Supreme Court Upholds Injured Eyewitness’s Credibility Despite Minor Discrepancies
In a significant legal decision, the Supreme Court has upheld the credibility of an injured eyewitness, despite minor discrepancies in her testimony and cross-examination. The case, which involved appeals against a judgment and order issued by the Rajasthan High Court in 2007, pertained to the acquittal of accused individuals for major offenses under Sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), while they were convicted for other sections of the IPC. The Supreme Court, in its verdict, disagreed with the High Court’s decision to discredit the testimony of the deceased’s wife, who was also injured in the incident, based on these minor discrepancies.
Background
The accused individuals were initially convicted for offenses under various sections of the IPC, including Sections 302, 307, 323, 324, 325, 447, 147/148, and Section 149 of IPC. Subsequently, the High Court acquitted them of the charges under Sections 302 and 307 while maintaining their convictions under other sections. This prompted the complainant and the State to file appeals before the Supreme Court.
The incident in question took place on May 22, 2001, and was described in a First Information Report (FIR). According to the FIR, while the informant’s uncle and aunt were working in their agricultural field, a group of seven armed individuals approached and assaulted them, resulting in severe injuries. The deceased uncle died on his way to the hospital, and his wife, who was also seriously injured, was an eyewitness to the incident. Several other relatives witnessed the events and tried to intervene but were unsuccessful. Witnesses were examined during the prosecution, and the weapons and clothes used were recovered.
Analysis of the Injured Eyewitness’s Testimony
The Supreme Court considered the testimony of the deceased’s wife to be the most credible evidence for the prosecution. She had been present in the field at the time of the incident, suffered a near-fatal head injury, and sustained several other injuries. Despite extensive cross-examination by the defense, her testimony remained consistent, with only minor discrepancies.
The Court acknowledged that the High Court had relied on these minor discrepancies to acquit the accused of the more severe charges. It emphasized that the social background and circumstances surrounding the witness should be considered when evaluating her credibility, which the High Court had failed to do. The Court reviewed the statements of the deceased’s wife, as well as those of other witnesses, and found that while some aspects of the sequence of events might be in doubt, the fact that they witnessed the assailants fleeing from the scene was confirmed. The High Court had disregarded these crucial aspects of their deposition.
The Supreme Court questioned why the deceased’s wife, who had been severely injured and whose husband had been killed by the assailants, would falsely accuse innocent individuals. It asserted that the High Court had discredited the prosecution’s star witness based on alleged discrepancies between her police statement and her testimony in court. The Court clarified that a statement given to the police during an investigation, as per Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code, cannot be considered as “evidence.” Such statements are used to cross-examine a witness but, even if contradictions are found, they do not necessarily discredit the witness entirely.
The Court noted that some discrepancies were inevitable, especially in cases involving witnesses from rural settings, such as the deceased’s wife, who resided in a village and was the wife of a farmer. Lengthy cross-examination could lead to contradictions, but these contradictions do not automatically undermine a witness’s credibility. The Court referred to specific cases to emphasize that the purpose of cross-examination is to contradict a witness’s two statements, given to the police and in court, and that such contradictions should not necessarily discredit the witness’s entire testimony.
The Supreme Court highlighted that the High Court had failed to recognize that the witness was also an injured party. The Court explained that the purpose of cross-examination, as per Sections 145 and 155 of the Evidence Act, is to contradict two statements of a witness: one given to the police and the other in court. Even if differences exist between these statements, they may discredit the initial part of the incident but do not necessarily negate the occurrence of the incident itself.
The Court believed that the accused individuals were indeed the offenders and pointed out that the High Court had given undue weight to the defense’s evidence regarding injuries sustained by two of the assailants, which the Trial Court had found suspicious. The High Court’s failure to appreciate both the facts and the law was noted.
The Supreme Court stressed that the statement of an injured eyewitness is a crucial piece of evidence and should not be easily dismissed. Minor discrepancies in her testimony should not be overly emphasized. The Court referred to the State of M.P. v. Mansingh, a case that supported the importance of an injured eyewitness’s testimony. While acknowledging the possibility that the incident was not premeditated, the Court refused to discredit the deceased’s wife’s evidence and instead gave the accused the benefit of the doubt based on these minor discrepancies. The Court classified the case as culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part I of the IPC, rather than murder under Section 302 of the IPC.
In its final verdict, the Supreme Court allowed both appeals, set aside the High Court’s judgment and order, and amended the convictions from Section 302 to Section 304 Part I and from Section 307 to Section 308 of the IPC. The accused individuals were sentenced to seven years of rigorous imprisonment under Section 304 Part I and three years of rigorous imprisonment under Section 308 of the IPC. The remaining findings and sentences awarded by the Trial Court were to remain in place. The Court also ordered the accused individuals to surrender within four weeks, with the exception of one individual who had passed away, in whose case the proceedings had been abated.