Read Time: 06 minutes

• Top Court has commuted the death sentence of a man who was convicted for the murder of 3 blood relatives basis satisfactory behaviour during incarceration  while also expounding that minor inconsistencies in evidence produced does not reject the evidence as a whole.

---

The Supreme Court has recently held that minor discrepancies on trivial matters not touching the core of the case, hypertechnical approaches by taking sentences torn out of context here or there from the evidence, would not ordinarily permit rejection of the evidence as a whole.

A bench of Justice L Nageswara Rao, Justice BR Gavai, and Justice BV Nagarathna observed that a rustic witness is not expected to remember every small detail of the incident and the manner in which the incident had happened.

The applicant was convicted for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with sections 201 and 506B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 & the trial judge had awarded a death sentence to the appellant for three gruesome murders.

Senior Advocate N Hariharan appearing for the applicant submitted that "the prosecution has withheld an important witness, an adverse inference needs to be drawn against the prosecution."

Whereas, Advocate Swarupama Chaturvedi appearing for the prosecution submitted that minor inconsistencies in the evidence of the witnesses should not be given much importance. 

Chaturvedi further submitted that "taking into consideration the brutality of the murder, wherein three blood relatives have been done away with for no fault of theirs, warrants no lesser penalty than the death penalty." 

However, the bench observed that "No doubt that there are minor discrepancies in the evidence of these PWs."
The bench while relying on the judgment in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Krishna Master and Others noted that,

"It could thus be seen that what is required to be considered is whether the evidence of the witness read as a whole appears to have a ring of truth. It has been held that minor discrepancies on trivial matters not touching the core of the case, hypertechnical approaches by taking sentences torn out of context here or there from the evidence, would not ordinarily permit rejection of the evidence as a whole."

The bench further noted, "It has been held that there are always normal discrepancies due to normal errors of observation, normal errors of memory due to lapse of time, due to mental disposition, shock and horror at the time of occurrence."

Thus the Court observed that "in case of rustic witnesses, some inconsistencies and discrepancies are bound to be found."

However, the bench while considering that the applicant in the case is not a hardened criminal, it is his first offense and the Jail Superintendent report suggests that his conduct has been satisfactory, convert the sentence imposed on the appellant from death to life.

The bench while commuting the sentence from death to imprisonment of 30 years noted that, "This is the first offense committed by the appellant, no doubt, a heinous one. The certificate issued by the Jail Superintendent shows that the conduct of the appellant during incarceration has been satisfactory."

Case Title: Bhagchandra Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh