MP HC: Wife’s Refusal to Have Physical Relationship With Husband, Amounts to Cruelty  ||  Ori. HC: Re-Imprisonment of Prematurely Released Convict Can’t be Ordered Unless Release Challenged  ||  Ker. HC: IO Mixes Contraband Found in Separate Packs, Bail Granted to Accused Booked Under NDPS Act  ||  Tripura High Court: Accused Not Entitled to Bail on Mere Filing of Chargesheet  ||  Guj. HC: Student Allowed to Write Exams, Shortage of Attendance Condoned  ||  Ker. HC: AO Can’t Reopen Assessment in Block Period of 6 Years if Absence of Incriminating Materials  ||  Tel. HC: Existence & Validity of Arb. Agreement Must be Determined u/s 11(6) of A&C Act by Court  ||  Tel. HC: While Releasing Amount Under S. 19 of MSME Act, Reasons Must be Assigned by Courts  ||  Ker. HC: Settling Serious Crimes Like Murder, Rape Would Seriously Impact Society  ||  Del. HC: Mandate of Arbitral Tribunal Can be Extended by Court, Even After its Expiry    

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 2024 - All Rights Reserved