Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

The Supreme Court in the case of Mritunjoy Biswas v. Pranab, (2013) 12 SCC 796 has held as under :

"28. As is evincible, the High Court has also taken note of certain omissions and discrepancies treating them to be material omissions and irreconcilable discrepancies. It is worthy to note that the High Court has referred to the some discrepancies which we find are absolutely in the realm of minor discrepancies. It is well settled in law that the minor discrepancies are not to be given undue emphasis and the evidence is to be considered from the point of view of trustworthiness. The test is whether the same inspires confidence in the mind of the court. If the evidence is incredible and cannot be accepted by the test of prudence, then it may create a dent in the prosecution version. If an omission or discrepancy goes to the root of the matter and ushers in incongruities, the defence can take advantage of such inconsistencies. It needs no special emphasis to state that every omission cannot take place of a material omission and, therefore,minor contradictions, inconsistencies or insignificant embellishments do not affect the core of the prosecution case and should not be taken to be a ground to reject the prosecution evidence. The omission should create a serious doubt about the truthfulness or creditworthiness of a witness. It is only the serious contradictions and omissions which materially affect the case of the prosecution but not every contradiction or omission (see Leela Ram v. State of Haryana (2000) SCC (Cri) 222, Rammi v. State of M.P. (2000) SCC (Cri) 26 and Shyamal Ghosh v. State of W.B. (2012) 7 SCC 646).
The Supreme Court in the case of Shyamal Ghosh v. State of W.B., (2012) 7 SCC 646, has held as under :

11 Criminal Appeal No.819/2016 [Allu Vs. State of M.P.] "68. From the above discussion, it precipitates that the discrepancies or the omissions have to be material ones and then alone, they may amount to contradiction of some serious consequence. Every omission cannot take the place of a contradiction in law and therefore, be the foundation for doubting the case of the prosecution. Minor contradictions, inconsistencies or embellishments of trivial nature which do not affect the core of the prosecution case should not be taken to be a ground to reject the prosecution evidence in its entirety. It is only when such omissions amount to a contradiction creating a serious doubt about the truthfulness or creditworthiness of the witness and other witnesses also make material improvements or contradictions before the court in order to render the evidence unacceptable, that the courts may not be in a position to safely rely upon such evidence. Serious contradictions and omissions which materially affect the case of the prosecution have to be understood in clear contradistinction to mere marginal variations in the statement of the witnesses. The prior may have effect in law upon the evidentiary value of the prosecution case; however, the latter would not adversely affect the case of the prosecution.

The Supreme Court in the case of S. Govidaraju v. State of Karnataka, (2013) 15 SCC 315, at page 322 :

"23. It is well settled legal proposition that while appreciating the evidence, the court has to take into consideration whether the contradictions/omissions were of such magnitude so as to materially affect the trial. Minor contradictions, inconsistencies, embellishments or improvements in relation to trivial matters, which do not affect the core of the case of the prosecution, must not be made a ground for rejection of evidence in its entirety. The trial court, after going through the entire evidence available, must form an opinion about the credibility of the witnesses, and the appellate court in the normal course of action, would not be justified in reviewing the same, without providing justifiable reasons for 13 Criminal Appeal No.819/2016 [Allu Vs. State of M.P.] doing so. Where the omission(s) amount to a contradiction, creating a serious doubt regarding the truthfulness of a witness, and the other witnesses also make material improvements before the court in order to make the evidence acceptable, it would not be safe to rely upon such evidence. The discrepancies in the evidence of eyewitnesses, if found not to be minor in nature, may be a ground for disbelieving and discrediting their evidence. In such circumstances, the witnesses may not inspire confidence and if their evidence is found to be in conflict and contradiction with the other evidence available or with a statement that has already been recorded, then in such a case, it cannot be held that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt."

37. While deciding such a case, the court has to apply the aforesaid tests. Mere marginal variations in the statements cannot be dubbed as improvements as the same may be elaborations of the statement made by the witness earlier. The omissions which amount to contradictions in material particulars i.e. go to the root of the case/materially affect the trial or core of the prosecution case, render the testimony of the witness liable to be discredited".

15 Criminal Appeal No.819/2016 [Allu Vs. State of M.P.] However, if the omissions, contradictions and inconsistencies as pointed out by this court in the light of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses are considered, then, it would be clear that these omissions are not minor in nature. They give a deep dent to the prosecution case and they are major omissions, contradictions and inconsistencies in the evidence of witnesses who all are police personnel and therefore, the accused persons are entitled to the benefit of said omissions, inconsistencies and contradictions. Further while deciding the appeal of the co-accused persons, when this Court has already come to a conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the commission of offence, then it would be very difficult to hold that the appellant had assembled to make preparation for committing dacoity. It is held that the appellant is not found guilty for committing offence under sections 399, 400 and 402 of IPC. Accordingly, he is acquitted of the charges.