Criminal Trial - Eye witness  - Inconsistency of statements - Inconsistency with the statement given by P.W. in the F.I.R and the statement given in the Court -  Do not find this to be fatal to the prosecution case - Cannot rule out the possibility of post incident trauma and shock which might have been caused to the injured eye witness -In such a situation one cannot expect the witness to depose about every detail with accuracy -  Testimony of an injured eye witness has to be given much credence - The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses have been fully corroborated by the medical reports of the doctors who examined the deceased and the injured witness - Therefore, we hold that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses are fully reliable and there has been no improvement made.  Held, that when other evidence, such as medical evidence, supports the prosecutions case, the difference in what is stated in the F.I.R. and in Court as regards the weapon of offence is a very insignificant contradiction, Dharmendrasinh alias Mansing Ratansinh v. State of Gujarat, (2002) 4 SCC 679, relied.  (2016)3 SCEJ 588

Criminal Trial - Statements of alleged eye witnesses  Disbelieved - In the complaint, the names of the assailants are not mentioned and also the names of the persons who were present during the occurrence are not mentioned - PW slipping away unnoticed by the others particularly after the alleged attack is utterly unbelievable - It appears unreal - They are not strange to expect and they did not render any help for shifting the injured to the hospital nor had the courtesy to go inside the hospital to ascertain the condition and also did not inform the occurrence to the police - The aspect of fear is without any foundation and is not supported by any evidence of act or conduct. (2016)3 SCEJ 414

Register SCeJ  Free Updates*

Supreme Court e@journal

Subscribe or take a 4 week FREE trial 

Note: Please fill out the fields marked with an asterisk.