Witness should not be considered discredited solely because there are contradictions between their trial testimony and the statements they provided to the police : Supreme Court
In the recent case of Birbal Nath v. State of Rajasthan, the Hon'ble Supreme Court made significant observations regarding the credibility of a witness, particularly when their trial testimony contradicts their earlier statements to the police. The Court emphasized that a witness's testimony should not be entirely discredited merely due to inconsistencies between their trial statements and their statements to the police during investigation under Section 161.
While acknowledging that statements to the police are considered "previous statements" under Section 145 of the Evidence Act and can be used to cross-examine a witness, the Court stressed that this is for a limited purpose, specifically to "contradict" the witness. Successfully contradicting a witness does not necessarily render their testimony entirely unreliable.
The Court cited the precedent in Rammi v. State of M.P., highlighting that not all inconsistent statements are sufficient to undermine a witness's credibility. Section 155 of the Evidence Act provides scope for impeaching the credit of a witness through proof of an inconsistent former statement, but only those inconsistent statements that are liable to be "contradicted" have a substantial impact on the witness's credibility.
The Court also emphasized the importance of considering the social background and surrounding circumstances when assessing a witness's testimony, especially in rural settings where witnesses may have limited articulation in a court of law. It noted that contradictions, which may arise during lengthy cross-examinations, are not always enough to discredit a witness.
In the case at hand, the High Court had acquitted the accused based on discrepancies in the evidence of the star witness, the wife of the deceased. However, the Supreme Court questioned the High Court's decision, emphasizing that the minor discrepancies did not compromise the credibility of the witness. The Court also pointed out that the statement given to the police during investigation under Section 161 cannot be considered as "evidence" and should only be used for the purpose of contradiction.
The Supreme Court criticized the High Court's magnification of minor, unexplained injuries of the accused while downplaying the severity of the attack on the primary witness and her deceased husband. It stressed that the statement of an injured eye-witness is a crucial piece of evidence that should not be lightly dismissed unless compelling reasons exist.
The Court disagreed with the High Court's conclusion that the attack was not premeditated and characterized it as a clash between two groups. It clarified that while it did not discredit the injured witness's evidence, the contradictions in her testimony raised reasonable doubt regarding the premeditation of the attack. Therefore, the Court applied Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, categorizing the incident as culpable homicide not amounting to murder, and adjusted the relevant sections of the IPC accordingly.
As a result, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the High Court's verdict and modifying the charges against the accused.