Is a witness's statement about a gravely incriminating circumstance, kept silent without cogent reason, bound to lose most of its value?
Coram: Justice Manoj Misra · Justice Vijay Bishnoi
A witness's statement about a gravely incriminating circumstance kept silent without cogent reason is bound to lose most of its value.
A witness's statement about a gravely incriminating circumstance kept silent without cogent reason is bound to lose most of its value. In Kali Ram v. State of H.P., (1973) 2 SCC 808, this Court held that a witness who stays silent about a gravely incriminating circumstance, absent cogent reason, loses most of the value of his evidence (¶16). Applying this, PW-3's failure to disclose the accused's movements with the Dandas to the informant despite being a close relative created serious doubt about the credibility of his testimony (¶18).
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss.302/34 — Circumstantial evidence — Chain of circumstances — Witness credibility — Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss.302/34 — Circumstantial evidence — Chain of circumstances — Held: A conviction resting on circumstantial evidence must be founded on a chain of circumstances so complete it excludes every hypothesis except guilt. Each circumstance must be proved beyond reasonable doubt and be of a conclusive nature. (¶11) Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss.302/34 — Witness credibility — Delayed disclosure — Held further: A witness's statement about a gravely incriminating circumstance, kept silent without cogent reason, is bound to lose most of its value. An interested witness who withholds such a circumstance from the informant casts serious doubt on his testimony. (¶16, 18) Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss.302/34 — Circumstantial evidence — Recoveries — Held further: Recoveries made three days after arrest, proved only through an interested witness with the other seizure witness not examined, do not complete the chain of circumstances. The appeal against acquittal was accordingly dismissed. (¶20, 21)
Headnote
You've used your free headnotes this month
The answer above and the Court's own paragraphs stay free. LexStreak's full headnote on this judgment needs an account — a free one opens it again.
Create my free accountOne judgment a day. That's the whole habit.
Read the full text of THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH v. VARINDER VERMA@JATTI & ANR — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.
Create my free accountFree forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India