Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.23 seconds)

A.Shankar vs State Of Karnataka on 9 June, 2011

In the matter titled as A. Shanker Vs. State of Karnataka, reported at AIR 2011 SC 2302, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court as under:­ "17. In all criminal cases, normal discrepancies are bound to occur in the depositions of witnesses due to normal errors of observation, namely, errors of memory due to lapse of time or due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence. Where the omissions amount to a contradiction, creating a serious doubt about the truthfulness of the witness and other witnesses also make material improvement while deposing in the Court, such evidence cannot be safe to rely upon. However, minor contradictions, inconsistencies, embellishments or improvements on trivial matters which do not affect the core of the prosecution case, should not be made a ground on which the evidence can be rejected in its entirety. The Court has to form its opinion about the credibility of the witness and record a finding as to whether his deposition inspires confidence. Exaggerations per se do not render the evidence brittle. But it can be one of the State V/s Sumit etc. ("convicted") Page 25 of 29 FIR No. 204/05; U/s 308/323/341/34 IPC; P.S. Saraswati Vihar DOD: 29 .10.2014 factors to test credibility of the prosecution version, when the entire evidence is put in a crucible for being tested on the touchstone of credibility. Therefore, mere marginal variations in the statements of a witness cannot be dubbed as improvements as the same may be elaborations of the statement made by the witness earlier.
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 160 - B S Chauhan - Full Document
1