Ocular Witnesses Not Expected to Have Photographic Memory, Minor Inconsistencies Must Be Ignored: J&K High Court

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has underscored that ocular witnesses are not expected to possess photographic memories capable of recalling every detail of an incident.The court has emphasised that minor contradictions and inconsistencies in witness testimonies should be disregarded if they do not affect the material aspects of the case. In upholding a conviction Justice Sanjay Dhar observed, “.. It has to be borne in mind while appreciating the evidence of an eyewitness or an injured that occurrence is never anticipated and, therefore, a witness is generally overtaken by events and observations of an event differ from person to person. An object may emboss its image in a person's mind whereas it may go unnoticed by any other person”. These observations came in a criminal conviction appeal in terms of which the appellants had assailed their conviction by Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu for offences under Section 307, 324, 34 RPC and Section 4/25 of Arms Act. The appellants, represented by Senior Advocate Mr. Sunil Sethi and Mr. Mohsin Bhat had contended that there were significant contradictions in the witnesses' testimonies. They argued that these discrepancies should render the prosecution's case unreliable. Additionally, they challenged the conviction under Section 4/25 of the Arms Act, asserting that the prosecution failed to prove the dimensions of the recovered swords as required by law.The State, represented by Deputy Advocate General Mr. Pawan Dev Singh and Mr. D. S. Saini, maintained that the evidence provided by the injured eyewitnesses was credible and sufficient to uphold the convictions.Court's Observations:Upon scrutinising the evidence and testimonies Justice Dhar referenced several Supreme Court judgments to underline that witnesses cannot be expected to recall every detail of an incident with precision. This principle, the court said is supported by the Supreme Court in Balu Sudam Khalde vs. State of Maharashtra (AIR 2023 SC 1736), which outlines that minor inconsistencies in a witness's testimony do not necessarily undermine their overall credibility.On the aspect of delay in lodging the FIR the court found no undue delay in lodging the FIR, as it was registered promptly and received by the Magistrate the next day and hence the defense's argument about the delay was deemed without substance.Deliberating on the substance in the injured witnesses who provide consistent accounts of the attack the court highlighted the need to consider the overall tenor of a witness's evidence, rather than focusing on minor discrepancies. This approach aligns with judicial principles where the credibility of a witness is assessed based on the entirety of their testimony, the bench underscored. Commenting on the contention with regard to the inconsistency in the statement regarding the site of occurrence the court acknowledged that although there was a minor inconsistency regarding whether the attack occurred in the compound or the veranda, but deemed the same as insignificant. It reasoned, “One thing which is clear from the statements of aforenamed two injured and eyewitness is that they have proved the presence of all the accused on the site of occurrence at the relevant time. There is not even a suggestion from the defence to these witnesses that the accused were not present on spot at the relevant time”. On the charges of Arms Act the court found merit in the defense's argument regarding the Arms Act charges and observed that the prosecution had failed to prove the dimensions of the swords as required by the notification under the Arms Act. In light of these observations the court partially allowed the appeal. The conviction under Sections 307, 324, 34 RPC was uphe and the conviction under Section 4/25 of the Arms Act was set aside.The sentence for the offense under Section 307 RPC was reduced from seven years to three years, with the time already served to be considered and the appellants were directed to surrender within fifteen days to serve the remaining sentence.Case Title: LAKHBIR SINGH & ORS Vs State of J&K Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 196Click Here To Read/Download Judgment

Ocular Witnesses Not Expected to Have Photographic Memory, Minor Inconsistencies Must Be Ignored: J&K High Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags