Patchaiperumal @ Patchikutti & Anr. v. State 2025 INSC 1478 - Evaluation Of Testimony Of Witnesses

Criminal Trial - Witnesses -When oral evidence of eye-witnesses is scrutinised, especially when certain alterations of their previous statements appear during the trial, the court is normally required to focus on the factors of consistency (whether the current statements match the previous statements), 19 credibility (whether they are reliable, or are there reasons to doubt them), corroboration (whether there is other evidence on record supporting their testimony) and motive (whether there is a reason for them to change their version). Should there be discrepancies or contradictions that are glaring, their testimony has to be viewed as suspect. Since, however, the goal of the criminal justice system is to secure justice for both the victim and the accused, each case has to be evaluated on its own merits, appreciating and analysing all the evidence that is presented. Evaluating testimony of witnesses in the Indian context, acknowledging human imperfections and contextual factors - While looking at statements of witnesses given in court, every detail need not be nitpicked; the overall impact that the testimony generates has to be considered. Witnesses are prone to forget events and things; they are likely to exaggerate or even have motives to change their story. This seems to be normal especially for uneducated witnesses who might struggle to describe events perfectly (Para 34- 37)- The witnesses add embroidery to the prosecution story, perhaps for the fear of being disbelieved- any embroidery found cannot per se be a ground for throwing the prosecution case overboard, if there is a ring of truth in the main. It is the duty of the court to sift the grain from the chaff unless there is reason to believe that the inconsistencies or falsehood are so glaring as utterly to destroy confidence in the witnesses. (Para 50)

Evidence - Hostile Witness - The evidence of a hostile witness would not be outright rejected but would rather have to be subjected to closer scrutiny. (Para 42)