MUMBAI: Bombay HC in its verdict in the 11/7 train blasts case has referred to psychological and neurological studies for doubting the statements of taxi drivers who ferried those carrying explosives to Churchgate railway station and the witnesses who identified the planters on trains.
The HC has cited the decay theory and cue-dependent theory that support the idea that memory fades over time, but can be re-triggered or recalled under certain conditions. Decay theory suggests memory fades simply with time. However, cue-dependent theory says the memory isn't gone. it is just inaccessible until the right trigger or cue occurs.
The HC noted that the two taxi drivers did not approach police for 116 days following the blasts, believing they lacked significant information. During investigation, police located them after a 15-day search to identify the taxi drivers who had transported the accused to Churchgate station. The HC order said there were no station diary entries to corroborate this.
In its order, the court noted that studies indicate face recognition is managed by a specific part of the brain that processes and stores facial features as complex visual patterns. Regular meetings increase the likelihood of recognition, whereas a single brief encounter may not create a strong memory unless it holds emotional or contextual significance. Distinctive features such as hairstyle, facial structure or voice aid recognition, whereas generic or familiar-looking faces are harder to recall accurately over time.
"In case of such inordinate delay, an exception to the rule of a possibility that the witness may forget the features of the accused is that, the witness had ample opportunity of seeing the accused at the time of commission of offence," the HC said. The HC went on to explain how there is only a brief interaction between the passenger and driver where the driver is asked if the vehicle is occupied and the fare is paid as per the metre at the end of the journey.
The trial court had deemed the cab drivers' testimonies as "cogent and convincing evidence" and described that as "straightforward" and "not artificial" while convicting the accused. But the HC, examining it with the help of the two theories, said "observations of the trial court are perverse and contrary to well-settled principles of law."
The HC further stated it is common knowledge for taxi passengers in Mumbai to state their destination without elaborate instructions or negotiations. Typically, a passenger boards the taxi and then communicates the desired destination, to which the driver responds with a simple gesture or verbal confirmation. The court emphasised that, under normal circumstances, taxi drivers have limited interaction with passengers and insufficient opportunity to observe and memorise their faces for extended periods unless there is a specific reason.
The high court took the same view while considering statements of witnesses who identified the planters in court after four years.
"We, therefore, again examined the evidence of the witnesses to find out whether there was any special reason for these witnesses to recollect the faces of the accused after such a long period and for that we tried to find out whether these witnesses had sufficient opportunity or interact or observe or to see the accused to enable them to recollect their faces after such a long period," the HC said.
The HC has cited the decay theory and cue-dependent theory that support the idea that memory fades over time, but can be re-triggered or recalled under certain conditions. Decay theory suggests memory fades simply with time. However, cue-dependent theory says the memory isn't gone. it is just inaccessible until the right trigger or cue occurs.
The HC noted that the two taxi drivers did not approach police for 116 days following the blasts, believing they lacked significant information. During investigation, police located them after a 15-day search to identify the taxi drivers who had transported the accused to Churchgate station. The HC order said there were no station diary entries to corroborate this.
In its order, the court noted that studies indicate face recognition is managed by a specific part of the brain that processes and stores facial features as complex visual patterns. Regular meetings increase the likelihood of recognition, whereas a single brief encounter may not create a strong memory unless it holds emotional or contextual significance. Distinctive features such as hairstyle, facial structure or voice aid recognition, whereas generic or familiar-looking faces are harder to recall accurately over time.
"In case of such inordinate delay, an exception to the rule of a possibility that the witness may forget the features of the accused is that, the witness had ample opportunity of seeing the accused at the time of commission of offence," the HC said. The HC went on to explain how there is only a brief interaction between the passenger and driver where the driver is asked if the vehicle is occupied and the fare is paid as per the metre at the end of the journey.
The trial court had deemed the cab drivers' testimonies as "cogent and convincing evidence" and described that as "straightforward" and "not artificial" while convicting the accused. But the HC, examining it with the help of the two theories, said "observations of the trial court are perverse and contrary to well-settled principles of law."
The HC further stated it is common knowledge for taxi passengers in Mumbai to state their destination without elaborate instructions or negotiations. Typically, a passenger boards the taxi and then communicates the desired destination, to which the driver responds with a simple gesture or verbal confirmation. The court emphasised that, under normal circumstances, taxi drivers have limited interaction with passengers and insufficient opportunity to observe and memorise their faces for extended periods unless there is a specific reason.
The high court took the same view while considering statements of witnesses who identified the planters in court after four years.
"We, therefore, again examined the evidence of the witnesses to find out whether there was any special reason for these witnesses to recollect the faces of the accused after such a long period and for that we tried to find out whether these witnesses had sufficient opportunity or interact or observe or to see the accused to enable them to recollect their faces after such a long period," the HC said.
You may also like
Air India Jaipur-Mumbai makes U-turn: Suspected technical snag turns out false; passengers safe
Sona Comstar says no documents signed from Rani Kapur, proceeds with AGM
Couple's Victorian home renovation is nearly perfect but one detail 'ruins' it
Keir Starmer is gaslighting you 3 words he uttered on UK housing
Octopus Energy reduces monthly bills to £0 for 10 years 'guaranteed'
