appraisal of the evidence

State vs 1. Dharambir, on 13 August, 2009

Author: Ms. Pratibha Rani

     IN THE COURT OF SMT. PRATIBHA RANI,

   ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, TIS HAZARI COURTS,

                    DELHI

SC No.36/08

State                 Vs     1.    Dharambir,

                                   S/o Sh. Sudan Singh,

                                   R/o B-538, Pandav Nagar,

                                   Delhi.

                             2.    Vicky,

                                   S/o Sh. Ram Kumar,

                                   R/o T-173, Illahibux Road,

                                   Nai Wala, Karol Bagh,

                                   Delhi.

                             3.    Raju,

                                   S/o Sh. Panni

                                   R/o B-535, Pandav Nagar,

                                   Delhi.

                             FIR No.284/05

                             U/s 308/323/324/341/34 IPC

                             PS : Patel Nagar

                             Date of Institution : 1.3.08

                             Arguments heard on : 2.1.09

                             Order pronounced on : 2.1.09

                             ***

JUDGMENT

In the case State of U.P. vs. M.K. Anthony, AIR 1985 SC 48 following guidelines have been laid down by the Apex Court for the appraisal of the evidence :

"While appreciating the evidence of a witness the approach must be whether the evidence of the witness read as a whole, appears to have a ring of truth. Once that impression is formed, it is undoubtedly necessary for the Court to scrutinise the evidence more particularly keeping in view the deficiencies, draw backs and infirmities, pointed out in the evidence as a whole and evaluate them to find out whether, it is against the general tenor of the evidence given by the witness and whether the earlier evaluation of the evidence is shaken as to render it unworthy of belief. Minor discrepancies of trivial matter, not touching the core of the case, hypertechnical approach by taking sentence torn out of context here and 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 evidence as a whole."

Their Lordships further observed :

"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 dual between the rustic and refined lawyer."