"Evidence Of Witness Can't Be Disbelieved On Ground Of Minor Contradictions In Testimony": Allahabad High Court Upholds Murder Conviction

The Allahabad High Court has reiterated that minor contradictions in the testimony of a witness which do not go to the root of the matter are not material contradictions and on this ground alone, the evidence of such witness cannot be brushed aside/disbelieved.

Observing thus, the bench of Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Sadhna Rani (Thakur) upheld the judgment and order of Sessions Judge, Mainpuri, convicting one Surya Udaivir, under Section 302 I.P.C. with life imprisonment.

The case in brief

Essentially, on June 16, 2006, the first informant Ram Vilas lodged a first information report asserting that he, along with his cousin Subhash Chandra (deceased) had gone to attend a feast in the village Bagpur.

At about 6.00 p.m., when they were about to leave, Rajendra Singh, Rajiv and Surya Udaiveer Shatru Daman Singh alias Sonu (appellant) suddenly came near Subhash Chandra and fired at him with a country-made pistol and he died on the spot. Further, the accused persons fled away firing shots from their country-made pistols.

The Sessions Court framed charges against all the three accused persons Rajendra, Rajeev, and Surya Udai Veer Shatru Daman Singh alias Sonu in January 2007 under Section 302/34 I.P.C.

After hearing the rival arguments and going through the evidence adduced, the lower court passed the impugned judgment and order in October 2010 and acquitted the other two accused and convicted the appellant Surya Udaiveer @ Sonu.

Court's observations 

At the outset, the Court discarded 3 primary arguments put forth by the appellant, firstly, that the first informant is the cousin of the deceased hence an interested witness, Secondly, that no independent witness had been produced by the prosecution and thirdly, P.W. 2 is not an eye witness, but a chance withness.

The Court opined that a close relative who is a natural witness cannot be disregarded as interested witness and all that is necessary is that the evidence of interested witness must be subjected to a careful scrutiny and accepted with caution.

"If on such scrutiny the interested testimony is found to be intrinsically reliable or inherently probable, it may, by itself, be sufficient in the circumstance of a particular case to base a conviction thereupon," the Court added.

Regarding the chance witness, the Court opined that merely because a witness happens to see an occurrence by chance, his testimony cannot be eschewed, though a little more scrutiny may be required at times.

Regarding, non production of the indenepnedent witnesses in the case, the Court observed that the deceased and the appellant both belong to the same village and normally the people show reluctance to become a witness in a murder case where the parties belong to the same village.

Agains this backdrop, the Court, in a significant obsevredtion, did observed thus:

"In our opinion, in the event of reluctance of general public to be a witness, a close relative is the only natural witness and being a close relative to the deceased he will try to prosecute the real culprit by saying the truth. There is no reason as to why a close relative will implicate and depose falsely against somebody screening the real culprit to be punished."

Significantly, the Court did noted that in the instant case, there was a contradiction between the statement of P.W.-1 and 2, on one side, when they state that the appellant made only one fire which caused the death of the deceased and the statement of the doctor, on the other side, who opined that two injuries had been sustained by the deceased and both the injuries could not be inflicted by one single fire but by two fires only.

However, the Court held that where there is contradiction between medical and ocular evidence though ocular testimony of witness has greater evidentiary value vis-a-vis medical evidence and that where eye witness account is found credible and trustworthy, medical opinion pointing to alternative possibilities cannot be accepted as conclusive.

Importantly, when the defence tried to points towards discrepancies in the testimony of witnesses (pw 1 and pw 2), the Court stressed that except the minor contradictions, there was nothing which casts any doubt on the credibility of the witnesses to show that their deposition was not true.

"Discrepancies of this nature which do not go to the root of the matter do not obliterate otherwise acceptable evidence. It need not be stated that it is by now well settled that minor variations should not be given undue importance while assessing the reliability of oral testimony and the consistency of the prosecution version as a whole,"  the Court further held.

Consequently, the Court came to the conclusion that it was proved that the witnesses of fact P.W. 1 and 2 completely supported the prosecution case and their evidence was found to be trustworthy and further, contradictions are minor in nature which do not go to the root of the matter.

Hence, the Court ruled that the impugned judgement and order, did not call for any interference. The appeal was accordingly, dismissed.

Case title - Surya Udaivir Alias Sonu v. State of U.P.

Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 197

Click here To Read/Download Judgment