Witness Not Discredited By Mere Contradiction Between Testimony And Statement Given To Police : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently observed that a witness will not stand totally discredited merely because the testimony given during the trial contradicted the earlier statement given to the police.  

"No doubt statement given before police during investigation under Section 161 are “previous statements” under Section 145 of the Evidence Act and therefore can be used to cross examine a witness. But this is only for a limited purpose, to “contradict” such a witness. Even if the defence is successful in contradicting a witness, it would not always mean that the contradiction in her two statements would result in totally discrediting this witness

The contractions in the two statements may or may not be sufficient to discredit a witness. Section 145 read with Section 155 of the Evidence Act, have to be carefully applied in a given case", the Court stated.

The court relied on Rammi v. State of M.P. (1999) 8 SCC 649, which held : “Merely because there is inconsistency in evidence it is not sufficient to impair the credit of the witness. No doubt Section 155 of the Evidence Act provides scope for impeaching the credit of a witness by proof of an inconsistent former statement. But a reading of the section would indicate that all inconsistent statements are not sufficient to impeach the credit of the witness. Only such of the inconsistent statement which is liable to be “contradicted” would affect the credit of the witness. Section 145 of the Evidence Act also enables the cross-examiner to use any former statement of the witness, but it cautions that if it is intended to “contradict” the witness the cross-examiner is enjoined to comply with the formality prescribed therein.”

The bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia was hearing an appeal against a judgment of the Rajasthan High Court which acquitted the convicts for major offenses under sections 302 and 307 IPC, retaining only Sections 147, 148, 323, 324, 325/149 and reduced their sentences to the period already spent in jail.

The case originated from an FIR filed on 22nd May 2001 by the complainant Birbal Nath. According to the complaint, at around 1:00 PM, seven armed men approached an agricultural field where the complainant's uncle 'Chandernath' and his aunt 'Rami' were working. They brutally assaulted both the victims who sustained severe injuries. Chandernath tragically passed away while en route to Jodhpur hospital. The police subsequently filed a chargesheet, and the case was transferred to the Sessions Court. Charges were framed against all six accused based on various sections of the Indian Penal Code, including Sections 147, 148, 302, 323/149, 324/149, 325/149, 447, and 307/149.

In the appeal, he HC had acquitted the accused under Section 302 & Section 307 of IPC based on the presumption that it was not a pre-meditated attack, rather it was a clash between two groups. The HC relied on the fact that assailants too had sustained injuries and observed discrepancies in the evidence of PW-2(wife of deceased).

At the outset, the Supreme Court went on to examine the evidence given by the wife who herself was a victim and was seriously injured. The Court emphasized that despite some minor discrepancies, her credibility was not compromised, as the High Court had wrongly asserted.

It questioned “Moreover, it is her husband who has been killed by the assailants. Why should she be accusing wrong persons?

One of the key aspects that the Court highlighted was the importance of considering the social background and overall surrounding circumstances when evaluating a witness's testimony.

It opined “Some discrepancies invariably occur in such cases when we take into account the fact that this witness is a woman who resides in a village and is the wife of a farmer who tills his land and raises crops by his own hands. The rural setting, the degree of articulation of such a witness in a Court of Law are relevant considerations while evaluating the credibility of such a witness. Moreover, the lengthy cross examination of a witness may invariably result in contradictions. But these contradictions are not always sufficient to discredit a witness.”

In the present case, the HC had cited the discrepancy in the statement given to the police by the star witness under section 161 CrPC and to the Court to discredit it.

However, on this issue the Supreme Court opined that “Statement given to police during investigation under Section 161 cannot be read as an “evidence”. It has a limited applicability in a Court of Law as prescribed under Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.). No doubt statement given before police during investigation under Section 161 are “previous statements” under Section 145 of the Evidence Act and therefore can be used to cross examine a witness. But this is only for a limited purpose, to “contradict” such a witness.”

The court cited the ruling in Tahsildar Singh v. State of U.P., AIR 1959 SC 1012 underlined that mere variations in two statements were insufficient to discredit a witness.

Applying the principles in the present case, the Court observed that while the incident may not have unfolded precisely as narrated by the star witness, they do not cast uncertainty on the fundamental facts of the case. It is undisputed that the incident did occur and that the accused were indeed the offenders which led to the death of one person and caused grievous injuries to another. Therefore, these discrepancies should not lead to the complete dismissal of her testimony.

SC chides HC for magnifying simple, doubtful, and totally unexplained injuries of the accused and belittling the brutal and murderous attack

The High Court had relied on the so-called injuries to suggest that the case could be characterized as a free fight between the two parties. The Supreme Court expressed doubt since the trial Court had examined this aspect in detail and had not found the defense's evidence credible. The doctor’s evidence was deemed “suspicious” since there was no explanation for the injuries sustained.

The High Court's approach was criticized by the Supreme Court since the High Court had magnified the simple, unexplained injuries of the accused while downplaying the severity of the attack on the primary witness, PW-2, and her deceased husband.

The statement of an injured eye-witness is an important piece of evidence, can’t be easily discarded

The Court highlighted that the account given by an injured eyewitness should not be dismissed lightly unless compelling reasons exist to do so as done by the HC in the present case. Minor discrepancies, which may naturally occur during witness testimonies, should not undermine the overall credibility of the evidence presented.

For this proposition, the court relied on observations made In State of M.P. v. Mansingh (2003) 10 SCC 414 where the court said “The evidence of injured witness has greater evidentiary value and unless compelling reasons exist, their statements are not to be discarded lightly. Minor discrepancies do not corrode the credibility of otherwise acceptable evidence. The circumstances highlighted by the High Court to attach vulnerability to the evidence of the injured witnesses are inconsequential.”

Moving forward, the Court disagreed with the HC’s assessment that the attack was not premeditated but rather a clash between two groups. It opined “The conclusion derived by the High Court that the assailants were not having the common intention or common object of killing deceased Chandernath is not entirely correct.”

The Court clarified that it did not discredit PW-2's evidence but conceded that the contradictions in her testimony provided reasonable doubt regarding the premeditation of the attack.

Therefore, the Court applied Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, categorizing the attack as a culpable homicide not amounting to murder. This exception covers incidents that occur "in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner."

Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed both appeals and set aside the High Court's verdict. The findings of Section 302 were converted to that of Section 304, Part I of the IPC, and Section 307 was changed to Section 308 of the IPC.

Case title: Birbal Nath v. State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 941

For State:  Sr Adv. Dr. Manish Singhvi; For victims : Adv. Dr. Charu Mathur

For accused: Sr Adv. Mr. Ramakrishan Veeraraghavan

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment