RAM KRISHNA SINGH v. STATE OF BIHAR.

The research paper submitted in complete fulfillment of the course Evidence Law
for obtaining the degree B.A., L.L.B. (Hons.) during the academic session 2020-
2021.

Submitted By:

Dakshita Dubey

Roll No. - 2117

Submitted To:

Dr. Meeta Mohini

Assistant Professor of Law

March, 2021

Chanakya National Law University,

Nyaya Nagar,

Mithapur,

Patna, 800001.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to thank my faculty of Law of Evidence, Dr Meeta Mohini, whose guidance helped
me a lot with structuring of my project. I take this opportunity to express my deep sense of gratitude
for her guidance and encouragement which sustained my efforts on all stages of this project.

I owe the present accomplishment of my project to my friends, who helped me immensely with
materials throughout the project and without whom I couldn’t have completed it in the present
way.

I would also like to extend my gratitude to my parents and all those unseen hands that helped me
out at every stage of my project.

THANK YOU

NAME: Dakshita Dubey

ROLL NO: 2117

COURSE: B.A. LL.B. (Hons.)

SEMESTER: 4th
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgement ......................................................................................................................... 2

Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 3

Scope and Objective of Section 144 ............................................................................................. 5

Scope and Objective of Section 145 ............................................................................................. 6

Scope and Objective of Section 3 & 8.......................................................................................... 8

Credible Witnesses ...................................................................................................................... 11

Evidential Value of Contradictions and Omissions ................................................................. 13

Conclusion ................................................................................................................................... 15

Bibliography ................................................................................................................................ 15

INTRODUCTION
According to Oxford dictionary 'contradiction' means to offer the contrary. If a witness deposes in
the court that a certain fact existed but he has not stated accordingly in his statement before the
police, it is a case of conflict between the deposition in court and statement before the
police. Therefore, statement before the police can be used to contradict his deposition before the
court. This is dealt with Sections 144 and 145 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The present case1,
was dealt in the High Court of Bihar at Patna in the year 2015 before Justice Nanavati Pratap Singh
and Justice Jitendra Mohan Sharma. It deals with evidence given by witnesses through their
statements/testimonies, and how it can be contradicted.
Facts of the case -
Appellants (i) Ram Krishna Singh, son of late Natho Singh, (ii) Rama Kant Singh, (iii) Surendra
Singh, (iv) Sachidanand Singh, all four in number were found guilty by the Trial Court
of Begusarai for offences punishable under Sections 302/149 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. All
appellants are brothers, and Ram Krishna Singh has been reported dead during the pendency of
the appeal.
The entire prosecution case rests upon the fardbeyan made by the informant Ram Sujan Singh
(PW6), who is the brother of the deceased – Ajay Kumar Singh, as recorded at about 9 pm on
09.02.1984 at the Sadar Hospital, Begusrai, inter-alia, alleging that the informant Ram Sujan Singh
and his brother Ajay Kumar Singh (the deceased) were returning to their village
Babhangama from Begusarai, where they had gone in respect of purchasing some fertilizer. When
they reached the Tea Stall of Bishwanath Jha (not examined), they found Atma Ram Singh
(P.W.1), Shashi Kant Singh (P.W.2), Bachcha Singh (P.W.4) and Arun Kumar Jha (not examined)
having tea. They asked the two brothers i.e. informant and the deceased also to sit down and have
tea, whereupon they sat down. Ajay Kumar Singh started reading newspaper and the informant
was sitting across on a bench. Suddenly from the back, the four appellants and one another Ajay
Kumar Singh along with two other unknown persons came, all armed with pistols, and surrounded
informant's brother Ajay Kumar Singh. It is then said that the deceased appellant Ram Krishna
Singh and appellant Rama Kant Singh gave orders to shoot Ajay Kumar Singh (informant's
brother), upon which appellant Surendra Singh and two other unknown persons, caught hold of
Ajay Kumar Singh and appellant Sachidanand Singh and another Ajay Kumar Singh fired at the
informant's brother, who received injury on his back and fell down. Seeing this, the informant and
other ran away. The informant came to his village and then with P.W.5 Uday Kumar Singh and
others he returned to the Tea Stall and found his brother Ajay Kumar Singh lying on the ground

