Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Non-mention of an eye-witness's name in the inquest report does not automatically discredit their testimony or imply their absence at the incident ["Rankanidhi Nayak vs State of Odisha - Orissa"]. Similarly, the absence of the accused's name in the inquest report does not mean they were not present during the offense ["Rankanidhi Nayak vs State of Odisha - Orissa"].
The credibility of eye-witnesses cannot be solely rejected based on their omission from the inquest report; their testimony can still be considered reliable if supported by medical and other evidences ["Rankanidhi Nayak vs State of Odisha - Orissa"] ["Rankanidhi Nayak VS State of Orissa - Crimes"].
Several cases emphasize that discrepancies or omissions regarding witness names in the inquest report do not necessarily negate their evidence, especially when their statements are corroborated elsewhere or when they are injured witnesses ["Anuj Kumar Singh VS State of Bihar - Patna"] ["Amar Singh VS State of U. P. - Allahabad"].
Witnesses who sign the inquest report but are not actual eye-witnesses to the incident have been distinguished from genuine eye-witnesses; their signatures alone do not establish their presence at the scene ["Lalbabu Pandit @ Krishna Patel Son of Bhikhari Pandit VS State Of Bihar - Patna"] ["Amar Singh VS State of U. P. - Allahabad"].
The identification of an eye-witness can vary, and witnesses may sometimes be described as so-called or projected, indicating that their status as eye-witnesses depends on their direct involvement and testimony, not merely their mention in reports ["Anuj Kumar Singh VS State of Bihar - Patna"] ["Inderjeet Patro @ Indrajeet Pater son of Rashu Patro VS State of Bihar (now Jharkhand) - Jharkhand"].
Discrepancies in witness statements or their omission from certain reports are not always sufficient to discard their testimony, especially if their presence at the scene is not disputed or if their account is supported by other evidence ["Inderjeet Patro @ Indrajeet Pater son of Rashu Patro VS State of Bihar (now Jharkhand) - Jharkhand"] ["Chandia @ Chandi Sethy vs State of Odisha - Orissa"].
In some cases, witnesses who are initially reported as eye-witnesses later are found not to be actual witnesses, and their testimonies are scrutinized for consistency and credibility, but the absence of their mention in the inquest report alone is not conclusive ["Md. Mazed @ Majid vs The State Of Bihar - Patna"] ["Guru Oraon VS State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) - Jharkhand"].
Analysis and Conclusion:The main insight across these cases is that the mention or omission of a witness's name in the inquest report is not determinative of their status as an eye-witness or the reliability of their testimony. Courts have consistently held that such omissions do not automatically lead to rejection of their evidence, especially when supported by other corroborative evidence or when the witnesses' presence at the scene is established through their statements or injuries. The credibility of eyewitness testimony depends more on consistency, support from medical or other evidences, and their direct involvement, rather than solely on their mention in the inquest report ["Rankanidhi Nayak vs State of Odisha - Orissa"], ["Rankanidhi Nayak VS State of Orissa - Crimes"], ["Anuj Kumar Singh VS State of Bihar - Patna"], ["Amar Singh VS State of U. P. - Allahabad"].
In criminal trials, especially murder cases, the reliability of eyewitness testimony often hinges on small details. What happens when an eyewitness's name is mentioned differently—or omitted entirely—in the inquest report? This common query arises in Indian courts: eye witness name differently mentioned in inquest. Does such a discrepancy doom the prosecution's case? Generally, no. Indian judiciary emphasizes the limited scope of inquest reports under Section 174 Cr.P.C., prioritizing corroborative evidence over minor naming issues. This post breaks down key judgments, exceptions, and practical insights.
