This reporter walked into a murder. The Supreme Court doubted his story.

She was at the crime scene by pure chance. The court didn't buy it.

When a news reporter named C wandered into a deserted lane after a tip-off about secret meetings, he walked straight into a murder. He saw A holding a gun. He saw A pull the trigger. He was the only witness. The prosecution called him a stroke of fate. The defense called him a planted stooge. The question before the Supreme Court in Namdev v. State of Maharashtra was not whether C saw the killing — it was whether his being there at all made any sense.

Here's how the system decides whether a chance witness is telling the truth or telling a story.

Why "I was just passing by" is the most dangerous line in a trial

Every trial lawyer knows the feeling. The witness takes the stand. They describe the crime in perfect detail. They identify the accused without hesitation. Then comes the cross-examination question: "What were you doing there?" And the answer lands like a thud: "I was just passing by."

The law does not automatically reject a chance witness. The Supreme Court made that clear in Namdev: "It is not the rule of law that chance witness cannot be believed." But here's the catch — the court also said that the testimony of a chance witness requires "very cautious and close scrutiny" specifically regarding the reason for their presence on the spot.

Think about what that means. The court is not asking whether the witness is lying about what they saw. The court is asking whether the witness is lying about why they were there in the first place. If the explanation for presence is inherently improbable — if it defies logic, contradicts normal human behavior, or requires too many coincidences to align — then the entire testimony collapses, even if the witness sounds convincing about the crime itself.

This is the doctrine of inherent probability. One of the four ways a trial can hold a witness unworthy of belief is if "the witness statement is inherently improbable or contrary to the course of nature." For a chance witness, that test applies first and foremost to the narrative of presence. If a witness claims they identified the accused by face in pitch darkness, or recognized a voice from a mile away, that statement is inherently improbable. Similarly, if a witness claims they happened to be at a remote, abandoned location at the exact moment of a crime — with no logical reason for being there — the court must treat that explanation with deep skepticism.

Three questions that break the chance witness

Every cross-examination of a chance witness should be built around these three questions. They are not theoretical. They are the difference between a conviction and an acquittal.

1. Test the deviation from routine. What was this witness's normal schedule on that day? What changed? If a businessman who never visits a particular neighborhood suddenly appears there at 2 AM, the court wants to know why. The more dramatic the deviation from routine, the more scrutiny the explanation requires. A witness who claims they were "just taking a walk" in a high-crime area at midnight needs to explain why that walk was necessary, not just possible.
2. Test the timing of arrival. The chance witness did not just happen to be at the location — they happened to be there at the exact moment the crime occurred. That is a double coincidence. The court in Namdev emphasized that the reason for presence "requires close scrutiny." If the witness cannot explain why they arrived at that precise minute — not five minutes earlier, not five minutes later — the coincidence becomes suspicious. The more precise the timing, the more plausible the explanation must be.
3. Test the motive to fabricate. This is where the chance witness overlaps with the inimical witness. If the witness has any history of hostility toward the accused — a property dispute, a personal grudge, a business rivalry — that motive transforms a suspicious coincidence into a deliberate fabrication. The court must connect the probability of presence with the probability of bias. If the presence is illogical and the witness has a motive to harm the accused, the fabrication appears intentional.

The five-step pleading template for chance witness cases

If you are prosecuting a case that relies on a chance witness, here is how you build the record so the testimony survives scrutiny. If you are defending against one, here is how you tear it apart.

1. Document the presence narrative in the first statement. The first time the witness explains why they were at the scene — whether in a police statement, a complaint, or an affidavit — that explanation must be recorded verbatim. Any later embellishment or contradiction becomes a weapon for the defense. The Namdev court made clear that the reason for presence is the primary subject of scrutiny, and that scrutiny begins with the earliest version of events.
2. Corroborate the presence with independent evidence. The court in Namdev held that when dealing with evidence that is "neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable" — which is exactly the category chance witnesses occupy before scrutiny — the court must "look for corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony, direct or circumstantial." That means phone location data, CCTV footage, entry logs, or any other objective evidence that confirms the witness was where they claim to be, when they claim to be there.
3. Anticipate the cross-examination on routine. Before the witness takes the stand, map out their normal daily routine. Where do they live? Where do they work? What route do they usually take? The defense will ask: "Why were you on that road at that time when your office is in the opposite direction?" If the witness cannot answer that question with a specific, plausible reason — a detour for food, a visit to a friend, a shortcut that turned out to be longer — the testimony is at risk.
4. Check for hidden motive. The court in Namdev also held that judges must scrutinize the witness's "motive behind hiding the truth, if any." If the witness is a "bitter enemy of the opposite party," that alone can render them unworthy of belief. Run a conflict check on every chance witness before you put them on the stand. If there is any history of animosity, disclose it proactively and argue that the motive does not undermine the testimony — but do not let the defense spring it on cross-examination.
5. Prepare for the "inherent improbability" argument. The defense will argue that the witness's presence is contrary to the course of nature — that no reasonable person would have been at that location at that time for the stated reason. Your job is to show that the presence, while coincidental, is not impossible. The test is not whether the presence was likely. The test is whether the presence was plausible. If you can show that the witness had a genuine, if unusual, reason to be there, the testimony survives.

THE PLAY: Before you rely on a chance witness, ask yourself: If I were the defense lawyer, could I make a judge laugh at the explanation for this witness's presence? If the answer is yes, find corroboration or find another witness.

What this means for your next case

The chance witness problem is not a niche evidentiary issue. It arises in every type of litigation — criminal trials, corporate disputes, property cases, matrimonial matters. Any time a party relies on a witness who was not supposed to be there, the Namdev framework applies.

For advocates, the lesson is tactical. Do not put a chance witness on the stand without first stress-testing their presence narrative. If the explanation is weak, the entire case becomes weak. The court will not reject the witness outright — it will simply apply "very cautious and close scrutiny," and that scrutiny will expose every gap in the story.

For corporate clients and founders, the lesson is practical. If you are involved in a dispute where a key event was witnessed by someone who had no business being there — a security guard who happened to be on break, a delivery person who arrived at the wrong time, a neighbor who was walking their dog at 3 AM — understand that the court will treat that witness with suspicion. Document everything. Corroborate everything. And do not assume that a truthful witness will be believed just because they are telling the truth.

For CFOs and in-house counsel, the lesson is about risk. If your case depends on a witness whose presence is questionable, settle early or find better evidence.

Here's the move: The next time you review a witness statement, start with the question that the court will ask first. Not "What did they see?" but "Why were they there?" If you cannot answer that question with a straight face, neither can your case.