Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Material Contradictions in FIS: Contradictions or omissions in the FIS are considered material and can significantly impact the credibility of the prosecution's case. For example, discrepancies between the FIS and subsequent testimonies or evidence can be used to challenge the reliability of the initial statement ["NIYAS S/O.MUHAMMAD ALI vs THE STATE OF KERALA - Kerala"], ["PACHAPPAN @ ARUCHAMI.T vs STATE OF KERALA - Kerala"], ["Pachappan @ Aruchami T. S/o Thayyan, Kunnamkadu Veedu VS State Of Kerala - Kerala"].
Use of 161 Statements for Contradiction: Statements under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. are admissible solely for contradiction and not for proving facts. Contradictions between a witness's previous statement and their court testimony can be established through these statements to undermine credibility ["KOYA vs STATE OF KERALA - Kerala"], ["Accused Nos. 2 and 3 vs State - Kerala"], ["ISMAIL vs STATE OF KERALA - Kerala"].
Proving Contradictions: Contradictions are proved by comparing the FIS with subsequent statements, testimonies, or police records. For instance, if the FIS states that a certain fact was observed or said, but the witness denies or contradicts this in court, it constitutes a material contradiction ["NIYAS S/O.MUHAMMAD ALI vs THE STATE OF KERALA - Kerala"], ["KOYA vs STATE OF KERALA - Kerala"], ["Habeeb S/o Ummar VS State of Kerala - Kerala"].
FIS Disowning and Fabrication: In some cases, witnesses have disowned their FIS, claiming it was concocted or incorrect, which weakens the prosecution's reliance on that document. For example, PW1 disowned his FIS, stating it was fabricated ["SANEESH vs STATE OF KERALA - Kerala"], ["HABEEB vs STATE OF KERALA - Kerala"].
Impact of Contradictions on Credibility: When contradictions are established, especially regarding key facts or the existence of the incident, they can cast doubt on the entire case, making it unsafe to rely on the evidence derived from the FIS or related testimonies ["NIYAS S/O.MUHAMMAD ALI vs THE STATE OF KERALA - Kerala"], ["Pachappan @ Aruchami T. S/o Thayyan, Kunnamkadu Veedu VS State Of Kerala - Kerala"], ["Habeeb S/o Ummar VS State of Kerala - Kerala"].
Judicial Approach: Courts often examine whether contradictions are natural and probable or material enough to affect the case's integrity. Minor contradictions or natural discrepancies are generally not sufficient to reject credible evidence unless they pertain to material facts ["Accused Nos. 2 and 3 vs State - Kerala"], ["PACHAPPAN @ ARUCHAMI.T vs STATE OF KERALA - Kerala"].
To prove contradiction in the FIS, one must:
Identify Discrepancies: Compare the FIS with subsequent court statements, police records, or other evidence to highlight inconsistencies. For example, contradictions between the FIS and the witness's oral testimony or other documents can be used as evidence of fabrication or unreliability ["NIYAS S/O.MUHAMMAD ALI vs THE STATE OF KERALA - Kerala"], ["Habeeb S/o Ummar VS State of Kerala - Kerala"].
Use Section 161 Statements: Utilize prior statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. to establish contradictions, bearing in mind their limited purpose (only for contradiction, not proof of facts) ["KOYA vs STATE OF KERALA - Kerala"], ["Accused Nos. 2 and 3 vs State - Kerala"].
Disowning or Discrepancies: Demonstrate that witnesses have disowned their FIS or that the FIS was recorded under suspicious circumstances (e.g., in hospital beds, without clarity on the recording location) ["SANEESH vs STATE OF KERALA - Kerala"], ["HABEEB vs STATE OF KERALA - Kerala"].
Corroborate with Other Evidence: Strengthen the contradiction by corroborating with other evidence such as forensic reports, witness testimonies, or police records that contradict the facts in the FIS ["Pachappan @ Aruchami T. S/o Thayyan, Kunnamkadu Veedu VS State Of Kerala - Kerala"], ["PACHAPPAN @ ARUCHAMI.T vs STATE OF KERALA - Kerala"].
