LawforAll

▼
Monday, June 13, 2011

After appreciating the aforesaid evidence including the deposition of Bhugan (DW.1), the trial court came to the conclusion that Suresh Kumar, accused, had no motive and his identification was also not reliable and acquitted him by giving the benefit of doubt. 9. The respondents were convicted by giving cogent reasons on the basis of the following grounds: 7 None of the accused persons belonged to the locality or even to the city. 7 No suggestion came to be made from their side as to what could have brought them to the spot at the moment. 7 They were utter strangers to the area operating under cover of darkness and seen scaling down the wall in a bid to run away. 7 Upon being taken into custody they took the police party inside the western Sahan and then to the apartment occupied by the deceased. 7 The medical evidence did not suggest that there was rape or anything of the kind attempted on Smt. Rashmi. Nor did the investigation reveal any case of theft. 7 The purse of the deceased was found intact in the room besides the sum of Rs.107/- and odd. None of the articles was shown to have been taken away. The object behind those who operated inside the room, therefore, could not have other than to kill Smt. Rashmi. a best example in appreciating the evidence.

›
                                                                      REPORTABLE                       IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ...

In all criminal cases, normal discrepancies are bound to occur in the depositions of witnesses due to normal errors of observation, 12 . namely, errors of memory due to lapse of time or due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence. Where the omissions amount to a contradiction, creating a serious doubt about the truthfulness of the witness and other witnesses also make material improvement while deposing in the court, such evidence cannot be safe to rely upon. However, minor contradictions, inconsistencies, embellishments or improvements on trivial matters which do not affect the core of the prosecution case, should not be made a ground on which the evidence can be rejected in its entirety. The court has to form its opinion about the credibility of the witness and record a finding as to whether his deposition inspires confidence. "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." Therefore, mere marginal variations in the statements of a witness cannot be dubbed as improvements as the same may be elaborations of the statement made by the witness earlier. "Irrelevant details which do not in any way corrode the credibility of a witness cannot be labelled as omissions or contradictions." The omissions which amount to contradictions in material particulars, i.e., materially affect the trial or core of the 13 . prosecution's case, render the testimony of the witness liable to be discredited.

›
                                                                   REPORTABLE                  IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA        ...
Thursday, June 9, 2011

Rule of law is the foundation of democratic society and the judiciary is its guardian. The court has the duty of protecting the interest of the public in the due administration of justice and, as such, is entrusted with the power to commit for contempt of court, not in order to protect its dignity against insult or injury as the expression 'contempt of court' may seem to suggest, but to protect and vindicate the right of the public that the administration of justice shall not be prevented, prejudiced, obstructed or interfered with. If orders of the Court are disobeyed with impunity by those who owe an obligation to society to preserve the rule of law, not only would individual litigants suffer, the whole administration of justice would be brought into disrepute.

›
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH                   CONTEMPT CASE No.841 of 2010     08-0...