Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Checking relevance for State of Madhya Pradesh VS Balveer Singh...
2025 4 Supreme 206 : The current position on a ''''tutored witness'''' is that the evidence of a witness is considered tutored if their testimony is shaped or influenced at the instance of someone else or is otherwise fabricated. Tutoring may produce two broad effects: (i) improvisation (adding new details, altering facts, or providing inconsistent versions not previously stated), or (ii) fabrication (doctored or falsified portions of testimony). To determine if a witness''''s testimony is tutored, two conditions must be established: (1) the ''''possibility or opportunity'''' of tutoring, which can be shown through delay in recording the statement, doubtful presence of the witness, motive to depose falsely, or susceptibility to tutoring; and (2) the ''''reasonable likelihood'''' of tutoring, which requires cogent substantiation through strong motive, unexplained delay suggestive of unfair practice, material discrepancies, contradictions, doubtful demeanor, or incompatibility with other evidence. Mere bald assertions of tutoring are insufficient. Improvisation must be addressed by confronting the witness with contradictions in their prior statement and giving them an opportunity to admit or deny it. If denied, the contradiction must be proved through the investigating officer''''s deposition. A witness''''s testimony may still be relied upon even if partially tutored, provided the untutored portion inspires confidence and can be separated from the tutored part. The court must carefully scrutinize the possibility of tutoring, especially in child witnesses, who are considered particularly pliable, but the testimony of a child witness who withstands cross-examination and provides a credible, coherent account without material discrepancies may be accepted as reliable even if some parts are coached.Checking relevance for State of Rajasthan VS Chatra...
2025 3 Supreme 630 : The trial Judge must be alive to the possibility of the child witness being swayed, influenced and tutored, for in their innocence, such matters are of ease for those who may wish to influence the outcome of the trial, in one direction or another. The court must rule out the possibility of the child being tutored. In the absence of any allegation regarding tutoring or using the child witness for ulterior purposes of the prosecution, the courts have no option but to rely upon the confidence inspiring testimony of such witness for the purposes of holding the accused guilty or not.Checking relevance for ARJUN PANDITRAO KHOTKAR VS KAILASH KUSHANRAO GORANTYAL...
Checking relevance for Harendra Rai VS State Of Bihar...
2023 6 Supreme 587 : The legal documents indicate that CW-1, Lalmuni Devi, was treated as a ''''tutored witness'''' by the High Court, which went beyond the Trial Court''''s finding that she was not a hearsay witness. The High Court based this conclusion on her last two lines during cross-examination, suggesting that her testimony was influenced or coached. This demonstrates that a witness may be deemed tutored if their testimony shows signs of being shaped or prepared by others, particularly during cross-examination, and such a finding can affect the credibility of their evidence in court.Checking relevance for State of M. P. VS Ramesh...
2011 2 Supreme 435 : The law recognizes that a child witness is susceptible to tutoring, but the mere possibility of tutoring is not sufficient to reject their testimony. The court must determine whether tutoring has actually occurred based on the contents of the deposition. If there is evidence on record showing that a child has been tutored, the court may reject the statement partly or fully. However, if the child''''s deposition is precise, concise, specific, vivid, and free from embellishment or improvement, it may be relied upon even without corroboration. The court may also separate the tutored part from the untutored part of a statement, and if the untutored part inspires confidence, it can be accepted or used for corroboration. The inference of tutoring can be drawn from the content of the deposition itself.Checking relevance for Sathyanesan VS State of Kerala...
Checking relevance for Faisal vs State Of NCT Of Delhi...
2025 0 Supreme(Del) 575 : The current position on a ''''tutored witness'''' is that the evidence of a child witness is considered tutored if their testimony is shaped or influenced at the instance of someone else or is otherwise fabricated. There are two broad effects of tutoring: (i) improvisation, where facts are altered or new details are added inconsistent with prior statements, which can be addressed by confronting the witness with contradictions and proving them through police statements; and (ii) total fabrication, which may lead to discarding the evidence only if two factors are established: (a) opportunity for tutoring (e.g., delay in recording the statement, doubtful presence, motive to lie, or susceptibility to influence), and (b) reasonable likelihood of tutoring (e.g., strong motive to lie, unexplained delay, material discrepancies, contradictions, sterile repetition, lack of confidence, or incompatibility with other evidence). However, minor repetitions or parts of a coached deposition do not automatically render the testimony tutored if the core of the testimony reflects what the child actually witnessed. Even if part of the statement is tutored, the untutored portion may still be relied upon if it inspires confidence and can be separated from the tainted part. The court must carefully scrutinize for signs of tutoring, especially in child witnesses, who are considered pliable and easily influenced.
