The court is not supposed to give undue importance to omissions, contradictions and discrepancies which do not go to the heart of the matter, and shake the basic version of the prosecution witness : Tripura High Court
The Tripura High Court in the case of Sri Augustine Hrangkhal vs The State Of Tripura (Crl.A(J). No. 44 of 2020) upheld that the court is not supposed to give undue importance to omissions, contradictions and discrepancies which do not go to the heart of the matter, and shake the basic version of the prosecution witness.
Facts of the case : A written was complaint lodged by the informant namely Smt Radhashri Hrangkhawl (the wife of the deceased) stating that on 28.09.2017 when she came to her house from the nearby market, she found that her younger son namely, Augustine Hrangkhawl was beating upon her husband namely, Peter Hrangkhal by one wooden piece and as a result, her husband was lying on the floor and on seeing this the complainant started shouting, she came out from her house and informed the matter to her neighbors and after return back she found her husband was dead and kept outside the hut.
Court framed charge under Sections-302/506 of IPC against the convict-appellant, namely, Augustine Hrangkhawl.
The counsel for the accused argued that by considering discrepancies in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the learned Court below ought to have acquit the present appellant on the ground of benefit of doubt. The court below has miserably failed to connect the evidences to decide the issues beyond reasonable doubt.
Judgment : The court held that on analyzing the evidence of all the witnesses it was clear that the accused assaulted his father who is the deceased of this case by a branch of a tree and the said branch of the tree was also seized by police. The report of a scientific expert as well as the medical officer who conducted the PM examination over the dead body of the deceased clearly indicated that due to assault by the branch of tree the deceased died.
The court was of the opinion that it is not supposed to give undue importance to omissions, contradictions and discrepancies which do not go to the heart of the matter, and shake the basic version of the prosecution witness. Thus the court must read the evidence of a witness as a whole, and consider the case in light of the entirety of the circumstances, ignoring the minor discrepancies with respect to trivial matters, which do not affect the core of the case of the prosecution. The said discrepancies as mentioned above by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, should not be taken into consideration, as they cannot form grounds for rejecting the evidence on record as a whole.
JUDGMENT REVIEWED BY : SHUBHANGI CHAUDHARY