S.145 Evidence Act | Witness Not Expected To Accurately Recall Sequence Of Rapid Events, Minor Errors In Testimony Not Contradiction: Kerala HC

The Court further observed that minor discrepancies in the statements does not amount to contradiction. Such discrepancies can occur due to normal errors of observations or normal errors of memory due to lapse of time. The Court added that such discrepancies will always be there, however honest and truthful the witness is. The witness is not expected to correctly recall the sequence of events in rapid succession or in a short span of time. Some variance with the former statement is not enough. Only if the former statement can discredit the later statement, the witness can be contradicted.

“It is well settled that when eye-witnesses are examined at length, it is quite possible for them to make some discrepancies and only when the discrepancies in the evidence of witnesses are so incompatible with the credibility of their version, the court will be justified in disbelieving their evidence.”

These observations were made by Justice Johnson John in an order dismissing a Criminal Appeal that challenged the convictions of the appellants under Section 450, 324 and 307 of Indian Penal Code. The accused were alleged to have struck the victim with a sword on his neck, cut his knee with a sword and beat the accused on various parts of his body with iron rods and sticks. The accused and victims were members of two opposing political parties. The appellants who were the first 2 accused were convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of three years.

The appellant argued that 7 of the 9 accused were acquitted in the lower court. This shows that the eye witnesses are not fully reliable. Added to that, there is some contradictions between the statements of eye witness and evidence of the investigating officers.

Court discarded this argument as it did not find anything that amounts to a contradiction. Further, the attention of the witnesses was not bought to their statements to contradict them. Therefore, no material contradiction can be found in their evidence, it held.

The victim in his statement had identified by name the person who struck him with the sword. However, to the doctor treating his injury, he said that people who was called by someone outside had stuck him. This, the appellant alleged was a contradiction. Court observed that impact of non-disclosure of names of assailants to the doctor depends on the specific facts and circumstances of each case. The duty of a doctor is to treat and not to investigate, it held.

In another argument, appellant said that a police officer had reached the spot the night of the incident itself. However, the FIR was recorded only the next day. The Police said that in the night, victim's mother had become unconscious after seeing her son in a gravely injured state. There was no other witness who saw the incident at the spot then. The police tried to get the statement of the victim from the hospital also, but, he was unconscious at that time. Court accepted these as reasons explaining the delay in filing the First Information Report and dismissed the Appeal.

Counsel for Appellant: Advocate S. Rajeev

Counsel for Respondents: Senior Public Prosecutor Vipin Narayan

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 333

Case Title: Chandanapurath Rajeevan and Another v State of Kerala

Case No.: Crl. (A) No 2043 of 2006