shall be compelled to disclose communications made to him in official confidence, when he considers that the public interests would suffer by the disclosure.

This section has significant implications for the testimony of public servants, especially when they are testifying about sensitive government documents or matters that fall under public interest protection. Courts may exclude such documents or testimony if they are deemed confidential or if their disclosure could harm public policy or government interests.

Section 161 of CrPC[3]– Examination of witnesses by police:

(1) Any police officer making an investigation under this Chapter, or any police officer not below such rank as the State Government may, by general or special order, prescribe in this behalf, acting on the requisition of such officer, may examine orally any person supposed to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case.

(2) Such person shall be bound to answer truly all questions relating to such a case put to him by such officer, other than questions the answers to which would have a tendency to expose him to a criminal charge or to a penalty or forfeiture.

(3) The police officer may reduce into writing any statement made to him in the course of an examination under this section; and if he does so, he shall make a separate and true record of the statement of each such person whose statement he records.

[Provided that statement made under this subsection may also be recorded by audio-video electronic means.]

Section 161 of the CrPC addresses police questioning of witnesses, and it grants the police the right to question witnesses whenever necessary in order to document their testimony. Getting evidence that can later be utilized in court is the aim of section 161. Under this section, a witness examination does not require an oath or affirmation. The remark’s evidential value in essence, section 161 of the CrPC does not need a witness to sign a statement because section 162 of the CrPC forbids it. However, it is not legally required that a statement recorded during an investigation be discarded just because someone signed it.

Section 162 CrPC[4]– Statement to police not to be signed:

(1) No statement made by any person to a police officer in the course of an investigation under this Chapter, shall, if reduced to writing, be signed by the person making it; nor shall any such statement or any record thereof, whether in a police diary or otherwise, or any part of such statement or record, be used for any purpose, save as hereinafter provided, at any inquiry or trial in respect of any offence under investigation at the time when such statement was made:

Provided that when any witness is called for the prosecution in such inquiry or trial whose statement has been reduced into writing as aforesaid, any part of his statement, if duly proved, may be used by the accused, and with the permission of the Court, by the prosecution, to contradict such witness in the manner provided by section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872); and when any part of such statement is so used, any part thereof may also be used in the re-examination of such witness, but for the purpose only of explaining any matter referred to in his cross examination.

(2) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to apply to any statement falling within the provisions of clause (1) of section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872); or to affect the provisions of section 27 of that Act.

Explanation- An omission to state a fact or circumstance in the statement referred to in sub-section (1) may amount to contradiction if the same appears to be significant and otherwise relevant having regard to the context in which such omission occurs and whether any omission amounts to a contradiction in the particular context shall be a question of fact.

It is not possible to use police-recorded witness statements under section 162 CrPC during an investigation to support or guarantee a witness’s testimony in court. It should be made clear that the police are only allowed to utilize the remarks they record to refuse the prosecution’s witnesses. Such declarations cannot be used to support or guarantee the witnesses testimony in court.

Section 162 bar does not apply in civil cases or proceedings under Articles 32 or 226 of the Constitution. Additionally, it is not applicable for property disposal under section 452 of the code.

However, there are two exceptions to the above laid down rule-

The statements made under section 32(1) and section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act.

(1) Sub-section 1 of section 32 of Evidence Act talks about dying declaration.

Regardless of whether they were made under oath, a person’s comments on his death, the cause of his death, and the circumstances surrounding it are important. “Nemo Moriturus praesumitur mentire”, which translates to a “a man will not meet his maker with a lie in his mouth”, is the guiding principle of this. Despite not having been cross-examined, such remarks have a higher evidentiary value and can be presented as substantive evidence in a trial.

(2) Statement made by the accused to the investigating officer throughout the investigation that result in the discovery of a relevant fact may be used as evidence during a trial and, as a result, have a higher evidentiary value under section 27 of the Evidence Act. However, the statement would have no evidentiary significance in the trial if no finding was discovered that was pertinent to it.

Evidentiary value of Confession:

The Act doesn’t define confession. Any acknowledgement that a person accused of a crime made at any point expressing or implying that he did the act is called a confession. Confessions can take many different shapes. It is regarded as a judicial confession when it is made before the court; extra-judicial confession occurs when it is made to someone outside the court. It could even include private conversations that, if overheard by someone else, could be used as proof.

Any confession or statement made by a person during a police investigation, or after the investigation is over, at any point after but prior to the start of the inquiry or trial, may be recorded by any Metropolitan or Judicial Magistrate, regardless of whether they have jurisdiction over the case, according to section 164 of the CrPC. It is restricted to the time leading up to the inquiry or trial and only relates to the statements made during the investigation under Chapter 12. Before recording any such confession, the magistrate must inform the subject that he is under no obligation to make one and that doing so could be used against him. The magistrate will not record any such confession unless, after questioning the subject, he has reason to believe that the confession is being made willingly.

A confession given to a police officer is not admissible in a court of law, but a confession made by the accused before a magistrate is solid evidence and can lead to the accused’s conviction.

JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION

1. According to the ruling in Sewaki v. State of Himachal Pradesh[5], statements made by an investigation officer under section 161 CrPC are not recorded under oath and are not subject to cross-examination as required by section 145 of the Evidence Act. As a result, they are not considered substantive pieces of evidence under law of evidence because they do not support the facts stated in the statements.

2. The Hon’ble Apex Court declared in State of Rajasthan v. Teja Ram and others[6], that there is no question that the aforementioned prohibition is in peremptory terms. Because the rule’s underlying principle is to allow witnesses to appear in court without being constrained by anything the police claim to have gotten from them, it is more of a directive to the investigating officer than to the court. However, this does not imply that the witness testimony in court would be tainted or vitiated if an investigating officer, unaware of the aforementioned clause, obtained the signature of the individual in question. Even through the witness’s signature appears on the statement, the court will just reassure him that he is not obligated by it.

3. It was decided by the Hon. Apex Court in Raghu Nandan v. State of A.P. [7]that, despite being broad, the bar imposed by section 162 CrPC is not explicit or specific enough to extend the prohibition to the use of the court’s broad and special power to question a witness, which is specifically and explicitly granted by section 165 of the Evidence Act.

4. In the case of Harbeer Singh v. Sheeshpal[8], the Hon. Supreme Court considered the impact of delaying the recording of witness statements under section 161 of the Code of Criminal procedure. The court determined that “delay in recording of the prosecution witnesses under section 161 CrPC, although those witnesses were or could be available for examination when the investigating officer visited the scene of occurrence or soon thereafter would cast a doubt about prosecution case. According to established law, any delay in questioning a witness is not fatal as long as the investigating officer provides a satisfactory explanation to the court.

5. The Court said in Khatri v. State of Bihar[9] that the purpose of section 162 CrPC is to shield the accused from dishonest witnesses as well as overzealous police officials.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, public servant testimony has a critical and nuanced evidential significance under Indian law. Because of their unique position, experience, and direct involvement in governmental processes, public workers are frequently asked to testify in a range of legal actions; nevertheless, this does not automatically imply that their testimony is reliable or infallible. A framework for assessing all witness testimony, including that of public servants, is provided under the Indian Evidence Act of 1872. This framework calls for thorough evaluation of elements like credibility, bias, relevance, and the environment in which the testimony is given. Testimony from public servants can be quite helpful, particularly when it comes to administrative judgments, government actions, and regulatory compliance. Their professional background and direct expertise might provide valuable perspectives that are essential to the court’s comprehension of intricate governmental procedures. But it’s important to closely examine the possibility of prejudice, whether it comes from institutional constraints, political forces, or personal interests. Therefore, the court is crucial in making sure that the evidence of public servants is given the weight it deserves based on its veracity, consistency, and applicability to the particular case. The judiciary’s ultimate responsibility is to fairly evaluate the evidentiary value of public servant testimony, making sure that it advances the cause of justice without being unduly impacted by the witness’s position or rank. The courts protect the integrity of the legal system and guard against any potential abuse of authority or undue influence by upholding strict criteria for assessing the evidence of public servants. In order to meet new difficulties and maintain fairness in all legal procedures, courts must continue to improve the rules regulating the acceptance and assessment of testimony from public servants as the legal landscape changes.

REFERENCES

The Criminal Procedure Code Ed. 5^th By Thakore, Dhiraj Lal Keshav Lal
R V Kelkar’s Criminal Procedure 7th Edition 2021by K.N. Chandrasekharan Pillai
Uttarakhand Judicial academy, TRICHA RAWAT ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDE(SENIOR DIVISION)/ ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, ROORKEE, HARIDWAR, EVIDENTIARY VALUE OF STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 161 AND 162 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 https://ujala.uk.gov.in/files/EVIDENTIARY_VALUE_OF_STATEMENT_UNDER_SECTION_161_AND_162_OF_THE_CODE_OF_CRIMINAL_PROCEDURE,_1973_By_TRICHA_RAWAT.pdf (last visited 17 January)
CSJM University, evidentiary-value-of-statements-articles-seized-collected-by-the-police.pdf https://gyansanchay.csjmu.ac.in/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/evidentiary-value-of-statements-articles-seized-collected-by-the-police.pdf (Last visited 17 Jan. 25)

[1] http://student.manupatra.com/Academic/Abk/Law-of-Evidence/chapter1.htm (Last visited 25 January 2025)

[2] Ins. by Act 1 of 1872, s. 124

[3] Ins. By Act 2 of 1974, s. 161

[4] Ins. By Act 2 of 1974, s. 162

[5] Sewaki v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 1981 Cri LJ 919

[6] State of Rajasthan v. Teja Ram and others 1999 (3) SCC 507

[7] Raghu Nandan v. State of A.P. 1974, SCR (3) 92

[8] Harbeer Singh vs. Sheeshpal 2016, 16 SCC 418

[9]Khatri v. State of Bihar 1981 SCC (1) 627

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is personal.