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: What are parameters for deciding appeal against acquittal?

 Appeal against Acquittal:

22. It is a well-established principle of law, consistently re-iterated and followed by this Court is that while dealing with a judgment of acquittal, an appellate court must consider the entire evidence on record, so as to arrive at a finding as to whether the views of the trial Court were perverse or otherwise unsustainable. Even though the appellate court is entitled to consider, whether in arriving at a finding of fact, the trial Court had placed the burden of proof incorrectly or failed to take into consideration any admissible evidence and/or had taken into consideration evidence brought on record contrary to law; the appellate court should not ordinarily set aside a judgment of acquittal in a case where two views are possible, though the view of the appellate court may be the more probable one. The trial court which has the benefit of watching the demeanour of the witnesses is the best judge of the credibility of the witnesses.

23. Every accused is presumed to be innocent unless his guilt is proved. The presumption of innocence is a human right. Subject to the statutory exceptions, the said principle forms the basis of criminal jurisprudence in India. The nature of the offence, its seriousness and gravity has to be taken into consideration.

The appellate court should bear in mind the presumption of innocence of the accused, and further, that the trial court's acquittal bolsters the presumption of his innocence. Interference with the decision of the Trial Court in a casual or cavalier manner where the other view is possible should be avoided, unless there are good reasons for such interference.

24. In exceptional cases where there are compelling circumstances, and the judgment under appeal is found to be perverse, the appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal. The findings of fact recorded by a court can be held to be perverse if the findings have been arrived at by ignoring or excluding relevant material or by taking into consideration irrelevant/inadmissible material. A finding may also be said to be perverse if it is 'against the weight of evidence', or if the finding so outrageously defies logic as to suffer from the vice of irrationality. (See: Balak Ram and Anr. v. State of U.P.   MANU/SC/0410/1974 : AIR 1974 SC 2165; Shailendra Pratap and Anr. v. State of U.P.   MANU/SC/0007/2003 : AIR 2003 SC 1104; Budh Singh and Ors. v. State of U.P.   MANU/SC/8163/2006 : AIR 2006 SC 2500; S. Rama Krishna v. S. Rami Reddy (D) by his L.Rs. and Ors.   MANU/SC/7538/2008 : AIR 2008 SC 2066; Arulvelu and Anr. v. State   MANU/SC/1709/2009 : (2009) 10 SCC 206; Ram Singh alias Chhaju v. State of Himachal Pradesh   MANU/SC/0070/2010 : (2010) 2 SCC 445); and Babu v. State of Kerala   MANU/SC/0580/2010 : (2010) 9 SCC 189).

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: Whether the court can rely on evidence of prosecution witness who has stated a fact before court for the first time without stating it at the time of his statement to police U/S 161 of CRPC?

 In case, the complainant in the FIR or the witness in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., has not disclosed certain facts but meets the prosecution case first time before the court, such version lacks credence and is liable to be discarded. (Vide: State Represented by Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu v. Sait @ Krishnakumar   MANU/SC/8143/2008 : (2008) 15 SCC 440). {Para 17}

30. So far as the stay of the deceased with her parents after coming from Kanpur to Kalyan at the guest house is concerned, admittedly at that time the relations between the parties were strained because of the suspicion that the deceased was having an illicit relationship with Kake. However, it has been admitted by Ramkishan (PW.8), father of the deceased, that subsequently the relations became normal and they were invited at the house of the appellants after the deceased tendered an apology to her mother-in- law. The said witness did not state in his statement before the police that when he went to see the appellants on 17.2.1985, they had asked him whether he had brought gold ornaments or had come empty handed or that he was told that the deceased would not be allowed to live there and they would make her condition even more miserable. Such an improvement was made while deposing in court and no explanation could be furnished by him as to why such vital facts were not stated by him at the time of recording his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. This statement is to be discarded as it is not safe to hold the appellants guilty of the offences alleged against them on such an improved version.