1
Ram Krishna Singh v State of Bihar, 2015 Cri LJ 1408.
severely bleeding. He was then carried on a rickshaw to Begusarai Sadar Hospital, where he was
declared dead. The motive or the reason behind this occurrence is said to be that the appellants
wanted to purchase some land, but the deceased Ajay Kumar Singh purchased that land denying
the appellants of the opportunity to purchase the same, which had enraged them and, therefore, the
occurrence, as alleged, had taken place. This fardbeyan had been recorded at 9 pm on 09.02.1984
at Begusarai Sadar Hospital by A.S.I. of Begusarai P.S., but as the place of occurrence being
Karichak Chowk near Babhangawan lay within Barauni P.S., the same was forwarded to
Barauni P.S., where it was registered as an F.I.R. at 6 am on 10.02.1984 and one Isteuyak Ahmad
(P.W.7) was entrusted investigation. At 7 am on 10.02.1984, the inquest was prepared
at Begusarai Sadar Hospital by Begusarai Police (not by Barauni Police).
Due to several contradictions in the prosecutor’s witnesses’ statements as well as lack of
substantiation in the motive of the crime, the appellants were discharged of all crimes and
punishments.
The appeal was allowed.

SCOPE AND OBJECTIVE OF SECTION 144

Section 144 of the Indian Evidence Act deals with the evidence as to matters in writing. This
section states that under the section, a witness who is being examined can be asked whether any
agreement, grant, or any other disposition of property as to which the witness is disposing of was
not included in the document. When the witness responds to the question affirmatively or when
the witness is about to give any statement as to the contents of such a document which in the
judgment of the court have to be presented before the court, the opposite party in the case has a
right to object to such evidence being presented before the document itself is produced or the
proper establishment is laid for the objective of proving the contents of the document by way of
any secondary evidence.

Section 144 permits a witness to present oral evidence of statements made by any other
individual about the contents of a document if such statements are in itself relevant facts.

For example, if it is alleged that A has assaulted B and C, a witness testifies that he has heard A
to say that the B had sent a letter accusing A of committing a murder and A will take revenge
from B. This statement given by C about the contents of the letter can be proved even if the letter
is not presented since the statement is relevant enough to show A’s motive for assaulting B as
per Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act.

Section 144 states that any witness may be asked questions regarding the contents of a document
or contract that is not present in the document. If the witness gives statements regarding such
documents, it must be produced before the Court.

The opposite party can object to such evidence until it has been produced in the Court.

For example:

• Harry claims that overheard Hermoine telling Ron that “Tom has written a letter
threatening to kill my family and I will kill him before he can do anything”.
This statement is relevant in showing Hermoine’s intention for the murder, and
evidence may be given for it, though no other evidence is given about the letter.

If a witness is giving evidence regarding a contract, grant or any other disposition of property he
may be asked whether there is a documentation of the same. If he answers with yes, then Section
91 of the Act becomes applicable and oral evidence of the terms of the said document will not be
permitted. In the case of Atul Bora v. Akan Bora 2 , the Court held that Section 144 has no
application when the witness is sought to be cross-examined by the election-petitioner, has not
been asked any question on any contract, grant or other disposition of property.

SCOPE AND OBJECTIVE OF SECTION 145

According to Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872, a witness can be cross-examined as
to the previous statements made by the witness in writing or deduced in the form writing and on
relevant matters in question, without showing the witness any such writing or as of that matter
proved to before him but if it is meant to contradict the witness by the writing, the witness’s

2
AIR 2007, Gau 51.
attention should, before the writing can be proved, be called to those portions of the writing
which are to be used for contradicting the witness.

Generally, what happens is that the contents of a writing are not used as evidence until and
unless the writing itself is produced in the court. But section 145 makes an exception in this case
as it states that a witness can be cross-examined as to prior statements made by the person in
writing or reduced in writing and on the relevant matters in question without showing such
writing to the witness or being proved.

Section 145 consists of two parts. According to the first part a witness may be cross-
examined as to previous statement made by him in writing or is reduced into writing without
showing the writing to him or proving the same. Second part is intended to contradict him
through cross-examination where the previous statement is in writing. The object of the
section is either to test the memory of witness or to contradict him by previous statements in
writing.

This section applies to both civil and criminal cases. The section has no application where
the witness sought to be contradicted nor by his own statement but by the statement of
another witness. In the first part there is only cross- -examination. There is no rule of law that
an earlier statement shall be treated as correct and the subsequent contrary statement shall be
discarded.

Section 145 is to deal with one of the methods of impeaching the credit of witness. Under
Exception 2 of Section 153 of the Evidence Act a witness may be asked any question tending
to impeach his impartiality. It permits oral statement to be used for contradiction. But the
present section deals with the method of contradicting previous statements of witness in
writing by cross- examination. The rule will apply where a witness is not a party to the suit
and would not apply when a party to the suit is examining himself as a witness.

An omission is either skip or slip, it means ‘exclusion’ or ‘leaving out’. If a certain fact is testified
by a witness in his Examination-in-Chief’, such fact, which is testified in Court, had been omitted
to state before police, it is called an ‘Omission’. Now, it is to be tested by the Court whether it is
a material omission or not. If it is a material omission, it amounts material contradiction. The
Hon’ble Apex Court opines that relevant and material omissions amount to vital contradictions,
which can be established by cross- examination and confronting the witness with his previous
statement.3 However, as was held in Ponnuswamy Chetty v. Emperor 4, ‘a bare omission cannot be
a contradiction’. The rules of evidence laid down in Sections 145, 154 and 157 are of paramount
importance to practitioners. Contradictions in the previous statements in writing of a witness is a
very powerful weapon in the hands of the adverse party. A contradiction may be such as to
demolish the case made out in the examination-in-chief. In a criminal trial, statements of witnesses
are recorded by the Police under Section 161 of the Cr. P. Code, copies of which are supplied to
the accused. These statements can be used by the accused for proving contradictions as laid down
in Sec. 162 Cr.P.C. The expression, "Contradiction" was a subject of great legal controversy.
During the investigation police record statements of witness by examining him, which are called
161 statements or case diary statements. Purpose of recording statement is to 8 gather evidence
and preserve it unless until it was put to trail. While police file charge sheet they supply copies of
documents to accused along with copies of 161 statements as required under section 207 of Cr.P.C.
On filling of charge sheet court after considering the contents of charge sheet and 161 statements
only take cognizance against accused. After accused put in trial on framing of charges where in
defence can use those 161 statements to test truthfulness of statements as it provided under section
145 of Indian Evidence Act.

SCOPE AND OBJECTIVE OF SECTION 3 & 8

Appreciation of evidence is a matter of experience and knowledge of human affairs. It is a
delicate task to be carried out by Judges for weighing evidence and drawing inferences. Each cases
presents its own peculiarities. Common sense and dexterity are also part of the tools.

Under Section 3 of Evidence Act first the terms Fact, Relevant Fact and Fact in issue are defined
in respect of evidence and later when it can be said to be proved, disproved and not proved is
discussed. Thus, while appreciating evidence in respect of any fact, relevant fact and fact in issue
the Court has to give its anxious consideration towards the peculiar facts of the case. There may
be several facts in a case before Court and among it some may be relevant or some may be fact in

3
Tahsildar Singh v. State of U.P., 1959 SCR Supl.
4
A.I.R. 1957 All. 239.
issue. The Court has to first ascertain the facts, then it has to find out whether they are relevant
and then whether they are actually in issue. After ascertaining this, the Court shall examine the
fact and later by applying rules of evidence Court has to see that whether those facts are proved,
disprove or not proved.

The Supreme Court in Ganesh K. Gulve v. State of Maharashtra5, held that, “In order to
appreciate the evidence, the Court is required to bear in mind the set-up and environment in
which the crime is committed. The level of understanding of the witnesses, the relationship of
some of near relations, everyone's different way of narration of same facts, etc to ensure that,
everyone even remotely connected with the crime be also convicted."