In summary, proving contradiction in the FIS involves meticulous comparison of the initial statement with subsequent evidence, highlighting material discrepancies, and demonstrating that the contradictions are natural, probable, or material enough to impact the credibility of the prosecution's case.
In criminal trials, the First Information Statement (FIS), often the foundation of the prosecution's case, can become a battleground when inconsistencies arise. Question: How to prove contradiction in the FIS? This is a critical query for defense lawyers aiming to undermine witness credibility or challenge the prosecution's narrative. Proving contradictions isn't just about spotting discrepancies—it's a methodical process rooted in evidence law, demanding precision to sway the court.
This guide breaks down the primary approaches, drawing from Supreme Court principles and key case precedents. While this information is general and for educational purposes, consult a qualified lawyer for case-specific advice, as outcomes depend on individual facts and judicial discretion.
The FIS, typically recorded under Section 154 CrPC, captures the informant's initial account of the crime. It's a contemporaneous document but not substantive evidence—its value lies in corroboration or contradiction. Courts emphasize that contradictions in FIS or witness statements can erode credibility if they are material and go to the root of the matter. Minor variances, however, may be overlooked as natural memory lapses. Rahim Khan VS Khurshid Ahmed - 1974 0 Supreme(SC) 230
As the Supreme Court notes, the credibility of witnesses and the consistency of their statements are crucial in establishing contradictions. Rahim Khan VS Khurshid Ahmed - 1974 0 Supreme(SC) 230 Contradictions reveal irreconcilable facts, prompting courts to appraise testimony through sound commonsense and prudence combined with experience. Rahim Khan VS Khurshid Ahmed - 1974 0 Supreme(SC) 230
To demonstrate contradictions, focus on mutually exclusive facts within the FIS itself, between FIS and later testimony, or against other evidence. Here's how:
Cross-examination is the cornerstone. Confront the witness with specific portions of the FIS or prior statements to secure admissions of inconsistency.
The law mandates that contradictions must be proved and tested during cross-examination. Courts cannot suo motu use unproved police statements. Anees VS State Govt. Of NCT - 2024 4 Supreme 650
Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act allows prior statements (e.g., to police or in depositions) for contradiction, but strict procedure applies:
The court must see that record of statement of witnesses cannot be admitted in evidence straightaway, nor can be looked into, but they must be duly proved for the purpose of contradiction by eliciting admission from witness during cross-examination. Anees VS State Govt. Of NCT - 2024 4 Supreme 650
Failure to follow this renders contradictions unproved. Unless the contradiction is brought on record and then confront the same with the Officer who has recorded the statement, it cannot be taken to be as proved. Bijit Saikia @ Ken, S/o. Lt. Ghana Shyam Saikia VS State of Assam, Rep. by P. P. , Assam - 2023 Supreme(Gau) 357
In one case, the court stressed: However, if the witness denies of having made such statement before the Police then the particular portion of the statement should be previously marked for identification and when the Investigation Officer (I.O.) comes to the witness box, he should be questioned. Abdul Kadir VS State Of Assam - 2021 Supreme(Gau) 376
Juxtapose FIS against independent evidence:
Courts don't accept contradictions lightly. The Supreme Court advises: there is no golden rules for appraising human testimony and that judges can err honestly just as witness can make honestly mistaken statements under oath. Rahim Khan VS Khurshid Ahmed - 1974 0 Supreme(SC) 230 Appraise in context—material contradictions undermine credibility; trivial ones do not.
In election disputes, evidence must be carefully appraised, considering the overall circumstances. Rahim Khan VS Khurshid Ahmed - 1974 0 Supreme(SC) 230 Similarly, in criminal cases, unproved contradictions hold limited value. Anees VS State Govt. Of NCT - 2024 4 Supreme 650
From case law:
Beware these pitfalls:
In theft cases, failure to prove employee fault absolved liability, highlighting proof burdens. Securitrans India Private Limited vs FIS Payment Solutions And Services Private Limited - 2025 Supreme(Bom) 1814
To build a strong case:
Prosecution could only prove that Aruchami met with a homicidal death. Prosecution is yet to prove their case against the appellants. PACHAPPAN @ ARUCHAMI.T vs STATE OF KERALA - 2019 Supreme(Online)(KER) 43315 Use such precedents to argue reasonable doubt.
