The Supreme Court recently comprising of a bench of CJI NV Ramana, Justices Surya Kant and Aniruddha Bose observed that evidence given by a witness cannot be discarded as a whole on the ground that it is exaggerated.( Achhar Singh v State of Himachal Pradesh)
The bench remarked that a Court of law, being mindful of such distinction is duty bound to disseminate ‘truth’ from ‘falsehood’ and sift the grain from the chaff in case of exaggerations. It is only in a case where the grain and the chaff are so inextricably intertwined that in their separation no real evidence survives, that the whole evidence can be discarded.
"To make a mountain out of a molehill, the molehill shall have to exist primarily. A Court of law, being mindful of such distinction is duty bound to disseminate 'truth' from 'falsehood' and sift the grain from the chaff in case of exaggerations", the bench observed.
Facts of the Case
The appellants herein have filed the present appeal against the High Court’s order setting aside the acquittal order passed by the Sessions judge. The two appellants herein were convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 452, 326 and 323 of IPC and Sections 302 and 452 IPC respectively.
Wanted To Stay Updated & keen to Gain Knowledge. Join us on Telegram Here. or What'sApp Here.
Contention of the Parties
The appellants contended that the statements made by the prosecution witnesses contained exaggerations and therefore it was wrong to convict him on the basis of such statements. According to the FIR, the deceased died owing to a single axe blow inflicted by the accused and the postmortem report also showed only one head injury on her person. However, three prosecution eyewitnesses, deposed that the first accused gave two axe blows on her head and then co accused also hit the also hit the deceased’s left ear with an axe twice.
The State contended that the credibility of the witnesses cannot be questioned merely because they were related to the deceased or because there were minor discrepancies or exaggerations. Inconsistent evidence by the prosecution witnesses against one accused cannot be capitalised to give the benefit of doubt to another.
Wanted To Stay Updated & keen to Gain Knowledge. Join us on Telegram Here. or What'sApp Here.
Courts Observation & Judgment
The Court agreed with the State's contention that even in cases where a major portion of the evidence is found deficient, if the residue is sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused, conviction can be based on it. The bench observed:
24. It is vehemently contended that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is exaggerated and thus false. Cambridge Dictionary defines "exaggeration" as "the fact of making something larger, more important, better or worse than it really is". Merriam Webster defines the term "exaggerate" as to "enlarge beyond bounds or the truth". The Concise Oxford Dictionary defines it as "enlarged or altered beyond normal proportions". These expressions unambiguously suggest that the genesis of an 'exaggerated statement' lies in a true fact, to which fictitious additions are made so as to make it more penetrative. Every exaggeration, therefore, has the ingredients of 'truth'. No exaggerated statement is possible without an element of truth. On the other hand, Page | 18 Advance Law Lexicon defines "false" as "erroneous, untrue; opposite of correct, or true". Oxford Concise Dictionary states that "false" is "wrong; not correct or true". Similar is the explanation in other dictionaries as well. There is, thus, a marked differentia between an 'exaggerated version' and a 'false version'. An exaggerated statement contains both truth and falsity, whereas a false statement has no grain of truth in it (being the 'opposite' of 'true'). It is well said that to make a mountain out of a molehill, the molehill shall have to exist primarily. A Court of law, being mindful of such distinction is duty bound to disseminate 'truth' from 'falsehood' and sift the grain from the chaff in case of exaggerations. It is only in a case where the grain and the chaff are so inextricably intertwined that in their separation no real evidence survives, that the whole evidence can be discarded
Wanted To Stay Updated & keen to Gain Knowledge. Join us on Telegram Here. or What'sApp Here.
Taking note of the statements made by the prosecution witnesses, the bench observed that even if the exaggeration of multiple axe blows being given to the deceased were discarded, the allegation that the accused entered house of the victims armed with an axe and hit the deceased on her head, and that she died due to a head injury was consistent and undisputed throughout the FIR and the deposition by prosecution witnesses.
Referring to the case of Hari Chand v. State of Delhi (1996) 9 SCC 112, the court said that while appreciating the evidence of witnesses in a criminal trial especially in a case of eyewitnesses the maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus cannot apply and the court has to make efforts to sift the grain from the chaff.
The court also addressed the contention of the accused (against reversal of acquittal by the High court) that if two views are possible, the High Court ought not to interfere with the trial Court's judgment.
Wanted To Stay Updated & keen to Gain Knowledge. Join us on Telegram Here. or What'sApp Here.
The bench while upholding the conviction observed,
"15.. However, such a precautionary principle cannot be overstretched to portray that the "contours of appeal" against acquittal under Section 378 CrPC are limited to seeing whether or not the trial Court's view was impossible. It is equally well settled that there is no bar on the High Court's power to reappreciate evidence in an appeal against acquittal... the CrPC does not differentiate in the power, scope, jurisdiction or limitation between appeals against judgments of conviction or acquittal and that the appellate Court is free to consider on both fact and law, despite the self-restraint that has been ingrained into practice while dealing with orders of acquittal where there is a double presumption of innocence of the accused."
0 Comments