The inquest report, prepared under Section 174 Cr.P.C., is a preliminary inquiry into the cause of death—whether suicidal, homicidal, accidental, or otherwise. It is not a full investigation or substantive evidence. Courts have repeatedly held: Basic purpose of holding an inquest is to report regarding the apparent cause of death... Not necessary to enter all the details of the overt acts in the inquest report – Inquest report cannot be treated as substantive evidence but may be utilised for contradicting the witnesses of inquest. Brahm Swaroop VS State of U. P. - 2010 7 Supreme 549 Similarly, Preparation of inquest report contemplated u/s 174 Cr.P.C. does not require any where to mention the names of assailants. Mahendra Rai VS Mithilesh Rai - 1997 1 Supreme 201
Inquests focus on the corpse's condition, not naming all eyewitnesses or accused. Omissions or variations are routine and non-fatal. For instance, Mention of the name of the accused and eye witness in the inquest report is not necessary. Due to non-mentioning of the name of the accused in the inquest report, it cannot be inferred that FIR was not in existence at the time of inquest proceedings. Nathufal, son of Late Halim VS State Of Bihar - 2016 Supreme(Pat) 1563
This aligns with broader principles: Preparation of the inquest is independent of FIR lodging and relevant only for identifying the corpse and death nature. Nathufal, son of Late Halim VS State Of Bihar - 2016 Supreme(Pat) 1563
Minor confusions, like similar names, do not discredit testimony if context clarifies roles. A pivotal case involved distinguishing Everester (P.W.5, eyewitness) from Everest (P.W.8, son arriving post-incident). The trial judge erred by conflating them based on FIR (Ex.P.1), but the appellate court clarified: If only the learned trial Judge had just bestowed his attention for a while as to why two persons of the same name appear in Ex. P. 1, but in different context and with different roles to play, he could have seen that P.W. 5 is Everester who was an eye-witness... The names of the fathers of P.W. 5 and P.W. 8 are also mentioned differently in their depositions. State, By Public Prosecutor And Another VS Selvaraj And Others - 1992 0 Supreme(Mad) 312 The inquest (Ex.P-22) correctly noted P.Ws.5 and 6, upholding their status.
Omissions are similarly overlooked: Evidence of eyewitnesses can not be discarded if their names do not figure in the inquest report prepared at the earliest point of time... Any omission or discrepancy in the inquest is not fatal to the prosecution’s case. Brahm Swaroop VS State of U. P. - 2010 7 Supreme 549 In a bus assault, an accused's name absence did not discredit multiple witnesses, including independent P.W.7 (driver): The mere fact that for some reason or the other his name is not mentioned in the inquest report cannot be a ground to reject the evidence of so many witnesses. Eqbal Baig VS State Of A. P. - 1986 0 Supreme(SC) 84 Echoing this, Evidence of eye witnesses can not be rejected only on the ground that their names did not figure in the inquest report. Khujji Surendra Tiwari VS State Of M. P. - 1991 0 Supreme(SC) 318
Other sources reinforce: Inquests may note witnesses present without full details, and non-mention does not imply fabrication. Birju Paswan VS State of Bihar - 2015 Supreme(Pat) 885
Courts demand consistency with FIR, medical evidence, and independent witnesses. Courts reject defenses relying solely on naming discrepancies in inquest if independent witnesses or medical evidence corroborate the eye-witness account. Eqbal Baig VS State Of A. P. - 1986 0 Supreme(SC) 84Babu Singh VS State Of Punjab - 1996 4 Supreme 308 For reliable independents: If a witness is found to be independent and reliable and is believed to be present during the occurrence then his evidence cannot be rejected on sole ground that his name had not been mentioned in F.I.R. Babu Singh VS State Of Punjab - 1996 4 Supreme 308 (applicable to inquests).
Even if inquests mention extras (e.g., unsupported accused), clarified roles elsewhere prevail. Paramasamy alias Parama Thevar and others VS State represented by The Inspector of Police, Kallikudi Police Station - 2005 0 Supreme(Mad) 111 Medical and deposition alignment trumps isolated errors.