It is one of the established principles of law that a witness may lie but not the circumstances. The
guilt of person can be proved by circumstantial evidence also. However, the Court must adopt a
cautious approach while basing its conviction purely on circumstantial evidence. The
circumstances relied upon in support of the conviction must be fully established and the chain of
evidence furnished by those circumstances must be so for complete has not to leave any reasonable
ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and further it must be such
as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.

Abscondance of the accused is not a circumstance which can be taken as a conclusive proof of
guilt. False pleas raised by the accused can be taken as a circumstance against the accused. False
and inconsistent defences taken by the accused charged of murder were held to be additional
circumstances against him strengthening the chain of circumstances already firmly established.

A statement of an accused recorded under Section 313 Cr. P.C. can not be treated as evidence.
Further the entire prosecution evidence need not be put to the accused. Unregistered lease deed
though not allowed to be produced in evidence, it could be used by the carrier to explain the
character of the possession.

It was held in the case of Sujit Gulab Sohatre v. State of Maharashtra, “A witness narrated
to the doctor his version of the history of assault. The doctor recorded in his papers. This was

5
AIR 2002 SC 3068
held to be not a substantive piece of evidence. The statement would be used at based to contradict
the testimony of the person who gave the narrative.”6

When independent evidence is not available for any reason, the Court will have to examine the
evidence of the police witnesses carefully on scrutinize the same and, if found reliable, a conviction
can be based on such evidence. The mere fact that the police personnel belong to the police
department can not be a ground to reject their testimony if otherwise inspires confidence and no
hostility of the police with the accused is shown. Where weapons of assault were recovered
pursuant to the statement of the accused and there was no animosity between the accused and the
police nor any suggestion was made that the police foisted the recoveries, it was held that it would
be safe to believe uncorroborated statement of the Police Inspector, the solitary witness, in respect
of recoveries.7

In order to appreciate evidence, the Court is required to bear in mind the setup and environment in
which the crime is committed and the level of understanding of the witnesses. There is often over
jealousness on the part of some of near relations to ensure that everyone even remotely connected
with the crime be also convicted. Everyone has a different way of narration of the same facts.
These are only illustrative instances. Bearing in mind these broad principles, the evidence is
required to be appreciated to find out what part out of the evidence represents the true and correct
state of affairs. It is for the courts to separate the grain from the chaff. 8

The evidence of any injured eye witness cannot be discarded in toto on the ground of inimical
disposition towards the accused particularly where his evidence when tested in the light of broad
probabilities, it can be concluded that he was a natural eye witness, and had no reasons to concoct
a case against the accused. 9

In case of variance between medical evidence and ocular evidence, unimpeachable evidence of
eyewitnesses should be accepted in preference to the hypothetical answers given by the medical
officer.10

6
1997 Cr.L.J. 454 Bom.
7
Bhimsha Subanna Pawar v. State of Maharashtra, 1996 AIHC 1 Bom.
8
Ganesh K Gulve v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2002 SC 3068.
9
Suresh Sitaram Surve v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2003 S.C. 344.
10
State of Maharashtra v. Vithal, 1993 Cri.L.J. 2285.
Under Section 8 of the Evidence Act the motive which induces a party to do an act, or the
preparation which he makes in its commission, will be taken into account. Evidence of motive or
preparation becomes important when a case depends upon circumstantial evidence only. The
Evidence Act intends to make only those statements admissible which are the essential
complement of acts done or refused to be done, so that the act itself or the omission to act acquires
a special significance as a ground for interference with respect to the issues in the case under trial.
This section embodies the rule that the testimony of res gestae is allowable when it goes to the
root of the matter concerning the commission of a crime. Consequently, a verbal statement to a
police-officer during the time of recovery of articles upon the information of an accused in custody
is admissible in evidence.

Motive is that which moves a man to do a particular act. There can be no action without a motive,
which must exist for every voluntary act. Motive, if proved would only supply a link in the chain
of circumstantial evidence but the absence thereof cannot be a ground to reject the prosecution
case.11

CREDIBLE WITNESSES
The Criminal Jurisprudence in India has been established on certain principles founded by the
Judiciary through its pronouncements. These are exhaustive in nature with wide acceptance across
the country.

