Raj Kumar Singh @ Raju @ Batya vs. State of Rajasthan, Criminal Appeal No. 931-932
of 2009, Decided on May 6, 2013
This
case was based on circumstantial evidence. The Appellant taken the ground of discrepancies
and contradiction in the statement of witnesses produced by the prosecution.
The Hon’ble
Supreme Court held:
“It is a settled legal proposition that, while appreciating
the evidence of a witness, minor discrepancies on trivial matters, which do not
affect the core of the case of the prosecution, must not prompt the court to
reject the evidence thus provided, in its entirety. The irrelevant details,
which do not in any way corrode the credibility of a witness, cannot be labeled
as omissions or contradictions. Therefore, the courts must be cautious and very
particular, in their exercise of appreciating evidence. The approach to be
adopted is, if the evidence of a witness is read in its entirety, and the same
appears to have in it, a ring of truth, then it may become necessary for the
court to scrutinize the evidence more particularly, keeping in mind the
deficiencies, drawbacks and infirmities pointed out in the said evidence as a
whole, and evaluate them separately, to determine whether the same are
completely against the nature of the evidence provided by the witnesses, and
whether the validity of such evidence is shaken by virtue of such evaluation,
rendering it unworthy of belief. “Exaggerations per se do not render the
evidence brittle. But it can be one of the factors to test the credibility of
the prosecution version, when the entire evidence is put in a crucible for
being tested on the touchstone of credibility.” It is in fact, the entirety of
the situation, which must be taken into consideration. While appreciating the
evidence, the court must not attach undue importance to minor discrepancies,
rather must consider broad spectrum of the prosecution version. The
discrepancies may be due to normal errors of perception or observation or due
to lapse of memory or due to faulty or stereotype investigation. After
exercising such care and caution, and sifting through the evidence to separate
truth from untruth, embellishments and improvements, the court must determine
whether the residuary evidence is sufficient to convict the accused. [Para 38]
The Court
on the facts of the case held:
“In the instant case,
there have been major contradictions/ improvements/embellishments in the
deposition of witnesses, which cannot be ignored when they are examined in the
correct perspective. The chain of links connecting the appellant with the crime
appears inconclusive.”
The
Court also noted following case laws:
Kehar Singh & Ors. v. State (Delhi Admn.), AIR 1988 SC
1883, the Court has held that if the discrepancies are material it would be
safer to err in acquitting than in convicting the accused.
Subhash v. State of Haryana, AIR 2011 SC 349, the Court has
held that a significant omission in the statement of a witness recorded under
Section 161 CrPC. may amount to a major contradiction. However, it may depend
upon the facts of case and in case of a material contradiction the accused
becomes entitled for benefit of doubt and thus acquittal.
Bihari Nath Goswami v. Shiv Kumar Singh & Ors., (2004) 9
SCC 186;
Vijay @ Chinee v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2010) 8 SCC 191;
Sampath Kumar v. Inspector of Police,
Krishnagiri, AIR 2012 SC 1249
To see the full text follow the link