Attorney General V. Visuvalingam

1946 Present: Cannon J.

ATTORNEY GENERAL, Appellant and VISUVALINGAM,.
Respondent

3.52-M. C. Kayts, 6,996.

Evidence- Contradictions of witnesses-Duty of Court Lu distinguish between material and immaterial Contradictions.

Before the evidence of a witness is rejected on the ground of contradiction s ii is very important that the tribunal should direct its mind as to what contradictions matter and what do not and that the witness should be given an opportunity of explaining those that matter.

APPEAL against an order of acquittal entered by the Magistrate of Kayts

J. 0. T. Weeraratne, C.C., for the complainant, appellant.

S. N. Rajaratnam (with him S. P. M. Rajendram), for the accused, respondent.

May 24, 1946. CANNON J.-
 
In this case the complainant, a woman, charged the accused, a man with causing her grievous hurt by fracturing three of her ribs with the handle of an axe.

For the prosecution two eye Witness and two medical witnesses gave evidence. The eye-witnesses were the complainant herself and her daughter aged ten. ?They tact that the complainant was dragged by the accused to a tree to which she was tied and that the accused hit her on the body a number of? times with the handle of an axe. On the saw Dr. Chelliah examined the complainant and found on her the found big injuries :-(1) a contusion on the back of the left chest; (2) a contusion on her left shoulder blade and (3) an abrasion on her right chest. After three days in Jaffna hospital she left. Two days later she went to Dr. Ponniah complaining of pain and he decided that an X?ray examination was advisable. X?ray examination revealed that her 8th, 9th and 10th ribs were fractured on the back of the left side of the chest. It requires no acute powers of reasoning to understand that the strong probabilities are that the blows which caused the contusions on the back of the loft chest which Dr. Chelliah found, also caused the fractures of the ribs, and there is the evidence of the complainant and her daughter that the accused hit her on the body with the handle of an axe. But the Magistrate, without calling upon the accused for his defence, acquitted him. Therefore, it is not surprising that the Attorney-General asks this Court to intervene.

The Magistrate in his reasons states that the evidence of the complainant is contradicted by the daughter. Now, it is conceded by Mr. Rajendram that there is only one contradiction in the evidence of these two witnesses. That contradiction relates to something which happened after the assault. The complainant said that alter the accused had gone away she was taken to the hospital by one Sinnadurai whom her child went to bring. The daughter in her evidence stated, ?He came there having heard about this. I did not go to tell him ?. it is very important that a tribunal should direct its mind as to what contradictions matter and what do not. This contradiction seems to have very little bearing on the question whether the accused assaulted the complainant, and had the witnesses been questioned about it, the matter might have been explained.

The Magistrate in his judgment further states, ?According to complaint?s as far evidence recorded back as May 31, 1945, she makes mention of accuser?s brother only being at the scene and released her?. Now, on May 31, the complainant gave evidence; but the record shows that that was evidence tendered merely for the purpose of enabling another Magistrate to formulate a charge and was, therefore, not necessarily exhaustive . After this evidence was given the accused was charged and the trial fixed for October 11, on which date the hearing was continued by the Magistrate whose reasons are now being examined. On this latter date the complainant, when she gave evidence, stated in cross- examination that the accused?s family were present at the time of the assault. Apparently the Magistrate thinks that be

Click Here to Read the rest of this document