Witness Not Discredited By Mere Contradiction Between Testimony And Statement Given To Police : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently observed that a witness will not stand totally discredited merely because the testimony given during the trial contradicted the earlier statement given to the police. "No doubt statement given before police during investigation under Section 161 are “previous statements” under Section 145 of the Evidence Act and therefore can be used to cross examine a witness. But this is only for a limited purpose, to “contradict” such a witness. Even if the defence is successful in contradicting a witness, it would not always mean that the contradiction in her two statements would result in totally discrediting this witnessThe contractions in the two statements may or may not be sufficient to discredit a witness. Section 145 read with Section 155 of the Evidence Act, have to be carefully applied in a given case", the Court stated.The court relied on Rammi v. State of M.P. (1999) 8 SCC 649, which held : “Merely because there is inconsistency in evidence it is not sufficient to impair the credit of the witness. No doubt Section 155 of the Evidence Act provides scope for impeaching the credit of a witness by proof of an inconsistent former statement. But a reading of the section would indicate that all inconsistent statements are not sufficient to impeach the credit of the witness. Only such of the inconsistent statement which is liable to be “contradicted” would affect the credit of the witness. Section 145 of the Evidence Act also enables the cross-examiner to use any former statement of the witness, but it cautions that if it is intended to “contradict” the witness the cross-examiner is enjoined to comply with the formality prescribed therein.”The bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia was hearing an appeal against a judgment of the Rajasthan High Court which acquitted the convicts for major offenses under sections 302 and 307 IPC, retaining only Sections 147, 148, 323, 324, 325/149 and reduced their sentences to the period already spent in jail.The case originated from an FIR filed on 22nd May 2001 by the complainant Birbal Nath. According to the complaint, at around 1:00 PM, seven armed men approached an agricultural field where the complainant's uncle 'Chandernath' and his aunt 'Rami' were working. They brutally assaulted both the victims who sustained severe injuries. Chandernath tragically passed away while en route to Jodhpur hospital. The police subsequently filed a chargesheet, and the case was transferred to the Sessions Court. Charges were framed against all six accused based on various sections of the Indian Penal Code, including Sections 147, 148, 302, 323/149, 324/149, 325/149, 447, and 307/149.In the appeal, he HC had acquitted the accused under Section 302 & Section 307 of IPC based on the presumption that it was not a pre-meditated attack, rather it was a clash between two groups. The HC relied on the fact that assailants too had sustained injuries and observed discrepancies in the evidence of PW-2(wife of deceased).At the outset, the Supreme Court went on to examine the evidence given by the wife who herself was a victim and was seriously injured. The Court emphasized that despite some minor discrepancies, her credibility was not compromised, as the High Court had wrongly asserted.It questioned “Moreover, it is her husband who has been killed by the assailants. Why should she be accusing wrong persons? One of the key aspects that the Court highlighted was the importance of considering the social background and overall surrounding circumstances when evaluating a witness's testimony.It opined “Some discrepancies invariably occur in such cases when we take into account the fact that this witness is a woman who resides in a village and is the wife of a farmer who tills his land and raises crops by his own hands. The rural setting, the degree of articulation of such a witness in a Court of Law are relevant considerations while evaluating the credibility of such a witness. Moreover, the lengthy cross examination of a witness may invariably result in contradictions. But these contradictions are not always sufficient to discredit a witness.”In the present case, the HC had cited the discrepancy in the statement given to the police by the star witness under section 161 CrPC and to the Court to discredit it.However, on this issue the Supreme Court opined that “Statement given to police during investigation under Section 161 cannot be read as an “evidence”. It has a limited applicability in a Court of Law as prescribed under Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.). No doubt statement given before police during investigation under Section 161 are “previous statements” under Section 145 of the Evidence Act and therefore can be used to cross examine a witness. But this is only for a limited purpose, to “contradict” such a witness.” The court cited the ruling in Tahsildar Singh v. State of U.P., AIR 1959 SC 1012 underlined that mere...

Witness Not Discredited By Mere Contradiction Between Testimony And Statement Given To Police : Supreme Court

Suraj Parmar

Tags