This process demands skill, but when executed, it can lead to acquittals or reduced charges. For tailored strategies, engage legal experts. Stay informed on evolving jurisprudence to navigate these complexities effectively.
References:- Rahim Khan VS Khurshid Ahmed - 1974 0 Supreme(SC) 230: Appraisal principles.- Anees VS State Govt. Of NCT - 2024 4 Supreme 650: Proving contradictions.- Additional cases: PACHAPPAN @ ARUCHAMI.T vs STATE OF KERALA - 2019 Supreme(Online)(KER) 43315, Bijit Saikia @ Ken, S/o. Lt. Ghana Shyam Saikia VS State of Assam, Rep. by P. P. , Assam - 2023 Supreme(Gau) 357, Abdul Kadir VS State Of Assam - 2021 Supreme(Gau) 376, Girish Singh VS State of Uttarakhand - 2019 6 Supreme 688, Bishwanath Singh VS State of Bihar - 2015 Supreme(Pat) 1206, SHAJAHAN @ SHAJIMON vs STATE OF KERALA Advocate - ADDL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION ADDL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION - 2019 Supreme(Online)(KER) 41077, Securitrans India Private Limited vs FIS Payment Solutions And Services Private Limited - 2025 Supreme(Bom) 1814.
#FISContradiction #CriminalLawIndia #LegalGuide
When PW6 the investigating officer who recorded Ext.P1 FIS was asked regarding the same, he simply answered that it is a clerical mistake. The afore contradiction brought out in evidence of PW1 is a material one affecting the credibility of the evidence of PW1 identifying the accused. ... At this juncture, it is pertinent to note that the learned counsel for the accused, during cross examination of PW1 has brought out a material contradiction in her evidence. ... Immediately thereafter, she lodged Ext.P1 FIS before the P....
But the respondent did not make any attempt to prove the rate for similar canvas prevalent in Kanpur on the date of breach. ... If the master can prove that thieves came in from outside and stole it without the fault of any of his servants, the master is not liable. ... It is only in case where the master can prove that the thieves came from outside and stole the goods without the fault of its servants, the master is not held liable. ... If the answer to Issue 9 & 10 above is in the affirmative, whether the Respondent proves that it took ....
The said omission is a material one and it also amounts to contradiction. ... Prosecution brought out the same as a material omission amounting to contradiction. ... He lodged -:7:- Ext.P1 First Information Statement (for short 'FIS') to PW17. ... Prosecution could only prove that Aruchami met with a homicidal death. Prosecution is yet to prove their case against the appellants. 15. ... Prosecution failed to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt. Eyewitnesse....
He lodged Ext.P1 First Information Statement (for short 'FIS') to PW17. PW2 to PW5 were cited to prove occurrence, but they turned hostile to the prosecution. PW6 is an attestor to Ext.P2 inquest report. PW7 is cited to prove Ext.P3 scene mahazar but he did not support the prosecution. ... Evidence of PW9 and PW10 showing dying declaration of the deceased is proved to be an omission amounting to contradiction. Recovery effected also lie under shadow of doubt. Prosecution could only prove that Aruchami m....
Exhibit PW7/A, the FIS of PW7, the mother of the victim, was recorded on the very same day of the incident. In the FIS, PW7 has stated thus:- “Today on 28.06.2016 at about 03:45 p.m. ... In that event, it would be necessary to prove that he did, and if the former statement was reduced to writing, then S.145 requires that his attention must be drawn to these parts which are to be used for contradiction. But that position does not arise when the witness admits the former statement. ... I have already referred to Exhibit PW....
