Evidence Of Injured Witness Cannot Be Discarded Lightly: SC Enunciates Principles For Appreciation Of Evidence Of Injured Eye-Witness

The Supreme Court in its recent judgment has enunciated certain legal principles for appreciation of the evidence of an injured eye-witness.

A Bench of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice JB Pardiwala said that the under-noted legal principles are required to be kept in mind, when the evidence of an injured eye-witness is to be appreciated:

(a) The presence of an injured eye-witness at the time and place of the occurrence cannot be doubted unless there are material contradictions in his deposition.

(b) Unless, it is otherwise established by the evidence, it must be believed that an injured witness would not allow the real culprits to escape and falsely implicate the accused.

(c) The evidence of injured witness has greater evidentiary value and unless compelling reasons exist, their statements are not to be discarded lightly.

(d) The evidence of injured witness cannot be doubted on account of some embellishment in natural conduct or minor contradictions.

(e) If there be any exaggeration or immaterial embellishments in the evidence of an injured witness, then such contradiction, exaggeration or embellishment should be discarded from the evidence of injured, but not the whole evidence.

(f) The broad substratum of the prosecution version must be taken into consideration and discrepancies which normally creep due to loss of memory with passage of time should be discarded

The Supreme Court held that two considerations will be relevant while assessing the value of the evidence of the eyewitnesses.

“[t]wo principal considerations are whether, in the circumstances of the case, it is possible to believe their presence at the scene of occurrence or in such situations as would make it possible for them to witness the facts deposed to by them and secondly, whether there is anything inherently improbable or unreliable in their evidence.”

The Court further said that in respect of both of these considerations, circumstances either elicited from those witnesses themselves or established by other evidence tending to improbabilise their presence or to discredit the veracity of their statements will have a bearing upon the value which a Court would attach to their evidence.

“Although in cases where the plea of the accused is a mere denial, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses has to be examined on its own merits, where the accused raise a definite plea or put forward a positive case which is inconsistent with that of the prosecution, the nature of such plea or case and the probabilities in respect of it will also have to be taken into account while assessing the value of the prosecution evidence,” observed the Court.

Also, the Court held that suggestions made to the witness by the defence counsel and the reply to such suggestions would definitely form part of the evidence and can be relied upon by the Court along with other evidence on record to determine the guilt of the accused.

“The principle of law that in a criminal case, a lawyer has no implied authority to make admissions against his client during the progress of the trial would hold good only in cases where dispensation of proof by the prosecution is not permissible in law,” observed the Court.

The Court said that any concession or admission of a fact by a defence counsel would definitely be binding on his client, except the concession on the point of law.

“As a legal proposition we cannot agree with the submission canvassed on behalf of the appellants that an answer by a witness to a suggestion made by the defence counsel in the cross- examination does not deserve any value or utility if it incriminates the accused in any manner.”

The Court said that “[d]uring the course of cross-examination with a view to discredit the witness or to establish the defence on preponderance of probabilities suggestions are hurled on the witness but if such suggestions, the answer to those incriminate the accused in any manner then the same would definitely be binding and could be taken into consideration along with other evidence on record in support of the same.”

The two appellants had approached the Supreme Court who were convicted by the Trial Judge for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and were sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- each with the stipulation that in default of payment of the fine they would undergo rigorous imprisonment for further six month.

Earlier, the Bombay High Court dismissed the criminal appeal affirming the order of conviction and the consequence sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune.

The original accused Nos. 2 and 4 were ordered to be acquitted of all the charges.

The Supreme Court also dismissed the appeal against the impugned judgment of the High Court. “In the overall view of the matter, we are convinced that no case is made out by the appellants to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of the High Court. In the result, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed,” it said.

Cause Title- Balu Sudam Khalde & Anr. v. The State of Maharashtra

Click here to read/download the Judgment