1. It is a presumption that every accused is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law
provided all principles of natural justice were followed in a fair trial.
2. The burden of proof lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused rather than
him proving innocence.
3. The proof shall be conclusive enough to prove the guilt beyond the reasonable doubt.
4. In case of any doubt regarding the guilt of the accused, the benefit of doubt is provided
to the accused and he shall be acquitted.

11
Paramjeet Singh v. State of Uttarakhand, AIR 2011 SC 200.
To satisfy all these requirements of criminal jurisprudence, just and fair trial are carried out with
each party putting their contentions before the judge. Investigation is the tool to detect a crime
which comprises omissions by the investigating officers, later to be completed by the testimony of
the witnesses that had first hand information of the crime committed. The statements by the
witnesses are submitted as evidence in a Court made under an oath, whether oral statements or
written testamentary deposition. It is the obligation of the witness to assist the court in delivering
justice by attending the proceedings when required.

It is a general rule that goes unsaid that the Court must act on the testimony of a witness even if he
is the only one and his statements are uncorroborated.

In the case of Ramesh Krishna v. the State of Maharashtra12, there were multiple witnesses who
could not stand with their statements given during the investigation. On the other hand, one of
them stood firmly with his statement who was deemed to be a credible witness.

The Court, in this case, held that – the testimony of one credible witness will outweigh the same
given by other questionable witnesses.

A witness is considered to be credible if he stands by his statements and the same can be proved
later on.

Witnesses may also need to identify the accused person, and there is no minimum number of
witnesses required to identify an accused in order to get him sentenced. In Binay Kumar v. the
State of Bihar 13, the Supreme Court said the same; it held that there is no rule of evidence that
conviction can not happen unless there is a particular number of witnesses to identify the
accused. Any conviction is not influenced by the quantity of the witnesses but by the quality and
credibility of witness testimonies.

12
[2008] INSC 16.
13
(1997) 1 SCC 283.
EVIDENTIAL VALUE OF CONTRADICTIONS AND OMISSIONS
On the point of appreciation of evidence the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed in Ganesh K.
Gulve etc. v/s. State of Maharashtra 14 as under:- "In order to appreciate the evidence, the Court is
required to bear in mind the set up and environment in which the crime is committed. The level of
understanding of the witnesses. The over jealousness of some of near relations to ensure that
everyone even remotely connected with the crime be also convicted. Everyone's different way of
narration of same facts. These are only illustrative instances. Bearing in mind these broad
principles,the evidence is required to be appreciated to find out what part out of the evidence
represents the true and correct state of affairs. It is for the courts to separate the grain from the
chaff."

The duty of court is to discover the truth and to find out whether the accused is guilty or not. Facts
come before the court by way of oral testimony of witness and other documents. As human being
is not free from certain error moreover with different perception power of senses and different
intellect i.e analytical reasoning, mental status etc. Therefore, it is not possible to lay down strict
rule or straight jacket formula in appreciation of all contradictions and omissions. So every
contradiction or omission must therefore be judged by reference to various factors. Sometimes due
to this very nature of human intellect and perception of senses contradictions and omission occurs.
Real and truthful eye witness may sometime make genuine mistake in statement before police and
court. At that time it must be remembered that contradictions and discrepancies are natural and
inevitable in the testimony of even truthful witnesses. So then when the evidence is discrepant or
exaggerated allowance has to be made for the idiosyncrasies of the class from which the witnesses
are drawn, their powers of observation, strength of memory and facility of description with a
discount for possible bias or prejudice. A previous statement used to contradict a witness does not
become a substantive evidence & merely serves the purpose of throwing doubt on the veracity of
the witness.

Contradiction if properly proved, as contemplated by law, to that extent the credit of the witness
is shaken, then it is for the Court to consider whether the contradictions are sufficient to discredit
the evidence of witnesses. Where the contradictions are not material, and the witness is neither

14
AIR 1999 Cri 501.
shown to be having animus, with the deceased, nor highly interested in the family of the accused,
the witness could not be branded as liar for such discrepancy.