In fact, he had no such case in Ext.P1 FIS as well. But PW2 has given evidence before Court stating that he had seen the incident. Ext.D2 is the contradiction of PW2 with reference to his statement in Ext.P9 inquest which had been denied by him. ... The autorickshaw in which the victim was taken to the hospital has not been traced out and no witness had been examined to prove the said fact. ... PW5 is the only witness examined to prove recovery. Apparently, he is an interested witness. The other recovery witness, accordi....
PW-1, the lady, who rendered the FIS, PW-2 her son, PW-4 the police constable who recorded the FIS, and PW5 the jewellery owner to whom the accused alleged to have sold the gold chain have deposed. PW-3 is the attester to the recovery mahazar, Ext.P3. ... The investigating officer was not examined to the prove the section 27 recovery statement and mahazar. PW-6 the witness to Ext.P3 seizure mahazar did not support the prosecution version. ... The contradiction in S.161 statement has been brought out that he has stated in....
First of all, no contradiction had been brought out in evidence. ... During cross-examination, nothing is brought out as material omission or contradiction. On the other hand, PW1 described features of the weapon used, affirmed that she had given Ext.P1 FIS to police and also stated that whatever she was speaking to are true as she had witnessed the incident. ... The learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is discrepancy in the statement of PW1 in the FIS and also in her evidence. ... No omission or #HL_STAR....
Ext.D1 is the relevant portion of case diary contradiction. 57. He does not remember whether accused No.2, Prajith and accused No.3, Vijith and the other accused were carrying sword or wooden rafter. Ext.D2 is the relevant portion of the case diary contradiction. ... The trial court took the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the conspiracy for the alleged commission of the offence, eventhough, they have examined PWs. 5, 6, 7, 8 and 13 in order to prove the existence of a criminal conspiracy. ... None of them ....
As is evident from the proviso to Section 162 Cr.P.C., 161 statements can be used only for the purpose of contradiction and not for proving the prosecution case. PW2 during cross examination when asked about the omission in the FIS, answered that she had stated so to the police. ... There is no doubt that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the foundational facts and the burden to prove the case never shifts. ... Likewise, it was pointed out that PW2 had initially not stated in her FIS that the a....
Unless the contradiction is brought on record and then confront the same with the Officer who has recorded the statement, it cannot be taken to be as proved. Further it has laid down the procedure how a contradiction has to be proved. It appears that learned Trial court has taken suo moto the statements recorded under Section 164 Cr.PC of the PW-3 and 6 without the same being proved as per law.
However, if the witness denies of having made such statement before the Police then the particular portion of the statement should be previously marked for identification and when the Investigation Officer (I.O.) comes to the witness box, he should be questioned as to whether the witness had made the particular statement before him during the course of investigation. Unless the said procedure is followed and the witnesses are given opportunities for explanation, their previous statements made before the police cannot be used for contradictions. On such failure, it was held that the testimony....
Prosecution did not produce any medical records with respect to the treatment undergone by PW7. But Ext.P1(a) the body note attached to Ext.P1 FIS and the evidence of PW17 who recorded the FIS would prove that PW1 also sustained an injury though minor, on his left thumb. Exbt.P1(a) is a contemporaneous document prepared by a police officer while recording the FIS.
We noticed that this aspect has not been considered at all by the High Court. This contradiction in evidence goes to the root of the matter. This proves that the prosecution case sought to be proved through PW-4, is unacceptable.
Attention has been drawn to his evidence that he stated before the police that when he reached the P.O. then he saw accused persons fleeing away towards South. Most interesting feature of the evidence of this witness is that he has stated that he reached the P.O. after P.W.2 Rambharosh Yadav, P.W.3 Ramadhar Yadav, P.W.4 Dineshwar Yadav reached there. However, I.O. has not been examined to prove contradiction. Hence his evidence shows that he reached at the P.O. after P.W. 2, 3 and 4 reached there whereas P.W. 2 and 4 has stated that they only saw the accused persons fleeing....
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
