Minor discrepancies

Eye-witness was not expected to give photo-picture of each and every injury received by deceased, in a state of panic and sensation which developed at the time of occurrence due to attack and firing of accused

Delay in conducting postmortem examination on dead-body of deceased was not fatal to prosecution case

Medical evidence produced through doctor, fully supported ocular account of prosecution brought on record by prosecution witnesses

Prosecution proved its case against accused beyond shadow of any doubt and two Courts below had rightly passed judgments against accused

Supreme Court declined to interfere in the judgments passed by the Courts below as there was no misreading or non-reading of evidence or any illegality or material irregularity

Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused.

Ombudsperson allowed complaint of petitioner / complainant and directed the authorities to proceed against respondents / senior officials for harassing petitioner at workplace

Appellate Authority set aside order passed by Ombudsperson on the ground that there were discrepancies in evidence

Validity

Minor differences were not sufficient to reject testimony of two witnesses who otherwise remained unshattered

It is normal course of human conduct that while narrating a particular incident, there may occur minor discrepancies due to errors of observation, memory loss due to lapse of time, shock at the time of occurrence etc.

Matter was not disposed of by Appellate Authority in a legal and judicious manner and order passed suffered from gross misreading and non-reading of evidence and misapplication of law which had resulted in miscarriage of justice

High Court in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction to serve the cause of justice, set aside order passed by Appellate Authority

High Court restored order passed by Ombudsperson and directed bank authorities to implement recommendations made in the order

Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.

If there are minor discrepancies in the statements of the witnesses and if these minor discrepancies do not go to the roots of the case and are insignificant in nature, the same are to be ignored.

Minor discrepancies in the statements of witnesses will not be sufficient for acquittal of the accused facing murder charge as with the passage of time it is very natural that the witnesses may not be unanimous on minor narrations

Human behavior varies from person to person

Different people not only behave and react differently in different situation but their behavior also depends upon facts of each case

As to how a person reacts and behaves in a particular situation, can never be predicted

Every person who witnesses a serious crime react in his own way.

Such discrepancies, if any, in medical evidence relating to nature of injuries do not negate the direct evidence as witnesses are not supposed to give photo picture of ocular account

Even otherwise, conflict of ocular account with medical evidence being not material, and not imprinting any dent in prosecution version, would have no adverse affect on prosecution case.

Minor discrepancies and conflicts appearing in medical evidence and the ocular version are quite possible for variety of reasons

During occurrence witnesses in a momentary glance make only tentative assessment of the distance between the deceased and the assailant and the points where accused caused injuries

In such a scenario it becomes highly improbable to correctly mention the number and location of the injuries with exactitude

Minor discrepancies, if any, in medical evidence relating to nature of injuries do not negate the direct evidence as witnesses are not supposed to give pen picture of ocular account

Even otherwise, conflict of ocular account with medical evidence being not material in imprinting any dent in prosecution version would have no adverse affect on prosecution case

Minor discrepancies on trivial matters not affecting the material considerations of the prosecution case ought not to prompt the courts to reject evidence in its entirety

Such minor discrepancies which do not shake the salient features of the prosecution case should be ignored.

As long as the material aspects of the evidence have a ring of truth, courts should ignore minor discrepancies in the evidence

Test is whether the evidence of a witness inspires confidence

If an omission or discrepancy goes to the root of the matter, the defence can take advantage of the same

While appreciating the evidence of a witness, the approach must be whether the evidence read as a whole appears to have a ring of truth

Minor discrepancies on trivial matters not affecting the material considerations of the prosecution case ought not to prompt the courts to reject evidence in its entirety

Such minor discrepancies which do not shake the salient features of the prosecution case should be ignored.

Accused were charged for committing murder of the assistant of brother of complainant and causing injuries to his brother

Although, the defence attempted to discredit the case of prosecution on the basis of some minor discrepancies in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, however, those discrepancies were not substantive enough to justify or create reasonable doubt in the case of prosecution about the involvement and guilt of the accused with common intention

Statements of complainant, injured and minor eye-witness were similar with each other on all counts

Circumstances established that the prosecution had successfully proved its case against the accused beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt

Appeal against conviction was dismissed accordingly.

Minor discrepancies, if any, in statements of all the witnesses are not enough to demolish the case of the prosecution, because these discrepancies always occurred on account of lapse of time which could be ignored

Statements of the witnesses have to be read as a whole and the court should not pick up a sentence in isolation from the entire statement and ignored its proper reference, which may use against or in favour of a party

Contradictions must be material and substantial to adversely affect the case of the prosecution.

Discrepancies which did not shake the basic version of the prosecution case should be ignored.

In the present case, the minor discrepancies in statements of all the eye-witnesses were not enough to demolish the case of prosecution because the discrepancies occurred on account of lapse of time which could well be ignored

Appeal against conviction was dismissed accordingly.

Minor discrepancies in the evidence of the raiding party did not shake their trust worthiness.

In the present case the minor discrepancies in the statements of the witnesses referred by the counsel for the accused were irrelevant with regard to the proving of the facts of the occurrence and were logical, considering the time which had passed between the occurrence and the date when the witness testified in the court

Circumstances established that the prosecution had successfully proved its case against the accused

Appeal against conviction was dismissed accordingly.

Minor discrepancies always come on record due to lapse of considerable time between incident and recording of evidence.

Contradiction mean the negation of prosecution version.

Record showed that some minor discrepancies were inevitable bound to occur on account of lapse of memory owing to the intervening period

Admittedly, the statements of witnesses were recorded after lapse of more than one year and after passage of such a long period, minor discrepancies might occur in the statements of witnesses and the accused could not get premium thereof

Circumstances established that the prosecution had properly established its case against the accused

Appeal against conviction was dismissed to the extent of accused, however, appeal of co-accused, who was allegedly accomplice of principal accused and was driving motorcycle, but the said motorcycle was not recovered on his pointation, was allowed to his extent.

Minor discrepancies were to be ignored because the same did creep by passage of time or by keeping the witness under lengthy cross-examination.

Probative force of testimony of eye-witness depends upon overall effect it creates in the mind of the court, therefore, minor discrepancies which may crop up in the statement of a witness due to lack of knowledge or power of its perception do not demolish the prosecution case.

Every criminal case, was to be seen in the light of its own peculiar facts and circumstances and while discharging the duty of safe administration of justice, the courts were under obligation to watch the interest of both the sides; and not the prosecution side alone, irrespective of the nature of offence

Evidence should be tested with utmost vigilance, care and caution, especially in narcotic cases where stern sentences were provided for the offence charged

In order to see whether the discrepancies highlighted by the counsel; and termed by the Trial Court as minor, were such a calibre, which could be easily ignored and overlooked by considering the same as slip of tongue or natural due to passage of long time.

Mere discrepancies in details of fact did not amount to contradiction.

Such discrepancies were to be ignored and no importance could be attached thereto.