Can eyewitness testimony that is consistent in examination-in-chief but mutually contradictory and embellished on cross-examination sustain a conviction?

No. Where the testimonies of the alleged eyewitnesses stood mutually contradicted and were full of embellishments on cross-examination, they did not inspire confidence and were not worthy of credence, and could not sustain the conviction.

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — co-accused — cross-examination — eyewitness testimony — acquittal — co-accused — same set of facts — no distinguishing reason — Held: Where conviction and acquittal of different accused rested on the very same set of depositions and facts, the remaining convicts could not be treated differently from the acquitted co-accused absent any reasoned basis for the distinction. (¶10) cross-examination — contradicted testimony — not worthy of credence — Held further: The eyewitness testimonies, though consistent in examination-in-chief, stood mutually contradicted and were full of embellishments on cross-examination, rendering them not worthy of credence. (¶6, ¶9) appeal allowed — conviction set aside — Held further: The appellant's conviction was accordingly set aside, the impugned judgment quashed, and the appeals disposed of. (¶11)

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of NEPAL SINGH v. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India