CHARMIN KA RANDAAP

The Court disbelieves the evidence of prosecution witness, if there are improvements in the
deposition of such witness made over his statement recorded under section 161 of Cr.P.C. In the
cases of Ashok Vishnu Davare Vs. State of Maharasthra, (2004) 9 SCC 431, Radha Kumar v.
State of Bihar (now Jharkhand) [(2005) 10 SCC 216] and Sunil Kumar Sambhudaval Gupta
(Dr.) and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2010) 13 SCC 657, in which the Hon’ble Supreme
Court has not believed the evidence of prosecution witnesses on account of improvements in the
deposition of the witnesses made over their statements recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C. (See
also Baldev Singh vs State Of Punjab, , criminal appeal No. 1303 of 2005, [2013], Baldev Singh
vs. State of Punjab (1990 (4) SCC 692 = AIR 1991 SC 31)). However, in Arjun and others ..Vs..
State of Rajsthan, AIR 1994 SC 2507, The Hon’ble Court has held that – A little bit of
discrepancies or improvement do not necessarily demolish the testimony. Trivial discrepancy, as
is well known, should be ignored. Under circumstantial variety the usual character of human
testimony is substantially true. Similarly, innocuous omission is inconsequential.

Even honest and truthful witnesses may differ in some details unrelated to the
main incident:-
In State of U.P. Vs. M.K. Anthony AIR 1985 SC 48, the Hon’ble Apex Court laid down certain
guidelines in this regard, which require to be followed by the courts in such cases. The Court
observed as under :- technical approach by taking sentences torn out of context here or there
from the evidence, attaching importance to some technical error committed by the investigating
officer not going to the root of the matter would not ordinarily permit rejection of the evidence
as a whole. If the court before whom the witness gives evidence had the opportunity to form the
opinion about the general tenor of evidence given by the witness, the appellate court which had
not this benefit will have to attach due weight to the appreciation of evidence by the trial court
and unless there are reasons weighty and formidable it would not be proper to reject the
evidence on the ground of minor variations or infirmities in the matter of trivial details. Even
honest and truthful witnesses may differ in some details unrelated to the main incident because
power of observation, retention and reproduction differ with individuals. Cross examination is
an unequal duel between a rustic and refined lawyer.”

It was pointed out in Baldev Singh vs State Of Punjab, AIR 1991 SC 31 that the statement
recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC shall not be used for any purpose except to contradict a
witness in the manner prescribed in the proviso to Section 162 (1) and that the first information
report is not a substantial piece of evidence.

If we go through section 145 of Evidence Act, it expatiates how to contradict a witness. The
words ” to contradict him ” appearing in s. 145 of the Evidence Act must carry the same meaning
as the words ” to contradict such witness ” in s.162 of the Code. (See Tahsildar Singh And
Another’s case infra).