সতর্কীকরণ! কেস রেফারেন্স ওয়েবসাইটে প্রকাশিত অধিকাংশ নজীর বিভিন্ন বই ও ওয়েবসাইট থেকে সংগ্রহ করা হয়েছে। এই সকল নজীর এর সঠিকতার বিষয়ে কেস রেফারেন্স ওয়েবসাইট কোন নিশ্চয়তা প্রদান করে না। কেস রেফারেন্স ওয়েবসাইটে প্রকাশিত নজীর এর উপর নির্ভর এর আগে সংশ্লিষ্ট নজীরটির রেফারেন্স মিলিয়ে নেওয়ার অনুরোধ করা হচ্ছে।
Contradictions in Evidence
Contradictions in evidence.-(1) The evidence of both witnesses cannot be relied upon because they are making contradictory statements and their written statement is at variance with their verbal evidence particularly regarding management of the property during Protima's life time and Harmohan's share. It is also strange that no independent corroboration of their evidence was avail- able before the Court.
Jyotirmoyee v. Durga Das, AIR 1976 Cal 238.
(2) The Supreme Court observed that the story narrated by the witness in his evidence before the Court differs substantially from that set out in his statement before the police and having regard to the large number of contra- dictions in his evidence, contradictions not on mere matters of detail but on vital points, we do not think it would be safe to rely on his evidence and it may be excluded from consideration in determining the guilt of the accused.
N. D. Dhayagude v. State of Maharashrta, AIR 1977 SC 381: 1977 Cri LJ 238: 1977 SCC (Cri) 10: 1976 Guj Cri R 327: 1976 Cri LR (SC) 409.
(3) The Supreme Court observed that where some of the prosecution witnesses have contradicted their earlier statements under Section 164, Cr.P.C. and contradictions suggest that the defence version might be true. On cross- examination by public prosecutor the witness answered that the statement made before the police was correct. If he remembered that the earlier statement was cortect then it is not possible to explain how he could make a mistake on the point of a particular fact in his examination-in-chief. Such material con- tradiction caused infirmities in the prosecution case and legitimate doubt on the truth of the prosecution story.
Bhajan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1977 SC 674.
(4) In cases where the transanction consists of a single act of payment of money, contradictions on the main issue like payment of money, cannot be elicited. Even false witnesses never falter on the principal question, i. e., the payment of the sum and its quantum. It is, therefore, usual to attack the credibility of such witnesses by by eliciting their answers on minors details related to the alleged transaction. It is only by questioning the witnesses on the various details that seemingly solid wall of falsehood can be breached. In the present case the contradictions were not minor. On the contrary they were quite revealing when one witness said that the transanction took place in the evening while the other chance witness said that it took place in the morn- ing by no means it can be called a minor or flimsy discrepancy.
V. R. Avdi v. Mariana Colaco, AIR 1976 Goa 60.
(5) It is well-settled that where witnesses make two inconsistent state- ments in their evidence either at one stage or at two stages, the testimony of such witnesses becomes unreliable and untrustworthy of credence and in the absence of special circumstance no conviction can be based on the evidence of such witnesses.
Suraj Mal v. State (Delhi Admn.), AIR 1979 SC 1408.
(6) The Supreme Court states that we are unable to agree with the High Court that these contradictions were "trival" and of no consequence whatever. We cannot overlook the fact that all the eye witnesses were highly interested in the prosecution and atleast two of them, namely PW 1 and PW 4 were iminically disposed towards the appellants. While such witnesses never fail to denounce the real culprits they cannot be said to be absolutely immune from the tendency of roping in some innocent persons along with the guilty. It is in this context the contradictions in the evidence assume importance.
R. Kondaiah v. State of A.P., AIR 1975 SC 216: 1975 Cri LJ 262: 1975 SCC (Cri) 213: (1975) 3 SCC 752.
(7) The Supreme Court observed that minor contradictions are bound to appear when ignorant and illiterate women are giving evidence. Even in cases of trained and educated persons, memory some times plays false and this would be much more so in case of ignorant and rustic women.
Boya Ganganna v. State of A. P., AIR 1976 SC 154111976 Cri LJ 1158: 1976 UJ (SC) 122: 1976 All Cri C 27: (1976) 1 SCC 584: 1976 SCC (Cri) 102: 1976 Cri LR (SC) 3: (1976) 2 SCJ 284: (1976) An WR (HC) 15: 1976 Mad LJ (Cri) 503.
(8) The Supreme Court observed-
The particular right on which the incident took place was cloudy and it was drizzling. On question whether witnesses were able to identify the respondents, it is very difficult to take them as their word then their evidence suffers from various contradictions to which the High Court has referred. The witnesses were deposing to the incident nearly nine years later and it appears that they made good the lapses of memory by giving a free play to their imagination. Their evidence leaves much to be desired and is insufficient to establish the complicity of the respondents in causing the death of Ranjit and Samir Chrakraborty. Benoy lodged his complaint more than a moath and yet there are material discrepancies between what he stated in the complaint and what he said in his evidence.
State of W. B. v. Shew Mangal, 1981 All Cri R 368.
(9) Where in a case prosecution adduced two sets of evidence contra- dictory to each other, held, it is difficult to rely either of them to found the conviction.
Harchand Singh v. State of Haryana, AIR 1974 SC 344: 1974 SCD 81: 1973 SCC (Cri) (Cri) 962: 1974 Cri LJ 366: (1974) 6 SCC 397.
Oral evidence contrary to proved facts. Cross-examination is not the only method of discrediting a witnesses. If oral testimony of certain witnesses is contrary to proved facts their evidence might well be discarded on that ground. If their testimony is on the face of it unacceptable, Courts are not bound to accept their testimony merely there because was no cross-examination.
Juvar Singh v. State of U. P., AIR 1981 SC 373.
Omission-Probative value of. It is not possible to lay down a general rule as to what effect a particular omission from a previous statement should have on the probative value of what was so omitted by a witness. The effect will depend upon the totality of proved facts and circumstances in which the omission might have taken place. It will often will be determined by the im- portance of by the importance of what was omitted.
Laxman v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1974 SC 308: (1974) 1 SCC 309.
Discrepancy in timings. Supreme Court observed that the evidence of eye witnesses cannot be rejected on the sole ground of discrepancy in the timings noted at various places.
Somappa v. State of Mysore, AIR 1979 SC 1831.
Discrepancy regarding the distance of the house of the accused. Where the distance of the house of the accused is not relevant to the case, the discrepancy between the two witnesses regarding the distance of the house of accused has no relevance and their testimony on this very ground cannot be discredited.
State of U. P. v. Samman Dass, AIR 1972 SC 677: 1972 Cri LJ 487.
Discrepancies do not necessarily demolish testimony.-Discrepancies do not
necessarily demolish testimony; delay does not necessarily spell unveracity and tortured technicalities do not necessarily upset conviction when the Court has had a perspicacious, sensitive and correctly oriented view of the evidence and probabilities to reach the conclusion it did. Proof of guilt is sustained despite little infirmities, tossing peccadilloes and peripheral probative shortfalls.
Narotam Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1978 SC 1542.
Discrepancies-Witnesses examined after 17 months after incident- Natural. The occurrence took place on August 4, 1973 while Resham Singh (PW 2) and Bachan Singh (PW 3) were examined at the trial on December 27, 1974, that is to say, 17 months after the incident. Such discrepancies in regard to collateral or subsidiary facts or matters of detail occur even in the statements of truthful witnesses, particularly when they are examined to depose to events which happend long before their examination. Such discre. pancies are hardly a ground to reject the evidence of the witnesses when there is general agreement and consistency in regard to the substratum of the prosecution case.
State of Punjab v. Wassan Singh, AIR 1981 SC 697.
Discrepancy between the statement of Medical Officer and sole eye-witnesses on a point-Effect-Appreciation of testimony. The Supreme Court observed that the Doctor who conducted the autopsy did not note or find any imprints of a rope on the wrists of the dead body, is hardly a ground for rejecting the evidence of Munshi that the hands of the deceased had been tied at his back when he was forcibly taken by the accused into the Arhar field and shot dead there. The wrist around which the rope had been tied are not flabby limbs of the body. The deceased was a rustic, hard skinned villager. The rope was, therefore, not likely to leave any distinct imprints on the wrists. In any case they might be disappeared or become extremely faint at the time of post- mortem examination which was conducted about 24 hours after the string had been untied by the investigating officer. Held, that the mere fact that the Doctor did not note the imprints of rope on the wrist of the deceased and the cye-witness Munshi has stated that the hands of the deceased was tied with string, is not such a discrepancy on which the testimony of the eye-witness might be rejected.
