52 some other case. PW-10’s presence near the scene of crime, or rather after it, is explained by him, somewhat unconvincingly, as his effort to ascertain if some property was vacant. He is what one can call as a chance witness. 94. A chance witness is one, who appears on the scene suddenly. This species of witness was described in Puran v. State of Punjab27 in the following terms: “Such witnesses have the habit of appearing suddenly on the scene when something is happening and then of disappearing after noticing the occurrence about which they are called later on to give evidence.” This court has sounded a note of caution about dealing with the testimony of chance witnesses. In Darya Singh v. State of Punjab28 it was observed that: “…where the witness is a close relation of the victim and is shown to share the victim’s hostility to his assailant, that naturally makes it necessary for the criminal courts examine the evidence given by such witness very carefully and scrutinise all the infirmities in that evidence before deciding to act upon it. In dealing with such evidence, Courts naturally begin with the enquiry as to whether the said witnesses were chance witnesses or whether they were really present on the scene of the offence.…..If the criminal Court is satisfied that the witness who is related to the victim was not a chance-witness, then his evidence has to be examined from the point of view of probabilities and the account given by him as to the assault has to be carefully scrutinised.” In Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab29 again, this court held that: “22. The evidence of a chance witness requires a very cautious and close scrutiny and a chance witness must adequately explain his presence at the place of occurrence (Satbir v. Surat Singh30, Harjinder Singh v. State of Gujarat, Acharaparambath Pradeepan and Anr. v. State of Kerala31 and Sarvesh Narain Shukla v. Daroga Singh32). Deposition of a chance witness whose presence at the place of incident remains doubtful should be discarded (vide Shankarlal v. State of Rajasthan33).” 95. In the opinion of this court the deposition of this witness (PW-10) cannot be taken at face value. PW-10 improved upon his statement made to the police and was confronted in this regard. His initial statement to the police did not mention the presence of the girl (whom he identified as Neha in court). 27 AIR 1953 SC 459 28 1964 (7) SCR 397 29 (2009) 9 SCC 719 30 (1997) 4 SCC 192 31 (2006) 13 SCC 643 32 (2007) 13 SCC 360 33 (2004) 10 SCC 632