Whether testimony of eye witnesses can be disbelieved on basis of site plan?

Next, it has been contended by the learned Counsel for the Respondents that the site plan belies the prosecution claim in view of the height of agricultural crops, as PW 1, PW 2 and PW 5 could not have seen the incident and more precisely as to which accused was doing what. However, when we examine the deposition of PW 8, it appears that there was some disparity in the height of the agricultural crops. While some crops were waist high, others were only as high as the knees. Hence, there is not much force in this submission of the learned Counsel for the Respondents either. Besides, the judgment of this Court in Prithvi v. Mam Raj MANU/SC/0143/2004 : (2004) 13 SCC 279, is an authority for the proposition that site plan is not a ground to disbelieve the otherwise credible testimony of eye-witnesses.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 1482 of 2013

Decided On: 20.10.2016

 Yogesh Singh Vs.  Mahabeer Singh and Ors.

Print Page

Whether evidence of eye witnesses can be disbelieved on ground of discrepancy with site plan?

Next, it has been contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that the site plan belies the prosecution claim in view of the height of agricultural crops, as PW1, PW2 and PW5 could not have seen the incident and more precisely as to which accused was doing what. However, when we examine the deposition of PW8, it appears that there was some disparity in the height of the agricultural crops. While some crops were waist high, others were only as high as the knees. Hence, there is not much force in this submission of the learned counsel for the respondents either. Besides, the judgment of this Court in Prithvi Vs. Mam Raj, (2004) 13 SCC 279, is an authority for the proposition that site plan is not a ground to disbelieve the otherwise credible testimony of eye-witnesses.
Reportable

Supreme Court of India

Yogesh Singh vs Mahabeer Singh & Ors on 20 October, 2016

Bench: Pinaki Chandra Ghose, Amitava Roy

Citation: 2017 CRLJ 291 SC

Print Page