Del. HC: Severity of Offence Can’t Disentitle Foreigner to Get Parole for Filing SLP  ||  Cal. HC: Can’t Compound Proceedings u/s 138 NI Act at Revision Stage Without Complainant’s Consent  ||  Bom. HC: There Should be Some Accountability Fixed on Courts in Cases of Prolonged Incarceration  ||  Tel. HC: Employee Can’t be Denied Promotion on Pretext of Pendency Disciplinary Proceedings  ||  All. HC: State Government has no Power to Cancel the NOC Granted by PCI  ||  SC: Can’t Allow Revision Petition u/s 115 CPC Against Trail Court Order Rejecting Review of Decree  ||  Mad. HC: Record Statements of Witnesses u/s 161 CrPC Using Electronic Means atleast in Serious Crime  ||  Delhi HC to UGC: Ensure Strict Compliance of UGC Act, 1956, with Regard to Specification of Degree  ||  Mad. HC: Notice Needn’t be Served to Victim in HCP by Accused Following Preventive Detention  ||  SC to Centre/States: Ensure the Effective Implementation of HIV Act, 2017    

Kailas Namdeo Patil and ors. v. State of Maharashtra - (Supreme Court) (16 Jun 2016)

Inconsistent witness testimony fails to deter SC from relying on it


The Supreme Court overlooked discrepancies in the testimony of a prosecution witness, and upheld the conviction on its basis, determining the inconsistencies to be unrelated to the recounting of the assault.

It was alleged that Appellant and others had attacked one, Jagan, with knives and snatched a gold chain worn by him. Jagan’s brother, principal prosecution witness, stated that he was present when the event occurred.

From other accounts adduced by the defence it came to light that events unfolded spontaneously; moreover, three others in the vicinity at the time of incident did not support prosecution witness’ claims. As such, Appellant raised the plea that prosecution failed to show the motive for him to have committed the crime.

The court however accepted prosecution’s version of events, noting that the nature of discrepancy in the testimony of their witness was not sufficient to discard it with regards to the actual assault on the deceased. Appellant’s conviction was upheld, but one other accused was acquitted.


Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2023 - All Rights Reserved