"however, when discrepancies are detected in evidence the Court should always ask themselves the question. Are these discrepancies due to the result of fraud or falsehood or due to difference in faculties of observations, recollection and precise narration. "in a criminal case the entire burden of proving the guilt beyond doubt, by unimpeachable evidence is on the prosecution. If there are serious contradictions, it is irrelevant as to whether they are made as a result of fraud or any other motive. I agree with the submission of the petitioner that the said advice by the Judge Advocate General is contrary to the well set principles of law, in particularly criminal law. It betrays a layman's approach not a legal approach. Layman's approach to crime is, why should anybody be falsely implicated ? Why person should give false evidence against another person. ' How can the witness remember everything after long lapse of time ? Particularly, the members of the Court Martial were lay people and they were bound to be influenced by such an improper advice of Judge Advocate. I find that the material and vital points of evidence do not find any mention at the first stage viz. Summary of Evide

Click Here to Read the rest of this document