How to appreciate evidence of witness if there is minor discrepancy on trivial matters in his statement?

It is a settled legal proposition that while appreciating the evidence of a witness, minor discrepancies on trivial matters, which do not affect the core of the prosecution's case, may not prompt the court to reject the evidence in its entirety. "Irrelevant details which do not in any way corrode the credibility of a witness cannot be labelled as omissions or contradictions." Difference in some minor details, which does not otherwise affect the core of the prosecution case, even if present, would not itself prompt the court to reject the evidence on minor variations and discrepancies. After exercising care and caution and sifting through the evidence to separate truth from untruth, exaggeration and improvements, the court comes to a conclusion as to whether the residuary evidence is sufficient to convict the accused. Thus, an undue importance should not be attached to omissions, contradictions and discrepancies which do not go to the heart of the matter and shake the basic version of the prosecution witness. As the mental capabilities of a human being cannot be expected to be attuned to absorb all the details, minor discrepancies are bound to occur in the statements of witnesses. 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 1584 of 2010

Decided On: 20.07.2017

 State of U.P. Vs.Ram Kumar and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

A.K. Sikri and Ashok Bhushan, JJ.

Citation: AIR 2017SC 3878

Print Page

What is distinction between discrepancy and contradiction for appreciation of evidence?

 In the case of State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Lekh Raj MANU/SC/0714/1999 : (2003)1 SCC 247 the apex court had held that:

Discrepancy has to be distinguished from contradiction whereas contradiction in the statement of the witness is fatal for the case, minor discrepancy or variance in evidence will not make the prosecution's case doubtful. The normal course of the human conduct would be that while narrating a particular incident there may occur minor discrepancies, such discrepancies in law may render credential to the depositions. Parrot-like statements are disfavored by the courts, In order to ascertain as to whether the discrepancy pointed out was minor or not or the same amounted to contradiction, regard is required to be had to the circumstances of the case by keeping in view the social status of the witnesses and environment in which such witness was making the statement.

5.7 In the case of Krishna Pillai Sree Kumar Vs. State of Kerala reported in MANU/SC/0166/1981 : 1981 Supp. SCC 31: 1981 CriLJ 743, the apex Court has held that it is no doubt true that the prosecution evidence does suffer from consistencies here and discrepancies there but that is a shortcoming from which no criminal case is free. The main thing to be seen is whether those inconsistencies, etc., go to the root of the matter or pertain to insignificant aspects thereof. In the former case, the defence may be justified in seeking advantage of the incongruities obtaining in the evidence. In the latter, however, no such benefit may be available to it. 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI (AGARTALA BENCH)

Crl. Appeal No. 115 (J) of 2008

Decided On: 19.10.2012

 Ranjit Sarkar Vs. State of Tripura

Coram:Brojendra Prasad Katakey and S.C. Das, JJ.

Citation:2013 (1) GLT709

Print Page

Whether prosecution case can be thrown out on the basis of minor discrepancies?

 Relying upon the decision of this Court in Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat,(1983) 3 SCC 217, the High Court held that minor discrepancies in the depositions of witnesses which did not go to the root of the matter cannot result in the entire prosecution case being thrown out.

Supreme Court of India

Abdul Nawaz vs State Of West Bengal on 10 May, 2012

Author: T Thakur

Bench: T.S. Thakur, Gyan Sudha Misra

Print Page

Basic concept of minor discrepancy in evidence of witness

"Discrepancy with regard to the attire of Accused, currency note and the forensic examination of the wallet being minor, should not be taken into consideration when there is cogent evidence available on record to prove the guilt of Accused."
 In our opinion, the discrepancy with regard to the attire of Syed Ahmedthe Rs. 10/- currency note and the forensic examination of the wallet are rather minor matters. What is a minor discrepancy? This has been the subject matter of discussion in Abdul Nawaz v. State of West Bengal, MANU/SC/0426/2012 : 2012 (5) SCALE 357 and Jugendra Singh. After referring to a few earlier decisions of this Court, it was held that a discrepancy would be minor if it did not affect the substratum of the prosecution's case or impact on the core issue. In such an event, the minor discrepancy could be ignored.
Equivalent Citation: AIR2012SC3359, 2013(1)ALT(Cri)365, 2012CriLJ4017, 2012(3)Crimes202, 2012(3)JCC2266, JT2012(7)SC193, 2012(2)N.C.C.610, 2012(7)SCALE44, (2012)8SCC527, 2012(3)UC1690
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Criminal Appeal No. 1323 of 2007
Decided On: 31.07.2012
Appellants: Syed Ahmed
Vs.
Respondent: State of Karnataka
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
A.K. Patnaik and Madan B. Lokur, JJ.

Print Page