Whether Influence Of Bias In Testimony Of Interested Witnesses can Be Overlooked?

From the study of the aforesaid precedents of this court,
we may note that whoever has been a witness before the court of
law, having a strong interest in result, if allowed to be weighed in
the same scales with those who do not have any interest in the
result, would be to open the doors of the court for perverted truth.
This sound rule which remain the bulwark of this system, and
which determines the value of evidence derived from such sources,
needs to be cautiously and carefully observed and enforced. There
is no dispute about the fact that the interest of the witness must
affect   his   testimony   is   a   universal   truth.   Moreover,   under   the
influence of bias, a man may not be in a position to judge correctly,
even if they earnestly desire to do so. Similarly, he may not be in a
position   to   provide   evidence   in   an   impartial   manner,   when   it
involves his interest. Under such influences, man will, even though
not consciously, suppress some facts, soften or modify others, and
provide favorable color. These are most controlling considerations in
respect to the credibility of human testimony, and should never to
be overlooked in applying the rules of evidence and determining its
weight in the scale of truth under the facts and circumstances of
each case.

REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 408 OF 2014

BHASKARRAO & ORS.  Vs  STATE OF MAHARASHTRA     
Dated: APRIL 26, 2018.

Print Page

Whether testimony of witness will be deemed to be admitted if he was not cross examined properly?

 Mr Tidke denied all the adverse suggestions given to him in his cross-examination by the Union. However, case sought to be made out in the written statement by the Union making allegations against the appellant-Mill was never put to Mr. Tidke when he was under cross-examination. The law in this behalf is clear. Wherever the opponent has declined to avail himself of the opportunity to put his essential and material case in the cross- examination, it must follow that he believed that the testimony could not be disputed at all. It is wrong to think that this is essentially a technical rule of evidence. It is rule of essential justice. It serves to prevent surprise at trial and miscarriage of justice because it gives notice to the other side of actual case that is going to be made out when the turn of the party on whose behalf the cross-examination is being made comes to give and lead evidence by producing witnesses. It has been stated on high authority of the House of Lords that this much a counsel is bound to do while cross-examining that he must put to each of his opponent's witnesses in turn, so much of his own case as concerns that particular witness or in which that witness has any share. If he asks no question with regard to this, then he must be taken to have accepted the opponents case in its entirety. (see A.E.G. Carapiet v. A.Y.Derderian AIR 1961 Cal 539; Sarwansing v. State of Punjab MANU/SC/0868/2002 : 1995CriLJ3630 ).

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Appeal Nos. 364 and 441 of 2005 in Writ Petition No. 1097 of 2004

Decided On: 11.06.2007

Hindoostan Spg. and Wvg. Mills Ltd. Vs.  Hindustan Crown Mills Siddhivinayak Kamgar Karmachari Sangharsha Sanghatana 

Print Page

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 rate of rent can be proved by testimony of witness only?

 Regarding non payment of rent, the High Court has found that the landlord had not been able to show as to what actual quantum of amount each tenant was liable to pay when he issued the notice. Despite showing the total amount allegedly payable by the tenants, the landlord failed to show the rate of rent of the leased premises in occupation of each of the respondents-tenants. The Trial Court, therefore, rightly held that "in the absence of any material regarding the rate of rent, the self-testimony of PW1 cannot be accepted". It may be noticed that the appellant himself did not appear as a witness in the case and tried to prove the averments made in the petition by production of PW1, his son, as his witness. The aforesaid finding of fact was not disturbed by the High Court.

MANU/SC/0695/2001

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Appeal (civil) 15029-15033 of 1996

Decided On: 31.10.2001

 Sri Kempaiah 

vs. 

 Lingaiah and ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

R.P. Sethi and S.N. Phukan, JJ.

Print Page

Whether evidence of a person can be disbelieved if he has not produced permission to leave headquarter?

Contentions urged assailing credibility of PW-2 do not merit acceptance. PW-2 in his evidence had clearly stated that he had come to Dehradun from Tehri on 7.08.1997 and was in his parents house till 3.00 pm on 10.08.1997 when he left for the hotel. PW-2 clearly explained the reason for his stay at hotel stating that distance of his father’s house from Dehradun bus stand is 4-5 kms. and as he wanted to settle the matter with the in-laws of his sister-Archana about their additional demand of dowry for Rs.5,00,000/-, he left his home to the hotel with his luggage at 3.00 o’clock perhaps to settle the matter with in-laws of Archana and in order to save time to take the bus on the night of 10.08.1997, PW-2 might have stayed in the hotel at Dehradun. In his evidence, PW-2 clearly stated that he had taken permission to be away from Tehri from 07.08.1997 to 10.08.1997 and that he took leave from 11.08.1997 for three-four days to go to Bombay in connection with his wife’s treatment in Bombay. PW-2’s evidence that he met Archana at their parental home on 09.08.1997 and that Archana informed him about the demand of Rs.5,00,000/- and cruelty meted out to her and that he proceeded to the house of the appellants to settle the dispute amicably is quite natural and inspires confidence. PW-2 acted like a loving brother and probably he did not want to give tension to his old parents and on seeing the urgency of the matter, went to the appellants’ house to convince them. By perusal of evidence of PW-2, it is seen that he remained consistent throughout his cross-examination and nothing substantial was elicited to discredit his version. Merely because PW-2 has not produced documents showing the permission granted to him to be away from the headquarters Tehri from 07.08.1997 to 10.08.1997, version of PW-2 cannot be doubted. The reasons stated by PW-2 for his stay in hotel is quite convincing and the contention assailing the credibility of PW-2 was rightly rejected by the trial court and the High Court.

Supreme Court of India

V.K.Mishra & Anr vs State Of Uttarakhand & Anr on 28 July, 2015

Citation; AIR 2015 SC3043

Bench: T.S. Thakur, R.K. Agrawal, R. Banumathi

Read full judgment here; click here

Print Page