 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

Print Page

Supreme Court: Appellate or revisional court has power to set aside a bail order that is perverse, unjustified, or passed in violation of settled legal principles

Whether Appellate or Revisional Courts have power to set aside bail orders that are perverse, unjustified, or passed in violation of settled legal principles -- Held, appellate or revisional power exists to set aside a bail order that is perverse, unjustified, or passed in violation of settled legal principles -- It is concerned with defects existing at the time the bail was granted, without reference to subsequent conduct

Per R. Mahadevan, J.

This refers to the appellate or revisional power to set aside a bail 

order that is perverse, unjustified, or passed in violation of settled legal principles. It is concerned with defects existing at the time the bail was granted, without reference to subsequent conduct. Similarly, in Dr. Narendra K. Amin v. State of Gujarat and another, a three-Judge Bench held that consideration of irrelevant materials renders the bail order vulnerable and liable to be set aside. In Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee, this Court held that where the High Court grants bail mechanically and without application of mind to material factors such as the gravity of the offence or antecedents of the accused, such an order must be set aside. In Prakash Kadam and others v. Ramprasad Viswanath Gupta and another, this Court distinguished between cancellation of bail by the same court and annulment by an appellate / revisional court.

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

What legal principles the session judge should follow while deciding criminal revision?

Key Legal Principles for Session Judges in Criminal Revision

1. Scope and Nature of Revisional Jurisdiction

• Sessions Judges derive their revisional powers primarily from Sections 397 to 401 of the CrPC. These allow a review of records of inferior criminal courts for legality, propriety, or correctness of any finding, sentence, or order.

• The revisional jurisdiction is meant to correct manifest errors, jurisdictional mistakes, or violations of law, not to conduct a full-fledged re-hearing on facts. It is to be used sparingly and only to prevent miscarriage of justice.

Print Page

What are limitations on the power of appellate court while deciding appeal against acquittal?

The High Court has not found in its judgment that the reasons given by the learned Sessions Judge for discarding the testimony of P.W. 2 and P.W. 6 were either unreasonable or perverse. What the High Court has done is to make an independent reappraisal of the evidence on its own and to set aside the acquittal merely on the ground that as a result of such reappreciation, the High Court was inclined to reach a conclusion different from the one recorded by the learned Sessions Judge.

This Court has repeatedly pointed out that the mere fact that the Appellate Court is inclined on a reappreciation of the evidence to reach a conclusion which is at variance with the one recorded in the order of acquittal passed by the Court below will not constitute a valid and sufficient ground for setting aside the acquittal.

The jurisdiction of the Appellate Court in dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal is circumscribed by the limitation that no interference is to be made with the order of acquittal unless the approach made by the lower Court to the consideration of the evidence in the case is vitiated by some manifest illegality or the conclusion recorded by the Court below is such which could not have been possibly arrived at by any Court acting reasonably and judiciously and is, therefore, liable to be characterised as perverse. Where two views are possible on an appraisal of the evidence adduced in the case and the Court below has taken a view which is a plausible one, the Appellate Court cannot legally interfere with an order of acquittal even it is of the opinion that the view taken by the Court below on its consideration of the evidence is erroneous. {Para 6}

7. Tested in the light of the above principles, it must be held that the interference made in the present case by the High Court with the order of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge was wholly unwarranted. We accordingly, allow this appeal, set aside the judgment of the High Court and restore the judgment and order of the learned Sessions Judge acquitting the appellants of all the charges framed against them.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 225 of 1978

Decided On: 01.04.1987

Tota Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Punjab

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

A.P. Sen and V. Balakrishna Eradi, JJ.

Author: V. Balakrishna Eradi, J.

Citation: AIR 1987 SC 1083,MANU/SC/0320/1987.

Print Page

Whether order passed by court without considering documents filed along with application amounts to perverse order?

 It is the duty of the court to consider the documents filed on record by the party and after considering the same, the Court either accept or reject the document by supplementing the reasons. However, when available documents are not at all considered by the Court and when there is no reference of these documents in the order which is challenged before the appellate court, then in that event, it is always open for the Appellant to criticise the impugned order that it suffers from non-application of mind and the approach of the court below is perverse one. In the present case, the impugned order is one of such orders. The Court below ought to have seen that these documents available on record, which goes to the root of the matter. If the structures are standing from 1961-62, then they are protected structures and the Corporation cannot issue notices to demolish them on the ground that there is no sanction for the construction. In the present case, the plaintiffs pointed out by placing on record two very important documents of the Corporation to show that the structures are standing prior to 1961-62. Therefore, non consideration of these vital documents requires me to record a finding that approach of the court below is perverse and cannot sustain in the eye of law because of non-consideration of vital documents which goes to the root of the matter.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Appeal From Order No. 276 of 2018,

Decided On: 27.06.2018

 Suresh Shankar Rokade Vs. Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

V.M. Deshpande, J.

