Minor discrepancies on trivial matters must not prompt court to reject evidence in its entirety

Supreme Court: Answering the question relating to the fate of a prosecution story in case of Dealing minor inconsistencies, the Court said that minor inconsistencies or discrepancies, do not necessarily demolish the entire prosecution story. The Court, relying upon Sampath Kumar v. Inspector of Police, (2012) 4 SCC 124, said that minor contradictions are bound to appear in the statements of truthful witnesses as he may not be able to properly recall the event and secondly, the sense of observing an event may also differ from person to person. Adding to this, the Court also said that the courts must be cautious while appreciating the evidence of a witness and minor discrepancies on trivial matters must not prompt the court to reject the evidence in its entirety. [Bakhshish Singh v. State of Punjab, CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1110 OF 2009, decided on August 06, 2013]

Print Page