Discrepancies In Witness Statements Can Be Fatal To Prosecution In Politically Charged Situations: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court recently observed that glaring discrepancies in the witness statements become significant in politically charged situations and that they cast doubt on the credibility of the prosecution case. 

Justice Ziyad Rahman A added that a mere strong or probable suspicion, not supported by proper and positive evidence, is inadequate to prove the guilt of the accused as it fails to establish the truth beyond doubt.

"....as all of the independent witnesses including the victim belong to a particular political party, and the accused belong to the rival political party, the evidence has to be scrutinized with care and caution. In such circumstances, the discrepancies and contradictions as mentioned above have to be given much more emphasis...in the light of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it appears to be fatal to the prosecution case."

"...suspicion, however strong or probable it may be, is not sufficient to hold the accused guilty. The distance “may be true” to “must be true” has to be covered by the prosecution by adducing proper and positive evidence."

The appellants were accused of being part of an unlawful assembly that committed rioting and attempted murder during a political rivalry. The prosecution primarily relied on the oral evidence of witnesses, including the victim (PW2) and witnesses PW4 to PW6. The Sessions Court found the appellants guilty and sentenced them under relevant provisions while the other accused were acquitted.

Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the appellants moved the High Court. 

Advocate S. Rajeev appearing for the appellants argued that the conviction lacked sufficient evidence, pointing out contradictory testimonies of witnesses and a delay in recording the victim's statement. They claimed the prosecution case was influenced by political rivalry, and highlighted significant discrepancies and embellishments in the witnesses' accounts to support their arguments.

The appellants also relied on Krishnegowda & Ors v. State of Karnataka [AIR 2017 (13) SCC 98] where it was held that the variations in the evidence of prosecution witnesses regarding the exact time of the incident, who were present at the scene of the offence, the time of police reaching the spot etc. are matters fatal to the prosecution case.

Public Prosecutor Sudheer Gopalakrishnan responded that eyewitnesses corroborated the victim's testimony and that minor discrepancies in witness accounts should not undermine the overall case. It was argued that the evidence, when considered as a whole, clearly established the sequence of events leading to the crime.

The Court noted that the crime was registered based on the First Information Statement (FIS) given by PW1. However, the FIS contained certain deviations from PW1's testimony in court during his cross-examination, where he denied receiving specific information from the victim about the incident and the accused names.

Upon going through the witness depositions, Justice Rahman found that there were several discrepancies regarding who accompanied the victim to the hospital, with witnesses providing different accounts of the same. There were conflicting versions of the sequence of events and the presence of individuals at the scene of the incident as well. The lighting conditions and how the assailants were identified also changed among the witnesses. 

The delay in recording statements and the alleged suppression of the actual FIS also weakened the credibility of the prosecution case, Court said.

Further, the case involved political rivalry between two parties CPI(M) and BJP-RSS. The victim and most of the material witnesses belonged to CPI(M), while all the accused were BJP-RSS workers. This political context raised concerns about the credibility of the witnesses, as their affiliation to a particular party may have influenced their testimonies.

Since these discrepancies involved the sequence of events, persons present at the time of the incident, and the names of the accused, it was found that they could not be treated as insignificant.

As per Andhra Pradesh v. Pullagummi Kasi Reddy Krishna Reddy [2018(7)SCC 623], the Court's duty is to scrutinise the evidence carefully and ensure that every hypothesis of innocence is ruled out. In this case, the doubts raised by the discrepancies in the witness statements created a reasonable doubt about the guilt of the accused, Court said.

"When considering the nature of discrepancies with regard to the aforesaid aspects, the same cannot be treated as minor discrepancies, but on the other hand, those are something which affects the credibility of the prosecution case as such. The fact that all the independent witnesses whose depositions are mutually contradictory in several material points, were belonging to a rival political group as against the accused persons also compels this Court to give more weightage to such inconsistency." 

The Court then emphasised that the presumption of innocence of the accused is fundamental, and the prosecution must provide clear, cogent, credible, and unimpeachable evidence to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt.

As the prosecution did not meet this standard, the Court set aside the trial court's judgment observing that it had overlooked the crucial discrepancies in the case. The appellants were thus found not guilty and acquitted of all charges.

Case Title: Kallantavide Ramesan v State of Kerala

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 353

Click Here To Read/Download The Order