Maharaj Singh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1981 SC 936.
Omission of injuries in F. I. R.-Failure to mention injuries in F.I.R. is fatal to prosecution which the case based on F.I.R. and there is enmity between the parties-held, the conviction cannot be based on such evidence.
Wahid v. The State, 1980 All Cri R 20: 1980 All. Cri C 40: 1980 Cri LJ NOC 51 (All.)
Omission of names in F. I. R.--The Supreme Court remarked- "In regard to the seven persons whose names were not mentioned in the First Information Report, P. W. 1 was unable to explain why she failed to mention their names in the report. She frankly stated that she cannot state the reason as to why their names were not mentioned. We think that these seven persons are entitled to benefit of doubt and should be acquitted.
Juwar Singh v. State of M. P., AIR 1981 SC 373.
Material discrepancy. Where there are variations relating to the vital part of the prosecution in the statement of the eye-witnesses, their statements cannot be made base of conviction. 1976 Cri LJ 837 SC) relied on.
Lal Singh v. State, 1980 Cri LJ NOC 51 (Raj): 1980 Raj Cri C 213: 1979 Raj LW 214: 1979 WLN 80.
Discrepancies-Comparatively of minor character-Effect. It is contended before the Supreme Court that testimony of eye-witnesses was full of dis- crepancies and in fact indicated that three different versions were put forward by the prosecution from time to time. The Supreme Court observed that this aspect of matter fully engaged the attention of the trial court and the High Court and we find ourselves in agreement with them in the view that the discrepancies printed out are comparatively of a minor character which do not go to the root of the prosecution story and need not be given undue importance.
Jagdish v. State of M. P., AIR 1981 SC 1067.1
Where the witness materially improved his earlier statement. In view of the fact that the witness has materially improved upon his earlier statement only with the object of involving the appellant, held, the testimony of the witness ought to have been altogether rejected.
Randhir Singh v. State, 1980 Cri LJ 1397 Del (DB).
Statement of witness contains minor discrepancies. Minor discrepancies rather indicates truth than making the statement unreliable. Minor discrepancies are not the indication of falsehood.
State of Assam v. Krishna Rao, AIR 1973 SC 28: 1973 Cr LJ 169: 1973 Cri LR 304: 1973 SCC (Cri) 222.
Discrepancies and contradictions in statement of eye-witnesses. In S. T. Shinde's case it was pointed out by the learned counsel, some discrepancies and contradictions in the statements of the eye witnesses which according to him, are a good ground for discarding their evidence in toto. The Supreme Court observed that these discrepancies pertain to the precise number of blows given to the assailant, the standing of lying posture of the victim at the time of the assault etc. Such discrepancies in matters of detail always occur even to the evidence of the truthful witnesses. Such variations creep in because there are always natural differences in the faculties of different individuals in the matter of observation, perception and memorisation of details. They are hardly a ground for rejecting their evidence when there is consensus as to the substratum of the case.
S. T. Shinde v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1974 SC 791: 1974 Cri LJ 674: 1974 SCC (Cri) 382: (1974) 4 SCC 213.
Inconsistencies and discrepancies-When fatal. It is no doubt true that prosecution evidence does suffer from inconsistencies here and discrepancies their but that is a short coming from which no criminal case is free. The main thing to be seen whether those inconsistencies etc., go to the root of the matter or pertain to insignificant aspect thereof. In the former case, the defence may be justified in seeking advantage of the inconsistencies obtaining in defence. In the latter, however, in no such benefit may be available to it. Krishna Pillat v. State of Kerala, AIR 1981 SC 1237.
Normal and material discrepancies. The discrepancies are due to normal errors of observation, normal errors of memory due to lapse of time, due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence, and he like. Material discrepancies are those which are not normal, and not expected of a normal person. State of Rajasthan v. Kalki, AIR 1981 SC 1390.
Info!
"Please note that while every effort has been made to provide accurate case references, there may be some unintentional errors. We encourage users to verify the information from official sources for complete accuracy."
