Is Every Omission in Chief Examination a Contradiction?

2024 4 Supreme 257

Thus, every omission is not a contradiction. It becomes a contradiction provided it satisfies the test laid down in the explanation under Section 162. ... —An omission to state a fact or circumstance in the statement referred to in sub-section (1) may amount to contradiction if the same appears to be significant and otherwise relevant having regard to the context in which such omission occurs and whether any omission amounts t....

2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 1581

and whether any omission amounts to contradiction in the particular context shall be a question of fact. ... Thus, every omission is not a contradiction. It becomes a contradiction provided it satisfies the test laid down in the explanation under S.162. ... Thus, the law is trite that when there is an omission which becomes a contradiction, the procedure provided under the proviso to Section 162 Cr.PC has to be followed for contradi....

2024 Supreme(Online)(HP) 4148

for trial for a charge of murder, omission to state 'X murdered Y' will be a material omission, and amount to contradiction so far defence of 'W' is concerned. ... This witness stated the number of capsules as 815 in his examination-in-chief but subsequently clarified in his examination-in-chief, as well as in his cross-examination that the number of capsules was 850. 815 and 850 are phonetically similar and there can be an error in recording the num....

2025 Supreme(Online)(HP) 9362

Thus, every omission is not a contradiction. It becomes a contradiction provided it satisfies the test laid down in the explanation under Section 162. ... Only when there is a material contradiction or omission can the Court disbelioeve the witness's version either fully or partially. What is a material contradiction or omission, depending upon the facts of each case? Whether an omission is a contradictio....

2024 0 Supreme(Chh) 373

Explanation - An omission to state a fact or circumstance in the statement referred to in sub-section (1) may amount to contradiction if the same appears to be significant and otherwise relevant having regard to the context in which such omission occurs and whether any omission ... There is nothing which inhibits his power to put questions to the witnesses, either during chief examination or cross- examination or even during reexamination to elicit ....

2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 217

of contradiction : in other words, both parts deal with cross examination; the first part with cross examination other than by way of contradiction, and the second with cross examination by way of contradiction only. ... But if the witness asserts that he had stated the name of C also to the police officer that omission is to be proved by putting that omission to that officer during his examination. He must be asked whethe....

whether there is a vital omission or not and his direction on the law in this respect is binding on the members of the jury. ... Thereafter the trial judge perused the Information Book Extracts for the second time as follows: It appears that the Learned High Court Judge perused the Information Book Extracts again for the purpose of ascertaining whether the omission in issue was indeed an omission ... When defence counsel spotlights a vital omission, the trial Judge ought t....

2025 Supreme(Online)(AP) 16096

—An omission to state a fact or circumstance in the statement referred to in sub-section (1) may amount to contradiction if the same appears to be significant and otherwise relevant having regard to the context in which such omission occurs and whether any omission amounts to a contradiction in the particular ... In this context, the explanation attached to Section 162 Cr.P.C. further fortifies that, whether any omission amounts to a contra....

1994 0 Supreme(Guj) 341

In order to see whether there is a contradiction by omission, it is necessary to find out whether two statements cannot stand together. ... in which such omission occurs and whether any omission amounts to a contradiction in the particular context shall be a question of fact. ... It is a real contradiction though an omission. ... Every omission does not amount to contra....

2025 Supreme(SRI)(CA) 295

The issue is whether the contradiction or inconsistency goes to the root of the case or relates to the core of a party's case. ... Accordingly, the contradiction marked D5 cannot be regarded as a falsehood but rather as a mere exaggeration of the facts. Likewise, the question of whether Roshan was running while screaming or merely groaning in pain does not constitute a material contradiction. ... Furthermore, it is significant to note that whether PW2 attended the funeral with PW1 and ....

2018 0 Supreme(Bom) 210

The statement of PW-11 Bayanabai is recorded on 16.1.2002. The prosecution has not established that dowry was demanded much less that the deceased was ill-treated or harassed for or in connection with dowry demand. Deceased Surekha disclosed that her husband was complaining as regards the ornaments and the quality of the clothes, is the deposition. In the cross-examination every material statement in the examination in chief is brought on record as an omission. The omissions are duly proved in the evidence of the Investigating Officer PW-19. PW-15 states that it was disclos....

2018 0 Supreme(Bom) 205

In the cross-examination, not a single omission is brought on record much less a significant omission tantamounting to contradiction. The cross-examination is substantially directed at bringing on record the strained relationship between the witness and DW-1 Prakash to buttress the defence of false implication.

2017 0 Supreme(Bom) 2028

The omissions are duly proved in the cross-examination of PW 7 - Ishaque Sheikh, the scribe of statement recorded under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In the cross-examination, several significant omissions are brought on record. Indeed, every material and significant statement in the examination in chief is shown to be an omission. Be it noted, that even the statement that Vaishali told the witness that the accused threw stove on the person of Vaishali is an omission which is duly proved

2017 0 Supreme(Bom) 1772

“It was stated by me to police that my husband came from casting vote and was standing on the pan shop. PW 2 – Ratnakala, further deposes that she inquired with the accused as to why the accused stabbed Bhaiyyalal and the response was that Bhaiyyalal was “watching the accused”. Every material statement in the examination in chief is brought on record as omission as is evident from the portion of the cross-examination reproduced below:

2017 0 Supreme(Bom) 1726

Every material statement in the examination in chief is brought on record as omission as is evident from the portion of the cross-examination reproduced below: “It was stated by me to police that my husband came from casting vote and was standing on the pan shop. PW 2 – Ratnakala, further deposes that she inquired with the accused as to why the accused stabbed Bhaiyyalal and the response was that Bhaiyyalal was “watching the accused”.