State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Dal Singh & Ors, Criminal Appeal No. 2303 of 2009, Decided on
May 21, 2013
The Hon’ble
Supreme Court held that:
“So far as the discrepancies, embellishments and improvements are concerned,
in every criminal case the same are bound to occur for the reason that
witnesses, owing to common errors in observation, i.e., errors of memory due to
lapse of time, or errors owing to mental disposition, such as feelings shock or
horror that existed at the time of occurrence.
The court must form its opinion about the credibility of a witness,
and record a finding with respect to whether his deposition inspires
confidence. “Exaggeration per se does not render the evidence brittle. But it
can be one of the factors against which the credibility of the prosecution’s
story can be tested, when the entire evidence is put in a crucible to test the
same on the touchstone of credibility.” Therefore, mere marginal variations in
the statements of a witness cannot be dubbed as improvements, as the same may
be elaborations of a statement made by the witness at an earlier stage. “Irrelevant
details which do not in any way corrode the credibility of a witness cannot be
labelled as omissions or contradictions.” The omissions which amount to
contradictions in material particulars, i.e. which materially affect the trial,
or the core of the case of the prosecution, render the testimony of the witness
as liable to be discredited.
Where such omission(s) amount to contradiction(s), raising serious doubts
about the truthfulness of a witness, and other witnesses also make material
improvements before the court in order to make their evidence acceptable, it
cannot be said that it is safe to rely upon such evidence. [Para 7]
The Court noted
following case laws:
A. Shankar v.
State of Karnataka, AIR 2011 SC 2302
To see the
entire text follow the link: