Judicial Scrutiny of Contradictions, Inconsistencies, Exaggerations, or Embellishments in Witness Testimonies under Indian Law
Introduction
The edifice of criminal justice in India, as in any jurisdiction, heavily relies on the veracity and reliability of witness testimonies. However, human memory is fallible, and perception can be subjective, leading to contradictions, inconsistencies, exaggerations, or embellishments in evidence presented before courts. The Indian judiciary has developed a nuanced approach to evaluating such testimonial imperfections, eschewing hyper-technicality in favour of a pragmatic assessment aimed at discerning the truth. This article analyzes the legal principles and judicial precedents in India that guide courts in dealing with these common features of oral evidence. It examines how courts differentiate between minor discrepancies and material contradictions, the effect of exaggerations, and the overarching duty to separate the "grain from the chaff."
The Guiding Principle: Separating Grain from Chaff – Rejection of "Falsus in Uno, Falsus in Omnibus"
A foundational principle in Indian evidence law is the rejection of the maxim "falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus" (false in one thing, false in everything). The Supreme Court of India has consistently held that this maxim is not a sound rule of law for the administration of justice in India. Instead, the judiciary adopts the approach of sifting through the evidence to separate truth from falsehood.
In Ugar Ahir And Others v. State Of Bihar (1965 AIR SC 277), the Supreme Court observed that the court's duty is to remove the "chaff" and accept the "grain." This principle was reiterated in Sohrab v. State Of M.P. (1972 SCC 3 751), where the Court dismissed the notion that if a witness is found unreliable in one aspect, their entire testimony should be disregarded, advocating instead for a selective assessment. Similarly, in Gangadhar Behera And Others v. State Of Orissa (2002 SCC 8 381), the Supreme Court rejected the application of this maxim, advocating for the selective appreciation of testimonies. The Court in Daddul Dadulli v. State Of U.P. (2016 SCC ONLINE ALL 1919), citing Ramesh Harijan v. State Of Uttar Pradesh, emphasized that a witness cannot be branded as a liar wholesale, and the falsity of a witness on a material particular would not ruin testimony from beginning to end, as such an approach would bring the administration of criminal justice to a standstill.
The core judicial task, therefore, is not to discard testimony wholesale due to some inaccuracies but to meticulously examine it and retain the credible portions that support the overall narrative, if possible.
Nature of Discrepancies: Material v. Minor
The Indian courts draw a critical distinction between 'material' discrepancies and 'minor' or 'normal' discrepancies. The treatment of a contradiction or inconsistency largely depends on its nature and its impact on the core of the prosecution's case.
Minor or Normal Discrepancies
The judiciary acknowledges that minor discrepancies are often natural and inevitable in human testimony. As observed in State Of Madhya Pradesh v. Dal Singh And Others (Supreme Court Of India, 2013), discrepancies are bound to occur "for the reason that witnesses, owing to common errors in observation i.e errors of memory due to lapse of time, or errors owing to mental disposition, such as feelings of shock or horror that existed at the time of occurrence." The Delhi High Court in Mukesh Singh v. State (Nct Of Delhi) (2014) echoed this, stating that "normal discrepancies are bound to occur in the depositions of witnesses due to normal errors of observation, namely, errors of memory due to lapse of time or due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence."
The Supreme Court in State Of Rajasthan v. Kalki And Another (1981 SCC 2 752) noted that discrepancies referred to by the High Court in that case were "minor, insignificant, natural, and not 'material'." Similarly, in Ajay Rai Complainant v. Mukhtar Ansari Accused (District Court, 2023), it was highlighted that if there are no material discrepancies, evidence cannot be disbelieved merely on the basis of some normal, natural, or minor contradictions, inconsistencies, exaggerations, or embellishments. In fact, such minor contradictions can sometimes lend credence to the testimony, suggesting that the witness is not tutored or giving a parrot-like stereotyped version (Mallappa Siddappa Alakanur And Others v. State Of Karnataka, 2009 SCC 14 748; Ajay Rai Complainant v. Mukhtar Ansari Accused, 2023). The Court in Kare Deen And Others v. State (Allahabad High Court, 2022), citing Bhagwan Jagannath Markad v. State of Maharashtra, noted that minor contradictions are bound to be there and "in fact they go to support the trustfulness of the witness."
The Supreme Court in State Of H.P v. Lekh Raj And Another (2000 SCC 1 247) also opined that minor discrepancies in witness statements do not necessarily undermine the overall credibility if the essence of the testimony remains intact.
Material Discrepancies
Material discrepancies, on the other hand, are those that affect the core of the prosecution's case, go to the root of the matter, or create serious doubts about the truthfulness of the witness. As stated in State Of Madhya Pradesh v. Dal Singh And Others (2013), omissions which amount to contradictions in material particulars, "i.e which materially affect the trial, or the core of the case of the prosecution, render the testimony of the witness as liable to be discredited." The Supreme Court in Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal Gupta (Dr.) And Others v. State Of Maharashtra (2010 SCC 12 324) clarified that while normal discrepancies do not corrode credibility, material discrepancies do. This was also affirmed in Mahavir Singh v. State Of Haryana (Supreme Court Of India, 2014).
The Karnataka High Court in S.L. Rajappa v. State By Vidhana Soudha Police (2019), citing Ashok Kumar Vs. State of Haryana, held that "contradictions, inconsistencies, exaggerations or embellishments which are material or serious contradictions in statement of witnesses alone will affect the case of prosecution." Similarly, the Madhya Pradesh High Court in THE STATE OF M.P. v. SHISHUPAL SINGH & ORS. (2019), referencing Brijpal Singh Vs. State of M.P., noted the significance of "serious" contradictions, inconsistencies, exaggerations, or embellishments.
In Mallappa Siddappa Alakanur And Others v. State Of Karnataka (2009), the Supreme Court upheld the High Court's finding fault with the trial court's approach in rejecting testimony based on "immaterial and unsubstantial contradictions not relating to vital and relevant aspects." The Court further noted that contradictions, inconsistencies, exaggerations or embellishments, and minor discrepancies do not necessarily make the prosecution case doubtful but can, in some instances, lend credibility.
Exaggerations and Embellishments in Testimony
Witnesses may sometimes exaggerate or add embellishments to their accounts. The judicial approach to such elements is also one of careful scrutiny rather than outright rejection. The Supreme Court in State Of Madhya Pradesh v. Dal Singh And Others (2013) stated, "Exaggeration per se does not render the evidence brittle. But it can be one of the factors against which the credibility of the prosecution story can be tested, when the entire evidence is put in a crucible to test the same on the touchstone of credibility." This sentiment is echoed in Gangabhavani v. Rayapati Venkat Reddy And Others (Supreme Court Of India, 2013), Mahavir Singh v. State Of Haryana (2014), and Mukesh Singh v. State (Nct Of Delhi) (2014).
However, where witnesses make "material improvements before the court in order to make their evidence acceptable," it may not be safe to rely upon such evidence (State Of Madhya Pradesh v. Dal Singh And Others, 2013; Mahavir Singh v. State Of Haryana, 2014). In Amali Arockia Selvi v. 1.Maria Michael @ Michael (Madras High Court, 2018), the court referred to Rajesh Patel v. State of Jharkhand, where contradictions, inconsistencies, and exaggerations in the prosecutrix's testimony, among other factors, led to the benefit of doubt being extended to the accused.
The Supreme Court in Daddul Dadulli v. State Of U.P. (2016) reiterated that the entire evidence must be evaluated by excluding the exaggerated version, as witnesses often add embellishments. If a witness is otherwise trustworthy, their evidence should not be disbelieved entirely due to such additions.
The Judicial Duty: Holistic Evaluation and Credibility Assessment
The overarching duty of the court is to undertake a holistic appreciation of evidence. In State Of Uttar Pradesh v. Krishna Master And Others (2010 SCC 12 324), the Supreme Court emphasized that the court must evaluate evidence as a whole, considering the context and inherent strengths, rather than dismissing it due to minor inconsistencies. This principle was also evident in State Of U.P v. M.K Anthony (1985 SCC 1 505), where the Court stressed a thorough assessment of the totality of evidence, not being swayed by isolated inconsistencies.
A crucial aspect of this evaluation is forming an opinion about the credibility of the witness. The court must record a finding as to whether the deposition "inspires confidence" (State Of Madhya Pradesh v. Dal Singh And Others, 2013; Gangabhavani v. Rayapati Venkat Reddy And Others, 2013; Mahavir Singh v. State Of Haryana, 2014; Mukesh Singh v. State (Nct Of Delhi), 2014). The "ring of truth" test is often applied to assess the overall reliability of testimony (TULSHIRAM BALAJI PUPALWAD v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, Bombay High Court, 2021; State Of Uttar Pradesh v. Krishna Master And Others, 2010).
Furthermore, "mere marginal variations in the statements of a witness cannot be dubbed as improvements, as the same may be elaborations of a statement made by the witness at an earlier stage. Irrelevant details which do not in any way corrode the credibility of a witness cannot be labelled as omissions or contradictions" (State Of Madhya Pradesh v. Dal Singh And Others, 2013; Mahavir Singh v. State Of Haryana, 2014).
Omissions and Their Evidentiary Value
Omissions in a witness's statement, particularly when compared to earlier statements recorded by the police (e.g., under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973), can sometimes amount to contradictions. The Explanation to Section 162 of the CrPC clarifies that "an omission to state a fact or circumstances in the statements referred to in sub-sec. (1) may amount to contradiction if the same appears to be significant and otherwise relevant having regard to the context in which such omission occurs and whether any omission amounts to a contradiction in the particular context shall be a question of fact" (Kharad Vallabh Savaji v. State, Gujarat High Court, 1994).
As with other discrepancies, the materiality of the omission is key. Omissions that amount to "contradictions in material particulars i.e go to the root of the case/materially affect the trial or core of the prosecution case, render the testimony of the witness liable to be discredited" (Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal Gupta (Dr.) And Others v. State Of Maharashtra, 2010; State Of Madhya Pradesh v. Dal Singh And Others, 2013; Mahavir Singh v. State Of Haryana, 2014).
Impact of Testimonial Imperfections on the Prosecution Case
The presence of contradictions or inconsistencies does not automatically lead to the acquittal of the accused. The court must assess their overall impact. As seen in Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State Of Gujarat (1983 SCC 3 217), corroboration should not be a rigid requirement unless significant discrepancies undermine the victim's testimony.
In Sumay Singh Ant Ram Petitioners v. State & Ors. (Delhi High Court, 2006), citing Krishna Mochi and Others v. State of Bihar, it was held that a discrepancy existing in a prosecution case should not weigh with the Court so long as it does not materially affect the case. Even if a major portion of evidence is found to be deficient, if the residue is sufficient to prove the guilt of an accused, his conviction can be based on it.
Conversely, where contradictions are serious and go to the root of the matter, or where multiple witnesses make material improvements to make their evidence acceptable, it may be unsafe to rely on such testimony (State Of Madhya Pradesh v. Dal Singh And Others, 2013; Mukesh Singh v. State (Nct Of Delhi), 2014). The case of STATE OF KARNATAKA v. KARTIK HEBBAR C. (Karnataka High Court, 2024), referencing Ravikapur v. State of Karnataka, noted that in certain contexts (like offences under Section 279 and 304-A IPC), contradictions, inconsistencies, exaggerations or embellishments are not necessarily fatal to the prosecution case.
The judgment in State Of Punjab v. Jagir Singh, Baljit Singh And Karam Singh (1974 SCC 3 277) illustrates a scenario where the Supreme Court found the High Court's reasoning for acquittal, based on perceived inconsistencies, to be speculative and unsupported by concrete evidence, thereby reinstating convictions.
Conclusion
The Indian judiciary's approach to contradictions, inconsistencies, exaggerations, or embellishments in witness testimonies is characterized by a pragmatic and balanced quest for truth. Courts are mandated to meticulously sift through evidence, distinguishing between natural human errors and deliberate falsehoods or material discrepancies that undermine the core of the prosecution's narrative. The rejection of the "falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus" rule, coupled with the emphasis on a holistic assessment of evidence and the credibility of witnesses, ensures that justice is not defeated by minor imperfections in testimony. The ultimate test remains whether the evidence, despite its flaws, inspires confidence and establishes the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. This nuanced approach reflects a mature legal system that understands the complexities of human testimony and strives to ensure that while the innocent are protected, the guilty do not escape due to an overly pedantic interpretation of evidentiary rules.