IMPORTANT POINT
The evidence in case of a criminal trial is to the considered from the point of view of trustworthiness and once the same stands satisfied, it ought to inspire confidence in the mind of court to accept the stated evidence, ignoring minor inconsistencies which may have arisen due to lapse of time.

Headnote:(i) Indian Penal Code, 1860-Section 302-Offence of murder-Evidence Act, 1872-Section 155-Evidence as to place of occurrence-House or field-Informant had gone to fetch labourers for his field-On return met his son-Son going ahead-When he reached house of Mohinder Modi he was surrounded by Appellants and others-On call of appellant Sukhdev Yadav, another appellant Rakesh Mandal fired at the son of informant who fell down and died on spot-Discrepancy as to place of occurrence in evidence-Whether fatal ? (No).
       Held : The evidence on record does not, however, lend any credence to the submissions of Mr. Tulsi. There may be some variations but there exists no major contradiction on record. Modi s house and Rahar field are the two places which have been mentioned by the accused persons but the factum of being surrounded and the firing done at the instance of the appellant No. 1 stands uncontradicted. As noticed above, minor variations may be there but if on a perusal of the evidence in its entirety, it appears to be otherwise trustworthy, question of the evidence being non-trustworthy would not arise. As noticed above, the Court can sift the chaff from the grain and find out the truth from the evidence itself. The evidence tendered lends credence to the prosecution case as regards the involvement of the appellant herein in the murder. It is in this context, the High court observed:
       "As they were deposing in court after more than five years of the occurrence, there might be some inconsistency..... but being minor in nature they have to be ignored. The evidence of eye-witnesses being consistent, we have no reason to disbelieve the prosecution case." (Para 12)
       (ii) Indian Penal Code, 1860-Section 302-Offence of murder-Informant reporting murder of his son by appellants-Chowkidar visiting place-Informing Investigation officer-Who visited place of occurrence-Contention that there is concealment of earliest version of occurrence by non-production of chowkidar-Whether fatal-No, as it was not shown to have caused any prejudice.
       Held : While it is on record that the Chowkidar happened to visit the place of occurrence before he came again with the investigating officer, but a positive evidence of the investigating officer to the effect that the latter reached the village on hearing a rumour about the murder of Ram Dev Singh and it so happened that there was no cross-examination on this score and in the absence of which the statement of the investigating officer cannot but be accepted. In any event, what would be the effect by reason of non production of the chowkidar? The Chowkidar may or may not be there or it may be a sheer co-incidence that both the investigating officer and the chowkidar came together but that by itself does not affect the varasity of the prosecution case neither it is possible to have any conjectures to the effect that the chowkidar had gone to the Police Station and brought the investigating officer at the site - it is however too trivial a matter to be considered at length and as such we do not find any reason to dictate further on the issue neither the same lends any credence to the submissions in support of the appeal or as regards the conclusion arrived by the High Court. (Para 13)
       (iii) Indian Penal Code, 1860-Section 302-Offence of murder-Lapse on part of Investigating officer about non-production of seizure list as part of record-Whether fatal?-(No, as it does not affect credibility of witnesses)-Case law referred.
       Held : The other aspect pertains to non production of the seizure list in Court as a part of the records - undoubtedly, a lapse on the part of the prosecution but the issue however, needs to be considered from the point of view of credibility of the witnesses and in the event of there being credible evidence on record, a lapse pertaining to non- production of seizure list does not really affect the prosecution case in any way - the issue has to be considered from the point of view of prejudice to the accused. (Para 14)
       After referring case law held : True, as noticed above there are lapses, but the question that arises for consideration is whether any prejudice has been caused by reason of such a lapse, if the answer thereto is in the affirmative obviously it will have a serious impact on to the trial but if in the event however, it is on the negative, no prejudice can be said to have been caused and correspondingly question of the trial being vitiated would not arise. The eye-witnesses account as available on record cannot but be termed to be trustworthy and by reason therefor, the lapses stand over-shadowed by the testimony of the eye-witnesses. The observations above obtain support from the decision of this Court in Baleshwar Mandal and another v. State of Bihar (AIR 1997 SC 3471). (Para 15)
       (iv) Indian Penal Code, 1860-Section 302-Murder-Shoes of deceased found kept by the side of his head with a bag-Whether on this basis it can be said that place of occurrence was different-Basics of legal issues as regard probable value of evidence and acceptability thereof.
       Held : Mr. Tulsi lastly contended that evidence available on record discloses that the shoes of the deceased were found kept by the side of the head alongwith a bag and on the basis thereof it has been contended that the place of occurrence was thus different from the place where the dead body was found by the investigating officer. The High Court on this score observed as below :
       "12. It is true that there is no apparent explanation regarding keeping the shoes on the side of the head of the deceased, which is borne out not only by the inquest report, but this fact by itself is not sufficient to create reasonable doubt so as to disbelieve the entire prosecution case. It may be pointed that as per the inquest report one pair of shoes was found on the side of the head of the deceased but it is not clear as to whether the feet of the deceased were bare, that is, no shoes were put on. It is also not clear as to whether while going to his village, the deceased had put on the shoes. No question was put to either investigating officer or any other witness in this regard." (Emphasis supplied)
       On the state of evidence as emphasized above, we do not feel it inclined to lend concurrence to the submissions in support of the appeal that the factum of placement of shoes at a particular place would vitiate the entire trial. In the view as above, we do not find any merit in the appeal, neither there is any reason to interfere with the judgment of affirmance. The appeal, therefore, fails and is thus dismissed. (Paras 16, 17 & 18)

