Back
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, C. JAYACHANDRAN
Mohammed Nisam A. A. @Muhammed Nisham A. A. – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala, Represented By The Public Prosecutor – Respondent
Yes, the provided legal document discusses the reliability of witnesses in several contexts. It highlights that certain witnesses initially turned hostile or gave contradictory statements, but the court carefully examined their demeanour, the consistency of their testimony over time, and the corroboration by other evidence before accepting their testimonies. For example, the court found that a witness who initially turned hostile and then recanted his false statements did so after being influenced by threats and media attention, but the court ultimately deemed his subsequent testimony credible after observing his demeanour and considering the circumstances (!) (!) .
Furthermore, the court addressed the issue of omissions and contradictions in prior statements, emphasizing that not all discrepancies necessarily undermine the credibility of a witness, especially when the core facts are corroborated by other evidence and the omissions are not material. The court also noted that witnesses who are consistent in their testimonies, even after initial hostility, and whose statements are supported by ocular and scientific evidence, are reliable. The court took a cautious approach, considering the totality of the circumstances, demeanour, and corroborative evidence before accepting the witnesses’ credibility (!) (!) (!) .
In summary, the document recognizes that initial hostility or contradictions in witness statements do not automatically render their testimony unreliable. Instead, the court assesses credibility based on demeanour, consistency, corroboration, and the absence of material falsehoods, especially when the core facts are supported by other evidence.
JUDGMENT :
Vinod Chandran, J.
The 'Cultural Capital' of the State woke up, to the news of a thoroughly uncultured act, adding chill to the otherwise cold January morning. A frenzied attack by a resident of an apartment complex, on an employee of the complex, with a powerful vehicle; resulted in the victim sustaining very grievous injuries to which he succumbed eighteen days later, during which period he was continuously in the Intensive Care Unit of a hospital. The prosecution allegation is that the accused who approached the complex in the very early hours of 29.01.2015; incensed with the staff at the entrance of the complex having delayed to raise the electronic barrier for his smooth entry into the complex, went on a rampage. The accused parked the vehicle, got out of it and unleashed a vocal tirade against the staff, which was respectfully questioned by the deceased. Furious with that, the accused assaulted the deceased, who, first hid inside the security cabin. When the accused gained entry into the cabin by smashing the window panes and started assaulting him, he jumped out of it and ran on to the curb, near the fountain at the entrance itself. The accused then got into his c
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
