The Supreme Court recently observed that statements made to the police by witnesses cannot be treated as evidence during trial [Birbal Nath vs State of Rajasthan and ors]..In a judgment delivered on October 30, a bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Sudhanshu Dhulia stated that such statements have limited applicability in a court of law."No doubt statement given before police during investigation under Section 161 are 'previous statements' under Section 145 of the Evidence Act and therefore can be used to cross examine a witness. But this is only for a limited purpose, to 'contradict' such a witness. Even if the defence is successful in contradicting a witness, it would not always mean that the contradiction in her two statements would result in totally discrediting this witness," the bench explained..The observations came while setting aside a 2007 Rajasthan High Court decision, wherein a statement given by a witness earlier to the police was used to discredit the witness. In the said case, the High Court acquitted certain persons of murder charges, and instead convicted for lesser offences such as rioting, causing hurt etc. The High Court had reasoned that the attack allegedly carried out by the accused was not pre meditated. Rather it was a clash between two semi-armed groups, particularly since both sides sustained injuries, the High Court concluded.The High Court verdict was challenged before the Supreme Court by the Rajasthan government as well as the complainant. .The top court found that the High Court had magnified 'simple, doubtful and totally unexplained injuries' of the accused to conclude that both sides had been injured. By doing so, the Supreme Court opined that the High Court had "belittled the brutal and murderous attack" by the accused on the victims, one of whom had died. "This approach of the High Court in our considered opinion was not correct. The High Court has gone wrong in its appreciation of the case, both on facts as well as on law," the Supreme Court concluded..The appeals were, thus, allowed, and the High Court's verdict set aside. The accused who were out on bail were directed to surrender.However, instead of murder, the various accused were convicted of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Accordingly, the jail sentence was also altered to one of seven years of rigorous imprisonment..Advocate Charu Mathur appeared for the victims. Senior Advocate Manish Singhvi appeared for the Rajasthan government. Senior Advocate Ramakrishan Veeraraghavan represented the accused-respondents..[Read Judgment]
The Supreme Court recently observed that statements made to the police by witnesses cannot be treated as evidence during trial [Birbal Nath vs State of Rajasthan and ors]..In a judgment delivered on October 30, a bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Sudhanshu Dhulia stated that such statements have limited applicability in a court of law."No doubt statement given before police during investigation under Section 161 are 'previous statements' under Section 145 of the Evidence Act and therefore can be used to cross examine a witness. But this is only for a limited purpose, to 'contradict' such a witness. Even if the defence is successful in contradicting a witness, it would not always mean that the contradiction in her two statements would result in totally discrediting this witness," the bench explained..The observations came while setting aside a 2007 Rajasthan High Court decision, wherein a statement given by a witness earlier to the police was used to discredit the witness. In the said case, the High Court acquitted certain persons of murder charges, and instead convicted for lesser offences such as rioting, causing hurt etc. The High Court had reasoned that the attack allegedly carried out by the accused was not pre meditated. Rather it was a clash between two semi-armed groups, particularly since both sides sustained injuries, the High Court concluded.The High Court verdict was challenged before the Supreme Court by the Rajasthan government as well as the complainant. .The top court found that the High Court had magnified 'simple, doubtful and totally unexplained injuries' of the accused to conclude that both sides had been injured. By doing so, the Supreme Court opined that the High Court had "belittled the brutal and murderous attack" by the accused on the victims, one of whom had died. "This approach of the High Court in our considered opinion was not correct. The High Court has gone wrong in its appreciation of the case, both on facts as well as on law," the Supreme Court concluded..The appeals were, thus, allowed, and the High Court's verdict set aside. The accused who were out on bail were directed to surrender.However, instead of murder, the various accused were convicted of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Accordingly, the jail sentence was also altered to one of seven years of rigorous imprisonment..Advocate Charu Mathur appeared for the victims. Senior Advocate Manish Singhvi appeared for the Rajasthan government. Senior Advocate Ramakrishan Veeraraghavan represented the accused-respondents..[Read Judgment]