JUDGMENT

Banerjee, J.-It is now well-settled that the Court can sift the chaff from the grain and find out the truth from the testimony of the witnesses. The evidence is to be considered from the point of view of trustworthiness and once the same stands satisfied, it ought to inspire confidence in the mind of the Court to accept the stated evidence. This Court in Leela Ram (Dead) Though Duli Chand v. State of Haryana and another1 relying upon an earlier decision of this Court in State of U.P. v. M.K. Anthony2 observed :

"...There are bound to be some discrepancies between the narrations of different witnesses when they speak on details, and unless the contradictions are of a material dimension, the same should not be used to jettison the evidence in its entirety. Incidentally, corroboration of evidence with mathematical niceties cannot be expected in criminal cases. Minor embellishment, there may be, but variations by reason therefor should not render the evidence of eyewitnesses unbelievable. Trivial discrepancies ought not to obliterate an otherwise acceptable evidence."

2. In Rammi v. State of M.P.3, this Court further observed:

"24. When an eyewitness is examined at length it is quite possible for him to make some discrepancies. No true witness can possibly escape from making some discrepant details. Perhaps an untrue witness who is well tutored can successfully make his testimony totally non-discrepant. But courts should bear in mind that it is only when discrepancies in the evidence of a witness are so incompatible with the credibility of his version that the court is justified in jettisoning his evidence. But too serious a view to be adopted on mere variations falling in the narration of an incident (either as between the evidence of two witnesses or as between two statements of the same witness) is an unrealistic approach for judicial scrutiny."

This Court went on to state : (SCC pp. 656-57, paras 25-27):

"25. It is a common practice in trial courts to make out contradictions from the previous statement of a witness for confronting him during cross-examination. 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. The material portion of the section is extracted below:

155. Impeaching credit of witness.- The credit of a witness may be impeached in the following ways by the adverse party, or, with the consent of the court, by the party who calls him -

(1) - (2)

(3) by proof of former statements inconsistent with any part of his evidence which is liable to be contradicted;

26. A former statement though seemingly inconsistent with the evidence need not necessarily be sufficient to amount to contradiction. 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. Section 162 of Code also permits the cross-examiner to use the previous statement of the witness (recorded under Section 161 of the Code) for the only limited purpose i.e. to contradict the witness.

27. To contradict a witness, therefore, must be to discredit the particular version of the witness. Unless the former statement has the potency to discredit the present statement, even if the latter is at variance with the former to some extent it would not be helpful to contradict that witness (vide Tahsildar Singh v. Stare of U.P., AIR 1959 SC 1012).

3. It is indeed necessary however to note that there would hardly be a witness whos

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2001 Supreme(SC) 1280

Cases Referred (5)