Small omissions in statements given by witness before the police do not justify a finding that the
witnesses concerned are liars. An omission in statement of witnesses attracts its reliability and not
admissibility. Material omissions in testimony of prosecution witness if not explained in cross-
examination, such omissions of witness raise various doubts to convict the accused. The credibility
of a witness will not stand impeached by merely bringing on record the contradiction. It will have
further to be shown that the statement made by the witness before the Court is not only
contradictory to that made by him in his police statement but also that it is a deliberate attempt to
change or improve on the original statement to the prejudice of the accused. This would naturally
require the witness to be given an opportunity to explain the contradiction. In any event, the
credibility of the witness can be impeached only after obtaining his explanation for the
contradictory statement and by pointing out that the explanation given by him is not true or
satisfactory. Minor discrepancies by themselves are not enough to throw overboard the evidence
of these witnesses.

Merely because there is 'inconsistency in evidence it is not sufficient to impair the credit of the
witness. No doubt section 155 of the Evidence Act provides scope for impeaching the credit of a
witness by proof of inconsistent former statement. But a reading of the section would indicate that
all inconsistent statements are not sufficient to impeach the credit of the witness. A former
statement though seemingly inconsistent with the evidence need not necessarily be sufficient to
amount to contradiction. Only such of the inconsistent statement which is liable to be contradicted
would affect the the credit of the witness. In Appabhai .Vs. State of Gujrat15, The Hon'ble Apex
Court has observed as under: "The Court while appreciating the evidence must not attach undue
importance to minor discrepancies. The discrepancies which do not shake the basic version of the
prosecution case may be discarded. The discrepancies which are due to normal errors of perception
or observation should not be given importance. The errors due to lapse of memory may be given
due allowance. The Court by calling into aid its vast experience of men and matters in different
cases must evaluate the entire material on record by excluding the exaggerated version given by
any witness. When a doubt arises in respect of certain facts alleged by such witness, the proper

15
Appabhai .Vs. State of Gujrat AIR 1988 S.C. 694.
course is to ignore that fact only unless it goes into the root of the matter so as to demolish the
entire prosecution story. The witnesses now a days go on adding embellishment to their version
perhaps for the fear of their testimony being rejected by the Court. The Courts, however, should
not disbelieve the evidence of such witnesses altogether if they are otherwise trustworthy." In case
of – Arjun and others ..Vs.. State of Rajsthan 16, the Hon'ble Court has held that - A little bit of
discrepancies or improvement do not necessarily demolish the testimony. Trivial discrepancy, as
is well known, should be ignored. Under circumstantial variety the usual character of human
testimony is substantially true. Similarly, innocuous omission is inconsequential.

CONCLUSION
From the above reading the importance to prove contradiction and omission can be symbolized. It
is true that if contradictions and omissions are proved they can change the faith of the case for the
defense. The proof of the same can help an innocent accused person who must have been roped in
a false case by presenting false and twisted case against him. The proof of Contradiction is vital to
destroy the credibility of the case of prosecution. Proved contradictions and omissions which can
affect the case of prosecution plays a vital role while the Judge decides the faith of the case by
appreciating the evidence he has recorded throughout the trial. Cross examination is an art and
proving contradiction and omission makes the art even more artistic.

Furthermore, It is of utmost importance that the witnesses are not influenced in any manner so that
witness can provide unbiased and truthful statement which would help in the delivery of fair
judgment. However, in many cases, documentary evidences weakens the oral evidences as the
eyewitness can often be misleading but the documentary evidences have lesser chances of being
inaccurate.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

16
Arjun and others ..Vs.. State of Rajsthan, AIR 1994 SC 2507
1. http://mja.gov.in/Site/Upload/GR/Title%20NO.66(As%20Per%20Workshop%20List%20
title%20no66%20pdf).pdf
2. https://blog.ipleaders.in/witnesses-under-the-indian-evidence-
act/#Who_can_be_a_witness
3. http://ijtr.nic.in/Evidence%20Act.pdf
4. http://mja.gov.in/Site/Upload/GR/Title%20NO.124(As%20Per%20Workshop%20List%2
0title%20no124%20pdf).pdf
5. https://districts.ecourts.gov.in/sites/default/files/scjrajam.pdf
6. https://blog.ipleaders.in/central-conceptions-law-evidence/
7. https://www.shareyouressays.com/knowledge/section-145-of-the-indian-evidence-act-
1872/120529