While generally non-fatal, unexplained central discrepancies can create doubt. For example, contradictions between witnesses and the Investigating Officer on naming accused at inquest may suggest after-thought. Suresh VS State Represented by Inspector of Police - 2016 0 Supreme(SC) 1028 Artificial conduct, like unreported fleeing, or late witness emergence amplifies issues. Kannan VS State through Inspector of Police - 2003 0 Supreme(Mad) 1972
In some acquittals, inquest omissions fueled broader credibility concerns: The inquest did not name appellants, recording only that the victim was burnt at home, rendering PW 2's account unreliable without clarity. SK. MORSED ALI & ORS. vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL - 2026 Supreme(Online)(Cal) 446 Similarly, signatories to inquests who are not eyewitnesses highlight proof burdens: Prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt, especially with related witnesses lacking corroboration. Lalbabu Pandit @ Krishna Patel Son of Bhikhari Pandit VS State Of Bihar - 2024 Supreme(Pat) 1027
Inconsistencies in FIRs, like naming absent witnesses, or failure to disclose sources of information undermine claims. Bhuil Manjhi, S/o Khelawan Manjhi vs State of Bihar - 2025 Supreme(Pat) 738Lala vs State - 2025 Supreme(Online)(All) 80078 Courts acquit where testimonies falter without independent verification, emphasizing: Conviction cannot be based on uncorroborated testimony of a closely related witness, particularly where significant inconsistencies exist. Bhuil Manjhi, S/o Khelawan Manjhi vs State of Bihar - 2025 Supreme(Pat) 738
Unexplained delays or non-disclosures in inquests versus FIRs (e.g., no eyewitness named in inquest but named later) invite scrutiny. Chandrashekher alias Shakher, S/o Bhagi Ram VS State of M. P. (now Chhattisgarh) through P. S. Dondi, District Durg - 2016 Supreme(Chh) 291 Infirmities like missing FIR references or eyewitness names may suggest ante-dated FIRs. KHALIL VS STATE OF U. P. - 2015 Supreme(All) 1321
This analysis draws from established judgments, but outcomes depend on case facts. Consult a qualified lawyer for advice tailored to your situation—this is general information, not legal counsel.
References:1. State, By Public Prosecutor And Another VS Selvaraj And Others - 1992 0 Supreme(Mad) 312: Resolving similar names via contexts.2. Brahm Swaroop VS State of U. P. - 2010 7 Supreme 549: Inquest purpose and non-fatality.3. Eqbal Baig VS State Of A. P. - 1986 0 Supreme(SC) 84: Omissions no bar to multiple testimonies.4. Khujji Surendra Tiwari VS State Of M. P. - 1991 0 Supreme(SC) 318: Reiterates non-rejection for absences.5. Babu Singh VS State Of Punjab - 1996 4 Supreme 308: Reliable witnesses prevail.6. Mahendra Rai VS Mithilesh Rai - 1997 1 Supreme 201: No duty to name in inquest.7. Additional: Nathufal, son of Late Halim VS State Of Bihar - 2016 Supreme(Pat) 1563, SK. MORSED ALI & ORS. vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL - 2026 Supreme(Online)(Cal) 446, etc.
#EyewitnessTestimony #InquestReport #CriminalLawIndia
State of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1987 SC 923 that the non-mention of name of an eye-witness in the inquest report could not be a ground to reject his testimony. ... Similarly, the absence of the name of the accused in the inquest report cannot lead to an inference that he was not present at the time of commission of the offence as the inquest report is not the statement of a person wherein all the names (accused and also the eye-witnesses) ought to have b....
State of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1987 SC 923 that the non-mention of name of an eye-witness in the inquest report could not be a ground to reject his testimony. ... Similarly, the absence of the name of the accused in the inquest report cannot lead to an inference that he was not present at the time of commission of the offence as the inquest report is not the statement of a person wherein all the names (accused and also the eye-witnesses) ought to have b....
At this stage, it is pertinent to note that though it was reported to the police by the so-called eye-witness, Deepu Singh that deceased died because of gun-shot injury, name of the assailants were not disclosed before the concerned police authority at the time of preparing the inquest report. ... In the fardbeyan given by him, he has specifically disclosed the name of the appellants and the manner and method in which the occurrence took place. PW-1 is also projected as an eye-#HL_STAR....
The Inquest was conducted on May 3, 2012. The inquest report did not name the appellants. The inquest report recorded that the inquest witnesses have stated that the victim had been burnt in her matrimonial house. ... The lack of clarity in the evidence of PW 2 on this score renders his eye witness account of the appellants having set the victim on fire unreliable. 17. ... Inquest was performed the day after the incident where the brother-in-law of ....
