Supreme Court Clarifies Impact of Minor Discrepancies in Witness Testimony on Criminal Trials

Introduction

The Supreme Court has, in the case of P Dineshan & Ors. v. State of Kerela[i]*, *addressed the legal issue of whether minor discrepancies in witness testimony should be allowed to undermine the credibility of their trial/case put forth by the prosecution, especially when on a corroborative reading of the evidence, a solid case is made out against the accused persons. Through the present judgment, the Court re-establishes that a faulty investigation cannot be the sole ground for the accused to claim acquittal.

Brief Facts

Set against the backdrop of a long-standing political rivalry between the members of two rival parties, RSS and CPI(M), the following events unfolded.

• In 2002, 11 members of RSS defected and joined CPI(M), exacerbating the political rivalry.

• One of the aforestated two parties had called for a hartal, which led to clashes between them. Fearing an attack by CPI(M) members, 11 RSS members sought refuge in a shed by the river. However, around midnight, 16 people belonging to CPI(M) attacked the RSS group members armed with deadly weapons such as axes, daggers, and choppers. While 9 people managed to escape, Sunil and Sujeesh (‘Deceased’), who had fallen asleep, were attacked and resultantly killed by the mob.

• As per the postmortem report, both Sujeesh and Sunil’s vital organs had been injured, and resultantly, they had died from shock and blood loss. The post-mortem report sufficiently established that the death of the victims was homicidal.

• Subsequently, an FIR was registered under ss. 43, 147,  148, 506(iii), 307, 302 read with ss. 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, while A15 was acquitted of all charges. With the completion of the investigation, a chargesheet was filed against the accused persons (A1 -A15), and the trial court held all accused persons guilty under s. 143, 147, 506(iii) and 302, read with 149 of IPC. Accused no. 2, 3, 11, and 12 were also found guilty under ss. 3 and 5  of the Explosive Substances Act.

• The High Court upheld the convictions of accused 1, 2, 11 and 12, while the other were acquitted. Aggrieved by the order passed by the High Court, the convicts filed the present appeal.

Held

• While dismissing the SLP filed by the convicts, the Supreme Court observed that minor variances in the witness statement did not render their testimony untrustworthy.

• In elaboration, the Supreme Court further observed that the principle of ‘falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus’ (false in one thing, false in everything) does not apply to Indian criminal jurisprudence, especially in the present scenario wherein the defence, to further their appeal, was only relying upon certain immaterial contradictions in investigation/statements. In such a scenario, the Court could not have discarded the entire case presented by the prosecution as false. To come to such a conclusion, the Supreme Court relied upon the judgment passed in Ram Vijay Singh vs State of UP[ii], wherein a three-judge bench had observed that if the court can inspire confidence from a part of the testimony presented by a witness, it can while relying on such part, convict the accused. * *

Our Analysis

The present judgment clarifies that the credibility of witnesses should not be undermined solely by isolated inconsistencies but rather evaluated based on the overall reliability and coherence of their statements in the context of the case. In doing so, the Court bridges a gap in Indian criminal jurisprudence regarding the admissibility of witness statements containing minor discrepancies, promoting a more balanced and practical approach to ensuring case finality.

This perspective is significant as it acknowledges that human memory and perception can be imperfect, particularly under stressful or traumatic conditions. Therefore, minor contradictions in the statements of witnesses should not be treated as fatal flaws to their testimony, as long as the core facts and the overall credibility of the witness remain intact. This judgment encourages a more holistic and context-sensitive approach to evaluating testimony, which could enhance the fairness and accuracy of trials in India.

Ultimately, this judgment contributes to the evolution of criminal law by emphasising that minor discrepancies should not compromise justice. Instead, the focus should remain on the substance and overall reliability of the evidence, ensuring justice is served fairly and reasonably.

End Notes

[i] 2025 SCC OnLine SC 28 dated 06.01.2025.

[ii] 2021 SCC Online SC 142.

Authored by Mohd Nouman at Metalegal Advocates. The views expressed are personal and do not constitute legal opinions.