Back
Justice Aravind Kumar Lays Down Six Principles to Reform Stock Witness Practices in Courts
In a significant move to address the systemic issue of “” in criminal investigations, Justice Aravind Kumar unveiled a set of six principles and four practical tests during the South Zone Consultation of the in Bengaluru on September 5‑6, 2024. The conference, convened following the ’s order in , brought together judges, senior advocates, police officials, and prosecutors to devise a for ensuring the integrity of witness testimony.
Justice Kumar’s keynote address on the first day set the tone for the two‑day deliberation. He cautioned that “a witness is not a procedural ornament” but “a human source of firsthand knowledge.” His remarks underscored the need to move beyond mere administrative tinkering and confront deeper issues of public morality and institutional accountability.
The Problem of
The term “stock witness” refers to individuals who are repeatedly used by investigating agencies to sign or appear in unrelated cases, often without genuine firsthand knowledge. Such practices undermine the fairness of trials and violate the accused’s right to a fair investigation under . The in Anwar Hussain had flagged the casual manner in which a person could be named in an and carried into the , calling for a nationwide exercise to devise a “” that is “common, minimum, and implementable.”
Justice Kumar illustrated the problem with a hypothetical: a shopkeeper asked to witness a late‑evening search signs a seizure memo but later testifies, “I signed the paper but I did not see the cupboard being opened.” When video recording begins only after the alleged recovery is already on the table, the court is left with a basic question: “What actually happened?” Therein lies the heart of the stock witness dilemma—credibility cannot be manufactured by paperwork alone.
Six Principles to Rebuild Trust
Justice Kumar placed before the Committee six principles intended to anchor any future reforms:
1. Know the witness and explain his presence. The record must capture verified identity, occupation, the reason for being at the location, how the person was joined, any known relationship with the parties, and prior appearances in unrelated cases. No signature should be obtained on an incomplete document.
2. Record honest effort, not artificial success. If an officer approaches three nearby shopkeepers and each refuses, the answer is not to create a fictitious independent witness. The record should state whom the officer approached, what response was received, and why an independent witness could not be found.
3. Record the event, not merely its aftermath. Recording should be continuous, timestamped, and securely uploaded without delay. The system must preserve the original, generate an integrity value, and retain audit trails. Justice Kumar cited the as a comparative example, cautioning against simple transplantation and advocating “disciplined specificity.”
4. Treat recurrence as an audit trigger, not a verdict. or can confidentially flag unusual frequency across unrelated FIRs. Such an alert should function like a smoke alarm, calling for inspection rather than guilt presumption. A supervisor should seek and record an explanation.
5. Ask one simple question at each stage. Can the investigating officer explain how the witness was found? Can the supervisor explain unusual recurrence? Can the prosecutor verify provenance and statutory compliance? Can the court quickly see that the recording, seizure list, and integrity data have been received? Deliberate fabrication must invite timely departmental and criminal consequences.
6. Protect and respect genuine witnesses. requires every state to notify a . Protection must be accompanied by ordinary respect—prompt travel and daily allowances, safe waiting places, predictable scheduling, , and where lawful. “Convenience is not a luxury; it is part of the infrastructure of truth,” he said.
Four Tests for Any Proposal
To ensure that recommendations are workable on the ground, Justice Kumar proposed four practical tests:
- Can the investigating officer follow it on the scene?
- Can the witnesses understand what is being asked and why?
- Can the prosecutor verify compliance without reconstructing the file?
- Can the magistrate identify any gap at a glance?
If the answer to all four is yes, the proposal is likely to be both practical and durable.
Voices from the Consultation
The second day of the conference, chaired by Justice Vivek Agarwal of the , featured a valedictory session presided over by Karnataka Chief Minister DK Shivakumar. Justice Agarwal summarised key takeaways, emphasising that technological and administrative reforms alone would not end the practice. “Prominently and loudly is the question of public morality,” he said, “because all technologies cannot solve the problem unless we strengthen public morality in our country.”
Several participants offered concrete suggestions. ADGP Bijay Kumar Singh referenced Munshi Premchand’s Panch Parmeshwar to show that the problem of has existed for over a century. proposed a national repository of witnesses per police station, with district magistrates nominating witnesses from that repository. Aneesh M.D., DGP of Kerala, urged that “witnesses should be treated as guests of the court,” noting that hostility from court staff is a major reason natural witnesses avoid coming forward.
The session also heard from defence counsels who highlighted the liberty implications of fabricated testimony. and stressed that a repeated witness is not necessarily a stock witness, suggesting that every police station maintain digital diaries regarding witnesses. ’s proposal for an investigation management system—parallel to the case management system in courts—was described by Justice Agarwal as “the most vital suggestion” of the two days.
Technology as a Tool, Not a Panacea
Justice Kumar cautioned against over‑reliance on technology: “A camera pointed at a ritual will only preserve the ritual.” He noted that the reported e‑sakshya being used in 15,899 police stations across 35 states and union territories, but the task is to “connect these capabilities to a uniform and legally meaningful workflow.” Pronab Mohanty, DGP CID of Karnataka, suggested a four‑phase mechanism involving investigation, storage, extraction, and limited‑language AI models, while also warning about the limitations of Aadhaar in light of the Puttaswamy judgment.
Implications for Legal Practice
For legal professionals, the proposed reforms signal a paradigm shift. Prosecutors will need to verify provenance of evidence more rigorously; defence counsel can expect new tools to challenge stock witness testimony; and trial judges will have clearer benchmarks to assess credibility. The Committee’s final recommendations, due to be submitted to the , are likely to influence the interpretation of , which already mandate , audio‑video recording, and timely reporting to magistrates.
Justice Kumar’s definition of witness credibility is particularly telling: “A credible witness is not one who invariably supports the prosecution. A witness who later changes account may still be genuine; a witness who repeats the official version perfectly may still require scrutiny. Credibility is produced by provenance, procedure, corroboration, and candour.”
Conclusion: Toward a Morally Accountable System
The Bengaluru consultation has set the stage for a national overhaul of how witnesses are treated in the criminal justice system. While technology and administrative reforms are essential, Justice Agarwal’s closing words remind us that the ultimate remedy lies in public morality. As the Committee moves to draft its final recommendations, the legal community must prepare for a system where witness integrity is non‑negotiable, and where every stakeholder—investigator, prosecutor, judge, and citizen—shares the responsibility of upholding truth.