Citation: 2018(6) MHLJ 357

Print Page

When a judgment can be said to be perverse?

In exceptional cases where there are compelling circumstances,
and the judgment under appeal is found to be perverse, the
appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal. The
findings of fact recorded by a court can be held to be perverse if the

findings have been arrived at by ignoring or excluding relevant
material or by taking into consideration irrelevant/inadmissible
material. A finding may also be said to be perverse if it is “against
the weight of evidence”, or if the finding so outrageously defies logic
as to suffer from the vice of irrationality. (See Balak Ram v. State of
U.P., (1975) 3 SCC 219, Shailendra Pratap v. State of U.P., (2003) 1
SCC 761, Budh Singh v. State of U.P., (2006) 9 SCC 731, S. Rama
Krishna v. S. Rami Reddy, (2008) 5 SCC 535, Arulvelu v. State,
(2009) 10 SCC 206, Ram Singh v. State of H.P., (2010) 2 SCC 445
and Babu v. State of Kerala, (2010) 9 SCC 189).”
(emphasis supplied)
Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 991 OF 2010
Brij Lal 
v
State of Rajasthan.

Print Page

When exercise of right of private defence in Murder case is not proved?

The second contention advanced at the hands of learned counsel
for the appellant was, that the entire prosecution version discloses, that
the alleged intention of the accused-appellant – Brij Lal was to murder
Mohan Lal – PW-15. It was submitted, that there was no occasion for
the appellant to cause fatal injuries to three unknown persons, by firing
shots at them. Even though, the second contention advanced by learned
counsel seems to be interesting, yet we find no merit therein. The reason
why the neighbours and the co-villagers had gathered at the place of
occurrence was, to protect Mohan Lal – PW-15, by dissuading the
accused from insisting on to carry out their objective. Consequent upon
their being angered by the villagers, they retaliated by firing
indiscriminately at the gathering. Since it was not disputed by the
accused-appellant – Brij Lal, that three fatal (besides other) injuries, were
caused by the accused-appellant and his co-accused, the onus lies on
the appellant to demonstrate the reason and the justification for their
action. The evidence produced by the prosecution demonstrates, that
the accused had fired gunshots indiscriminately, on being angered by the
gathering, which was trying to persuade them from carrying out their
singular objective – to cause harm to the person of Mohan Lal – PW-15.
Having accepted, that they had actually fired at the neighbours and the
villagers, who had gathered at the place of occurrence, it does not lie in

their mouth to raise such a plea. For the aforesaid reasons, we find no
merit even in the instant contention.
Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 991 OF 2010

Brij Lal  v State of Rajasthan.

Dated:August 17, 2016.
Citation:(2016) 13 SCC347

Print Page

Whether mother is entitled to recover possession of flat transferred by her son on basis of bogus power of attorney?

The plaintiff is mother of defendant no.1. It was the case of
the plaintiff that she has purchased the suit flat i.e. bearing flat No.4
admeasuing 530 sq.ft. situated on the first floor in the apartment known
as 'Ganesh Apartment' constructed on Survey No.34/3/2/1 at Dhankavdi
by executing a Deed of Apartment and had obtained loan from Rajeshree
Shahu Sahakari Bank Ltd. The said document was registered with SubRegistrar
of Assurance. It was her case that she was in exclusive
possession of the suit flat. The defendant no.1 is her son and was serving
as a driver with Rajya Parivahan Mahamandal, Kopargaon. The plaintiff
is a widow and was working with Antar Bharati Balgram, Lonavala

and had to stay at Lonavala. The defendant no.1 after his marriage was
staying in the suit flat. It was the case of the plaintiff that on 10th
December 2004 when the plaintiff had been to Pune for paying the last
installment of the loan, she went to the suit flat and found the same
locked. The plaintiff came to know that the defendant no.1 was showing
the said flat to the public in order to sell the suit flat. The defendant no.1
had also issued a notice in the newspaper 'Daily Prabhat.'
4. The plaintiff came to know that on the basis of an alleged
power of attorney which was never entered into by the plaintiff in favour
of the defendant no.1, the defendant no.1 had alleged to have been
entered into an agreement with the defendant no.2 and since 10th
December 2004, the defendant no.2 has been staying in the suit flat.
 In my view, the finding rendered by the first appellate Court
that the power of attorney is not placed on record by both the defendants
and also the agreement dated 11th December 2004 on the basis of which
the defendant no.2 is in possession over the suit flat, the only inference
can be drawn that the defendant no.1 had with malafide intention
inducted the defendant no.2 in the suit flat on the basis of bogus power
of attorney and thus the possession of the defendant no.2 over the suit
flat cannot be said to be permissive is not perverse. In my view, both
the Courts have considered the evidence led by both the parties and
have rendered findings of facts which are concurrent findings and being
not perverse, cannot be interfered with by this Court under Section 100 of

the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SECOND APPEAL NO.746 OF 2013

Madhukar s/o. Baburao B.Savle,
V
 Smt.Nanda Madhukar Yene 
 CORAM : R.D. DHANUKA, J.
 DATE :   10th October 2016.
Citation: 2016(6) ALLMR 889

Print Page

When court should interefere in tender process?

 Recently, in Central Coalfields Ltd. v. SLL-SML (Joint Venture Consortium)[2] it was held by this Court, relying on a host of decisions that the decision making process of the employer or owner of the project in accepting or rejecting the bid of a tenderer should not be interfered with. Interference is permissible only if the decision making process is mala fide or is intended to favour someone. Similarly, the decision should not be interfered with unless the decision is so arbitrary or irrational that the Court could say that the decision is one which no responsible authority acting reasonably and in accordance with law could have reached. In other words, the decision making process or the decision should be perverse and not merely faulty or incorrect or erroneous. No such extreme case was made out by GYT-TPL JV in the High Court or before us.

12. In Dwarkadas Marfatia and Sons v. Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay[3] it was held that the constitutional Courts are concerned with the decision making process. Tata Cellular v. Union of India[4] went a step further and held that a decision if challenged (the decision having been arrived at through a valid process), the constitutional Courts can interfere if the decision is perverse. However, the constitutional Courts are expected to exercise restraint in interfering with the administrative decision and ought not to substitute its view for that of the administrative authority. This was confirmed in Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa[5] as mentioned in Central Coalfields.

13. In other words, a mere disagreement with the decision making process or the decision of the administrative authority is no reason for a constitutional Court to interfere. The threshold of mala fides, intention to favour someone or arbitrariness, irrationality or perversity must be met before the constitutional Court interferes with the decision making process or the decision.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. & ANR.

[Civil Appeal No. 9078 of 2016]

[Civil Appeal No. 9079 of 2016]

[Civil Appeal Nos. 9080-9081 of 2016]

Madan B. Lokur, J.

Dated:September 15, 2016

Print Page

Supreme Court: Distinction between concept of setting aside unjustified illegal or perverse order and concept of cancelling the bail

One such ground for cancellation of bail would be where ignoring material and evidence on record a perverse order granting bail is passed in a heinous crime of this nature and that too without giving any reasons. Such an order would be against principles of law. Interest of justice would also require that such a perverse order be set aside and bail be cancelled. It must be remembered that such offences are on the rise and have a very serious impact on the Society. Therefore, an arbitrary and wrong exercise of discretion by the trial court has to be corrected.

Further, it is to be kept in mind that the concept of setting aside the unjustified illegal or perverse order is totally different from the concept of cancelling the bail on the ground that accused has misconducted himself or because of some new facts requiring such cancellation.

Supreme Court of India

Puran, Shekhar And Anr vs Rambilas & Anr., State Of ... on 3 May, 2001

Bench: M Shah, S Variava

Citation: (2001) 6 SCC 338

Print Page