The Supreme Court has underscored the significance of eyewitness testimonies in criminal trials, emphasizing that an eyewitness cannot be expected to provide a
“blow-by-blow account of the knife strikes inflicted on the deceased like in a screenplay.”
This observation was made while hearing an appeal against a Gujarat High Court judgment that had reversed a trial court’s acquittal.
The case in question pertained to the fatal stabbing of Jayantibhai on July 10, 1995. The FIR, lodged by the deceased’s brother (PW1), accused the appellant, along with his father and brother, of committing the murder. The prosecution’s case was primarily based on the eyewitness account of prosecution witness PW2 (Parvatiben) and the dying declarations of PW4 and PW5 (brother of the deceased).
The trial court had initially acquitted all the accused, largely relying on medical evidence. However, the Gujarat High Court reversed this decision, convicting the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Challenging this, the appellant approached the Supreme Court.
Advocate Mr. D.N. Ray, representing the appellant, highlighted discrepancies in the eyewitness accounts, particularly concerning the number of knife blows and the identification of the weapon. He argued that the medical evidence indicated that the knife, referred to as “muddamal 9,” could not have caused the fatal injury.
The Supreme Court, however, opined that minor contradictions in witness statements should not overshadow the overall testimony. The bench, comprising Justices Aniruddha Bose and Justice Bela M Trivedi, stated,
“Just because there were more injuries than the ones narrated by the eyewitness cannot negate the prosecution’s version. In our opinion, the discrepancies pointed out by the appellant are minor ones.”
The Court further referenced the judgment in State of H. P. v. Lekh Raj (2000) (1) SCC 247, emphasizing that different witnesses might provide slightly varying accounts, but unless these contradictions are significant, they shouldn’t be used to reject the entire evidence.
Concluding the matter, the Supreme Court upheld the Gujarat High Court’s conviction, dismissing the appellant’s appeal. The Court stressed the importance of not relying excessively on minor doubts, citing Gurbachan Singh v. Satpal Singh (1990). The final order stated,
“We, accordingly, dismiss this appeal. We are apprised that the appellant is on bail. His bail bond shall stand canceled, and the appellant is directed to surrender before the trial Court within a period of four weeks.”
Case title: Rameshji Amarsingh Thakor v. State of Gujarat .