In practical terms, a criminal investigation ordinarily proceeds through the systematic collection of three interrelated categories of evidence—direct, circumstantial, and documentary—each of which performs a distinct yet complementary function in establishing the prosecution case. In offences affecting the human body, the primary endeavour of the investigating officer is to secure direct evidence by recording statements of the informant, victim, injured persons, or relatives of the deceased, as applicable. This includes testimony of eye-witnesses who directly perceived the occurrence, witnesses acquainted with the motive, those having knowledge of the subsequent conduct of the accused, and persons aware of the immediate consequences of the offence as communicated by the victim.

The object of such evidence is to establish the essential ingredients of the offence, including mens rea, modus operandi, and the identity of the offender, thereby forming the foundational substratum of the prosecution case. However, in some cases resulting in death where direct evidence is unavailable or insufficient, the investigation necessarily shifts to the collection of reliable circumstantial evidence. This includes proof of “last seen” circumstances, conduct of inquest proceedings, detailed examination and documentation of the scene of offence, and recovery of incriminating material objects. The process further involves search and seizure of relevant articles, including the weapon of offence, recording of voluntary disclosure statements by accused , and identification procedures such as TIP and test identification of property. A legally sustainable investigation is thus one that harmoniously integrates all three forms of evidence, each reinforcing the other to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. In contrast, in offences relating to property and those under special enactments such as the NDPS Act, Arms Act, Excise laws, Forest laws, Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, Public Gaming Act, Essential Commodities Act, and food adulteration laws, the nature of investigation assumes a distinct character. In such cases, offences are often detected through raids, surveillance, or organized operations conducted by authorized officials, where detection and investigation occur almost simultaneously. Acting on prior intelligence, officers conduct searches, recover incriminating materials, and apprehend accused persons, with the initial information of the offence frequently emerging from such recoveries and, at times, from statements made during the operation itself, even prior to formal registration of the case. Throughout this process, the investigating officer is bound to adhere strictly to procedural safeguards, including recording statements under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. or corresponding provisions under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and ensuring the presence of independent panch witnesses to lend credibility to search, seizure, and recovery proceedings as contemplated under the relevant statutory provisions. Thus, the integrity of criminal investigation lies in the lawful, methodical, and balanced collection of evidence across all categories.

At this stage, it is essential to understand the legal concept of a “witness.” Although general criminal statutes do not provide an exhaustive definition, Section 2(ed) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 defines a witness as any person acquainted with the facts and circumstances of a case, or possessing information necessary for investigation, inquiry, or trial, including the victim. This broad definition clarifies that a witness is not limited to an eye-witness but includes any individual capable of furnishing relevant information to uncover the truth. However, in practice—particularly in cases under special enactments involving raids and seizures—the repeated use of certain individuals as panch witnesses has led to the emergence of “stock witnesses,” raising serious concerns about the fairness and credibility of investigations.

A panchnama plays a vital role in criminal proceedings. Derived from “panch” (five respectable persons) and “nama” (record), it is a contemporaneous document recording events observed by independent witnesses during search, seizure, recovery, or inquest proceedings. Legally, a panchnama is not substantive evidence; it merely records what the panch witnesses observed. Its evidentiary value arises only when the panch witness testifies in court, enabling the document to corroborate his testimony or refresh his memory under the law of evidence.

The concept of a “stock witness,” though not statutorily defined, refers to persons habitually associated with police investigations, as recognized in Pritam Singh v. State of Punjab (AIR 1956 SC 415). Courts have adopted a balanced approach regarding their evidentiary value. In State of Punjab v. Harbans Singh (AIR 2003 SC 2268), it was held that mere repeated participation does not render testimony unreliable, though it warrants cautious scrutiny. In A. Bhai v. State (AIR 1988 SC 696), the Supreme Court noted public reluctance to assist investigations. Thus, such evidence is admissible but must be carefully evaluated for credibility and corroboration.

Stock witnesses, often perceived as pliable associates of the police, lack true independence and thereby raise serious concerns regarding the credibility of their testimony. Courts have consistently deprecated this practice, observing that it undermines the fairness of criminal trials. Experience shows that such witnesses frequently turn hostile; even when they support the prosecution, their evidence is generally viewed with suspicion and requires strong independent corroboration.

Grounds for Rejection of Stock Witness Testimony:

1. Absence of Independence: Their close association with police authorities diminishes their status as neutral witnesses.

2. Inherent Bias and Pliability: Repeated involvement in police operations renders their testimony susceptible to influence and alignment with the prosecution narrative.

3. Lack of Firsthand Knowledge: Often introduced for procedural compliance, they may not have actually witnessed the relevant events.

4. Frequent Hostility: Their tendency to turn hostile during trial weakens the prosecution case.

5. Judicial Disapproval: Courts have repeatedly cautioned against reliance on such witnesses due to the risk of misuse.

6. Violation of Fair Trial Principles: Convictions based substantially on such doubtful evidence risk miscarriage of justice and infringe the accused's right to a fair trial.

II. Reasons for Securing (Fetching) Stock Witnesses: In my experience while conducting the prosecution of criminal cases I have found that, Public reluctance, legal mandates for witnesses, urgency of raids, and lack of independent persons—especially in remote areas—often compel reliance on stock witnesses. Additional factors include weak community-police relations, low legal awareness, outdated investigative methods, and improper practices like “table investigations,” all contributing to repeated use of such witnesses in criminal proceedings.

III. Suggestions to Overcome Stock Witness Dependency: The persistent and indiscriminate use of stock witnesses undermines the fairness, credibility, and constitutional integrity of criminal investigations. Addressing this issue requires a structured and multi-dimensional reform approach combining legal safeguards, technology, and community engagement. Courts must adopt strict judicial scrutiny, ensuring that testimony of stock witnesses is not accepted without credible independent corroboration. A shift toward quality over quantity of evidence will discourage mechanical reliance on such witnesses. The State shall promote legal awareness on citizens' duty to assist police and dispel apprehensions. It must highlight that refusal to witness searches, despite written notice under Section 100(8) CrPC/Section 103(8) BNSS, attracts penal liability under Section 187 IPC, reinforcing mandatory public cooperation in lawful investigations and justice administration. The mandatory videography of search and seizure proceedings, as envisaged under section 176 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), is essential to ensure transparency and authenticity. Complementing this, increased reliance on scientific investigation methods—such as forensic evidence, GPS tracking, and body cameras—can significantly reduce dependence on oral testimony and collecting evidence through electronic mode. Institutional reforms are equally necessary. The creation of witness collection committees and maintenance of a Witness Tracking Register can help ensure availability of independent witnesses and prevent repeated use of the same individuals. Investigating officers must also prepare detailed panchnama, clearly recording reasons for non-availability of independent witnesses. Public participation can be improved through legal awareness programmes, honorarium for volunteers, and effective implementation of witness protection schemes, thereby reducing reluctance. Additionally, friendly policing and improved community relations are crucial for building trust.

Accountability measures, including disciplinary action against improper practices such as “table investigations,” along with regular training of investigating officers, are vital. Legislative reforms mandating recording of reasons for non-securing independent witnesses will further strengthen procedural integrity.

Eliminating reliance on stock witnesses is essential to uphold the rule of law. A fair investigation, supported by transparency, accountability, and public cooperation, is the foundation of a just trial.

Author is a Sr. Asst Public Prosecutor of AJFCM Court, Adoni, Andhra Pradesh. Views are personal.