Friday 30 December 2022

Can the court convict the accused based on the contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses proved through evidence of Investigating officer?

 A daughter may not share everything with the mother but she would definitely share her real feelings and emotions to the sister. The conduct of PW 4 is also not free from doubt as she also did not want to disclose the truth for the reasons best known to her. When she resiled from her statement, learned APP had drawn her attention to the relevant portions of her statement which are marked as 'A', 'B' and 'C' and are proved through the testimony of the Investigating Officer, PW 15-Ramchandra Dashrath Jadhav who was a senior Police Inspector attached to Khar police station at the relevant time. Those contradictions are proved at Exhibit 14-A to 14-C.

Portion marked 'A' which is proved as Exhibit 14-A reads thus;

"I found while checking Whatsapp on my mobile that the victim had made a call to Ramesh Vavekar (appellant) on 25.07.2015 and I told this fact to the police officer of Unit no. 9."

Portion marked B which is proved as Exhibit 14-B reads thus;

On 10.10.2015 when discussion was going on in context with my sister (victim) at that time my younger brother PW 2 aged 11 years told that prior to 6 months when there was no one at home he saw the victim talking with Ramesh Vavekar and he had seen him coming to our house for 4 to 5 times to meet the victim, so also prior to one year when PW 2 went to play with his friend in 'X' chawl at that time, the victim came to meet Ramesh in 'X' Chawl, Narli pada, at that time the mother of Ramesh (appellant) asked the victim to not to talk with Ramesh and on that count mother of Ramesh (appellant) had beaten the victim."

Portion marked C which is marked at Exhibit 14-C which reads thus,

Prior to 1 and ½ year, Ramesh was frequently calling me on my phone and expressed his wish to have friendship with me. At that time I replied him that I was not acquainted with him and why should I do friendship with him. At that time I lodged report against him with the police. Then I suspected that the victim was having love affair with Ramesh and he had impregnated her." {Para 32}

33. Cumulative effect of these proved contradictions would definitely indicate and are relevant that the appellant had been conversing with the victim and had also tried to befriend PW 4. In the given circumstances, it appears quite probable and believable that this witness had actually made such statement before the police.

It is a settled proposition of law that the evidence of a hostile witness should not be totally discarded as it can be accepted partially. It is well known that witnesses can not be a branded liars in toto and their testimony rejected outright even if parts of their statements are demonstrably incorrect or doubtful. We do not apply the maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus. In view of proved contradictions, evidence of PW 2 and PW 3 can be accepted to the extent of their versions found to be dependable.


Criminal Appeal No. 1430 of 2018

Decided On: 24.02.2022

 Ramesh Tukaram Vavekar  Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Sadhana S. Jadhav and Prithviraj K. Chavan, JJ.

Author: Prithviraj K. Chavan, J.

Citation: MANU/MH/0574/2022.

Read full Judgment here: Click here

Print Page

No comments:

Post a Comment