Scribd
Upload
3 views3 pages

Contradiction

The document discusses the distinction between material contradictions and minor discrepancies in witness statements within criminal jurisprudence. It emphasizes that only significant omissions or contradictions that affect the credibility of the prosecution's case can undermine the evidence, while minor discrepancies are often a normal part of human testimony. The courts have discretion to determine the impact of such discrepancies on the case based on the context and facts presented.

Uploaded by

snigdhachauhan21
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
3 views3 pages

Contradiction

The document discusses the distinction between material contradictions and minor discrepancies in witness statements within criminal jurisprudence. It emphasizes that only significant omissions or contradictions that affect the credibility of the prosecution's case can undermine the evidence, while minor discrepancies are often a normal part of human testimony. The courts have discretion to determine the impact of such discrepancies on the case based on the context and facts presented.

Uploaded by

snigdhachauhan21
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

Shyamal Ghosh v. State of W.B.

, (2012) 7 SCC 646


“68. From the above discussion, it precipitates that the discrepancies or the omissions have to
be material ones and then alone, they may amount to contradiction of some serious
consequence. Every omission cannot take the place of a contradiction in law and therefore, be
the foundation for doubting the case of the prosecution. Minor contradictions, inconsistencies
or embellishments of trivial nature which do not affect the core of the prosecution case
should not be taken to be a ground to reject the prosecution evidence in its entirety. It is only
when such omissions amount to a contradiction creating a serious doubt about the
truthfulness or creditworthiness of the witness and other witnesses also make material
improvements or contradictions before the court in order to render the evidence unacceptable,
that the courts may not be in a position to safely rely upon such evidence. Serious
contradictions and omissions which materially affect the case of the prosecution have to be
understood in clear contradistinction to mere marginal variations in the statement of the
witnesses. The prior may have effect in law upon the evidentiary value of the prosecution
case; however, the latter would not adversely affect the case of the prosecution.
…
70. In terms of the Explanation to Section 162 CrPC which deals with an omission to state a
fact or circumstance in the statement referred to in sub-section (1), such omission 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 there is any omission which
amounts to contradiction in particular context shall be a question of fact. A bare reading of
this Explanation reveals that if a significant omission is made in a statement of a witness
under Section 161 CrPC, the same may amount to contradiction and the question whether it
so amounts is a question of fact in each case. (Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal Gupta v. State of
Maharashtra [(2010) 13 SCC 657 : (2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 375] and Subhash v. State of Haryana
[(2011) 2 SCC 715 : (2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 689] .)

71. The basic element which is unambiguously clear from the Explanation to Section 162
CrPC is use of the expression “may”. To put it aptly, it is not every omission or discrepancy
that may amount to material contradiction so as to give the accused any advantage. If the
legislative intent was to the contra, then the legislature would have used the expression
“shall” in place of the word “may”. The word “may” introduces an element of discretion
which has to be exercised by the court of competent jurisdiction in accordance with law.
Furthermore, whether such omission, variation or discrepancy is a material contradiction or
not is again a question of fact which is to be determined with reference to the facts of a given
case. The concept of contradiction in evidence under criminal jurisprudence, thus, cannot be
stated in any absolute terms and has to be construed liberally so as to leave desirable
discretion with the court to determine whether it is a contradiction or material contradiction
which renders the entire evidence of the witness untrustworthy and affects the case of the
prosecution materially.”

Gangadhar Behera v. State of Orissa, (2002) 8 SCC 381


“15. … normal discrepancies in evidence are those which are due to normal errors of
observation, normal errors of memory due to lapse of time, due to mental disposition such as
shock and horror at the time of occurrence and those are always there however honest and
truthful a witness may be. Material discrepancies are those which are not normal, and not
expected of a normal person. Courts have to label the category to which a discrepancy may
be categorised. While normal discrepancies do not corrode the credibility of a party's case,
material discrepancies do so. These aspects were highlighted recently in Krishna Mochi v.
State of Bihar [Krishna Mochi v. State of Bihar, (2002) 6 SCC 81 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 1220] .”

State of H.P. v. Lekh Raj, (2000) 1 SCC 247


“7. In support of the impugned judgment the learned counsel appearing for the respondents
vainly attempted to point out some discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix and other
witnesses for discrediting the prosecution version. Discrepancy has to be distinguished from
contradiction. Whereas contradiction in the statement of the witness is fatal for the case,
minor discrepancy or variance in evidence will not make the prosecution's case doubtful. The
normal course of the human conduct would be that while narrating a particular incident there
may occur minor discrepancies, such discrepancies in law may render credential to the
depositions. Parrot-like statements are disfavoured by the courts. In order to ascertain as to
whether the discrepancy pointed out was minor or not or the same amounted to contradiction,
regard is required to be had to the circumstances of the case by keeping in view the social
status of the witnesses and environment in which such witness was making the statement.
This Court in Ousu Varghese v. State of Kerala held that minor variations in the accounts of
the witnesses are often the hallmark of the truth of their testimony. In Jagadish v. State of
M.P. this Court held that when the discrepancies were comparatively of a minor character and
did not go to the root of the prosecution story, they need not be given undue importance.
Mere congruity or consistency is not the sole test of truth in the depositions. This Court again
in State of Rajasthan v. Kalki held that in the depositions of witnesses there are always
normal discrepancies, however, honest and truthful they may be. Such discrepancies are due
to normal errors of observation, normal errors of memory due to lapse of time, due to mental
disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence, and the like. Material
discrepancies are those which are not normal and not expected of a normal person.”

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy