No matter what eye witness testimony is in the court of law, it is the lowest form of evidence in the court of session.

The part of an eye witness is of the principle significance in the justice conveyance framework. Yet commonly they lead to improper feeling because of which an honest get sentenced for a wrongdoing he hasn't perpetrated. Witness through, ages has been central member chasing after justice conveyance. The basics of justice require that reality and unbiasedness should pith of justice. 

Eyewitness under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872,

According to section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, there are two vital forms of witnesses: 

• Oral evidence 
• Documentary evidence

Testimony is a sort of proof, and it is regularly the possibly proof that an adjudicator has when choosing a case. At the point when you are sworn to tell the truth in the court and you are vouching for the appointed authority, what you say is viewed as honest except if it is by one way or another tested( rebutted) by the other party. 

• As per section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 every person are capable under the law to testify if they are ineffective of giving the declaration or understanding any question of the court for the purpose of their tender age, elderly Ness or any diseases.
• Futher provision that make fit an eyewitness statement as beneficial evidence as well as intensify the status of such statement is Section 134 of the Indian Evidenc  Act.
• The evidentiary value of the eyewitness explanation can be assumed from the provision of section 135 of the Indian Evidence Act. As per the section the order in which witnesses are to be produced shall be regulated by law and practice. The section futher provides that the witness must be examined as per the civil and criminal procedure. 

In the landmark case of VIKAS KUMAR ROORKEWAL V. STATE OF UTTRAKHAND AND ORS, the Supreme Court held that eyewitness assumes a significant part in the criminal justice system and every legislative measure in association of witnesses adds to the basic standard of reasonable trial. Also on account of PRATAP CHAUHAN V  RAM NAIK, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that an eyewitness statement can't  be disregarded on the ground of bogus ramifications prior to checking the evidence with legitimate consideration. The court additionally held that a testimony of eyewitness can't be disposed of on the ground of minor variations.

Happy Reading! Stay safe.