PW-4 Langtu Pandit, as stated hereinabove, is the witness who has signed the Inquest Report and he has identified his signature in the Inquest Report. However, the said witness is not an eye-witness to the incident in question. 17. ... PW-4, as stated hereinabove, is the signatory to the Inquest Report and he has identified the signature but he is not an eye-witness. 25. ... Thus, from the aforesaid deposition of PW-2, it can be sai....
PW-4 Langtu Pandit, as stated hereinabove, is the witness who has signed the Inquest Report and he has identified his signature in the Inquest Report. However, the said witness is not an eye-witness to the incident in question. 17. ... PW-4, as stated hereinabove, is the signatory to the Inquest Report and he has identified the signature but he is not an eye-witness. 25. ... Thus, from the aforesaid deposition of PW-2, it can be sai....
We have also perused the inquest report (Ext. ka-3) and found that case crime number and sections are clearly mentioned in the inquest report, which means that the inquest was performed after lodging the F.I.R. ... PW-5 – Ishwar Dayal is the witness of inquest and has proved the inquest report Ext. ka-3. 24. PW-6 – R.S. ... There are catena of decisions on the point that in a case based upon the eye witness account, the motive loses....
From his deposition also, it would appear that he is not an eye witness of the occurrence and he claims to have come to know that accused persons had killed his father. He has not disclosed the name of the person from whom he came to know this. 15. ... Manoj Kumar No.1, learned Amicus Curiae has submitted that in this case, it is the informant (P.W. 6) who alone claims to be an eye witness of the occurrence. ... He has proved his signature as a witness on the inquest ....
PW7 further stated that before preparing inquest report the name of the assailants were disclosed by the informant. ... If that was so, then, informant would have definitely mentioned the name of these appellants as assailant and, as such, it falsifies the statement of the informant about assault and, hence, the conviction under sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code is not sustainable. ... Whether the informant PW6 who is the sole eye witness of the case and is trustworthy and relia....
He has also said that the name of witness Chhinau was mentioned in the FIR, though he was not present at the spot. This statement is contrary to his previous statement as well as that of P.W.2, that after waking up Chhinau, they went to the place of occurrence, along with Chhinau. ... They are P.W.1, Ram Kishor (the informant and eye-witness), P.W.2 Pancham (eye-witness), P.W.3 Dr. A.K. Nigam (Medical Officer, who conducted the post-mortem examiniation) and P.W.4 S.I.....
Rafiq, a close relative while he was in the house of PW-1. Thus he also could not be an eye-witness, but only a witness to the inquest.
Mention of the name of the accused and eye witness in the inquest report is not necessary. Due to non-mentioning of the name of the accused in the inquest report, it cannot be inferred that FIR was not in existence at the time of inquest proceedings.
It appears to us that the inquest was conducted prior to lodging of the Dehati Nalishi. Even if we assume that the FIR had to be lodged in the police station, then also immediately a report should have been recorded may be in the form of Dehati Nalishi and sent to the police station through one of the constables and FIR should have been lodged immediately. We say this because in the inquest no eye witness has been named but in the Dehati Nalishi, the eyewitness has been named. We do not understand why a Dehati Nalishi should have been recorded.
He further submitted that the Inquest report is not accompanied by any relevant papers and there are infirmities in the preparation of the inquest report for the following reasons: (ii) Reference of the F.I.R. and chik report as well as the entries made in the G.D. should have been given in the inquest report and Non mentioning of such details itself shows that the F.I. R. was not in existence at the time of preparation of inquest report. (i) The names of the eye-witnesses should have been mentioned in the inquest report. Thus, the possibility of F.l.R. being ante timed can....
1, 12 Phagu Manjhi, Lakshan Manjhi are the co-villagers of the informant. They are not only eye-witnesses of the occurrence but also witness to the inquest. 2, 7, 8, 9 Kailash Manjhi, Dasarath Manjhi, Tetari Manjhi, Piyaria Devi are the co-villagers of the informant.
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
