Supreme court: What will be impact of Material vs. Normal Discrepancies on credibility of prosecution witnesses?

 In State of Rajasthan v. Smt. Kalki and Anr.   MANU/SC/0254/1981 : AIR 1981 SC 1390, while dealing with this issue, this Court observed as under:

In the depositions of witnesses there are always normal discrepancies, however honest and truthful they may be. These discrepancies are due to normal errors of observation, normal errors of memory due to lapse of time, due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of the occurrence, and the like. Material discrepancies are those which are not normal, and not expected of a normal person. {Para 18}

19. The courts have to label the category to which a discrepancy belongs. While normal discrepancies do not corrode the credibility of a party's case, material discrepancies do so. (see: Syed Ibrahim v. State of A.P.   MANU/SC/8237/2006 : AIR 2006 SC 2908; and Arumugam v. State   MANU/SC/8108/2008 : AIR 2009 SC 331).

20. In Bihari Nath Goswami v. Shiv Kumar Singh and Ors.   MANU/SC/0158/2004 : (2004) 9 SCC 186, this Court examined the issue and held:

Exaggerations per se do not render the evidence brittle. But it can be one of the factors to test credibility of the prosecution version, when the entire evidence is put in a crucible for being tested on the touchstone of credibility.

21. While deciding such a case, the Court has to apply the aforesaid tests. Mere marginal variations in the statements cannot be dubbed as improvements as the same may be elaborations of the statement made by the witness earlier. The omissions which amount to contradictions in material particulars i.e. go to the root of the case/materially affect the trial or core of the prosecution's case, render the testimony of the witness liable to be discredited.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 891 of 2004

Decided On: 11.11.2010

Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal Gupta and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

P. Sathasivam and B.S. Chauhan, JJ.

Author: B.S. Chauhan, J.

Citation: 2010 INSC 770,2011 ALLMR 288 (SC),MANU/SC/0947/2010.

Read full Judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Courts, while considering bail, should not assess the credibility of witnesses, as this function lies within the domain of the Trial Court

Whether Courts can assess the credibility of witnesses while deciding bail applications -- Held, Courts, while considering bail, should not assess the credibility of witnesses, as this function lies within the domain of the Trial Court.

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - S.437, S.439 - Whether Courts must apply well settled principles and consider multiple enumerated factors while deciding bail applications -- Held, bail jurisprudence is inherently fact specific -- Thus, each bail application must be decided on its own merits, in light of the well settled parameters governing grant or denial of bail

Emphasizing that bail jurisprudence is inherently fact-specific, the Court reiterated that each bail application must be decided on its own merits, in light of the well settled on its own merits, in light of the well-settled parameters governing grant or denial of bail.

Per R. Mahadevan, J.

Further, such an approach of the High Court is contrary to the judicial precedents of this court, including Satish Jaggi v. State of Chhattisgarh, Kanwar Singh Meena v. State of Rajasthan, wherein, it was held that courts, while considering bail, should not assess the credibility of witnesses, as this function squarely lies within the domain of the trial Court. Thus, the impugned order of the High Court violates this principle by commenting on the delay in the witness statements and imputing lack of credibility at this stage.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal Nos. 3528-3534 of 2025 

Decided On: 14.08.2025

State of Karnataka Vs. Darshan and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, JJ.

Author: R. Mahadevan, J.

Citation: 2025 KHC 6693: 2025 INSC 979, MANU/SC/1098/2025.

Read full judgment here: Click here.

Print Page