BABASAHEB APPARAO PATIL versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: [2008] 16 S.C.R. 769 · Decided: 28-11-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.K. JAIN · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 16 S.C.R. 769 
.. -t 
BABASAHEB APPARAO PATIL 
A 
v. 
ST ATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1264 of 2005) 
NOVEMBER 28, 2008 
B 
I 
[D.K. JAIN AND V.S. SIRPURKAR, JJ.) 
'" 
t 
Penal Code, 1860: 
s.302 r.w. s.34- Conviction under, by trial Court- High c 
Court ignoring minor contradictions in testimony of witnesses 
and affirming conviction - Justification of- Held: Courts below 
.{ 
justified in not rejecting evidence of witness merely on account 
of some contradictions - The contradictions were not directly 
related to the incident - Omissions of not mentioning exact 
D 
portion of the body of deceased where shot was fired not 
significant as there was no omission as regards the fire by 
'~ 
I 
accused on the deceased - Evidence of two eye witnesses 
"'"' 
corroborated by medical evidence - Conduct of witness in 
going to the house of his uncle instead of reporting incident 
E 
to police not unnatural, and would not impair creditworthiness 
of his evidence. 
Evidence: 
Discrepancies/contradictions in the testimony of witness 
F 
... 
- Effect on prosecution case - Held: Not fatal unless 
--( 
contradictions are material - Only when discrepancies in 
evidence are materially incompatible with the credibility of 
witness, same should be discarded. 
Conduct of witness - Post event conduct - Held: Varies G 
_... 
from person to person - Different persons would react 
-' 
differently on seeing any serious crime. 
According to prosecution, father of accused 2 was 
769 
H 
770 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 16 $.C.R. 
A leader of one party and the deceased was leader of 
+ .. 
another party. Accused 1 and 3 were cousins of accused 
2 and the accused 4 was known to them. There was 
grudge between the two rival partie~. On the fateful day, 
·deceased alongwith pw .. 10, the Sarpanch ofvillage, PW-
B 26 and PW-11, the driver of the jeep was travelling in a 
jeep. On the way deceased stopped the jeep. He got 
down and started talking to wife of PW-26. Another jeep 
t 
came there. All the four accused got down from the jeep. 
'f 
> 
Accused 1 was armed with a pistol. Accused 2 was 
c holding dagger. Accused 3 grabbed the deceased from 
behind and accused 2 gave a da,gger blow on his 
stomach. When the deceased fell down accused 1 fired 
a bullet shofat hi's chest. Ori seeing the assault, PW-10 
ran away out of fear. PW-11, the driver of the jeep also fled 
D from the scene and went to the house of his uncle and 
narrated the entire incident to him. The police officer 
received a phone call from an unknown· person about the 
, 
murder of deceased. 
... ) 
)If 
The Trial Court convicted all the four accused under 
E s.302 IPC read with s.34. The conviction of accused 1-
appellant and accused 2 was confirmed by the High 
Court. Hence the instant appeal. 
Dismissing .the appeal, the Court 
F 
HELD: 1.1. Some discrepancies in the ocular account 
, 
of.a witraess, unless those are vital, cannot per se affect 
)... 
. the credibility of the evidence of the witness. Unless the 
contradictions are material, the same cannot be used to 
G 
jettison the evidence in its entirety.Tri'lial discrepancies 
ought not to obliterate an otherwise. acceptable evidence. 
Merely because there is inconsistency in evidence, it is 
I 
.._ 
not sufficient to impair the credibility of the witness. U is 
~. 
only when discrepancies in the evidence of a witness are 
so incompatible with the credibility of his version that the 
H 
-
BABASAHEB APPARAO PATIL v. STATE OF 
771 
MAHARASHTRA 
.. t 
court would be justified in discarding his evidence. [Para 
A 
12] [777 -B-D] 
1.2. Both the courts below found that the evidence 
of eye-witnesses, PW-10 and PW-11 was creditworthy 
and held that the minor contradictions in their testimony 
were not sufficient to affect the credibility of their 
B 
... 
evidence. In the light of the evidence of P.W-10 and PW-
t 
11, High Court was right in holding that the contradictions 
were not directly relating to the incident and could not be 
said to be material contradictions affecting the credibility c 
of the evidence of both the eye witnesses. Similarly, the 
so-called omission of not mentioning the exact portion 
of the body of the deceased where the shot was fired 
cannot be said to be a significant omission because there 
was no omission as regards the firing by the appellant D 
on the deceased. In his testimony, PW-10 gave graphic 
details of the occurrence. Similarly, PW-11, the driver of 
·' 
the jeep, in his

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.