When witnesses testify, inconsistencies often appear in their statements during examination-in-chief and cross-examination. The law understands that human memory is imperfect, and small discrepancies are normal. However, when these errors undermine the core of a case, they can lead to serious consequences.
Legal Framework
1. Indian Evidence Act, 1872-
* Section 145: A witness may be cross-examined about prior inconsistent statements. If they deny these statements, contradictions must be proven through the proper procedure.
* Section 155(3): A witness’s credibility can be challenged by proving earlier inconsistent statements.
2. Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023:
These provisions are mostly retained in Sections 148 and 158.
The basic principle remains the same: contradictions test credibility, but not every inconsistency damages testimony.
Errors in Examination-in-Chief
Minor Mistakes: Errors in dates, distances, or spellings are minor and usually overlooked if the main narrative is clear.
Material Errors/Contradictions: Conflicts with pleadings, FIR, or earlier statements raise questions about reliability.
Omissions: Introducing significant facts later in cross-examination may be seen as an afterthought unless there is a valid explanation.
Impact: Minor errors are generally excused; significant ones can weaken credibility and the case itself.
Errors in Cross-Examination
Contradictions: Differences from prior testimony or earlier statements can challenge credibility under Sections 145 and 155 (148 and 158 BSA).
Evasive or Confused Replies: Self-contradictory or unclear answers suggest unreliability.
Damaging Admissions: Any negative admission binds the witness and can seriously affect the case.
Trivial Slips: These are tolerated as natural human errors.
Impact: Errors found during cross-examination can be crucial and might sway the case in favor of the opposing party.
Affidavit vs. Oral Examination
Written Affidavit: In civil proceedings, affidavits act as a formal and initial type of evidence. They capture the witness’s account of the facts. However, they do not allow the court to observe the witness’s behaviour or assess credibility through direct questioning.
Oral Examination: Courts, especially in criminal trials, prefer oral testimony because it allows for cross-examination, real-time questioning, and observation of the witness’s demeanour, hesitation, or confidence. This kind of direct examination is seen as much more reliable for determining truthfulness.
Court’s Preference: Oral testimony is more heavily weighted when determining truthfulness.
Why Witnesses Contradict Themselves?
* Memory lapses over time.
* Pressure from aggressive cross-examination.
* Delays between principal and cross-examination.
* Hostility due to threats or inducements.
* Inaccurate earlier recordings under Section 161 CrPC.
Judicial Principles on Contradictions
(a) Minor vs. Material:
i. In State of U.P. vs. M.K. Anthony (1985), the Supreme Court stated that minor discrepancies or slight inconsistencies in testimony do not make the whole evidence unreliable. The Court understood that human memory can be faulty. It noted that small differences in dates, times, or details are normal when recalling past events. What matters is consistency on key points that are central to the case. Therefore, only contradictions that impact the main narrative of the prosecution can be seen as significant.
ii. In State of Rajasthan vs. Kalki (1981), the Supreme Court noted that minor differences in testimony are normal and do not make the evidence unreliable. These variations can come from typical mistakes in observation, memory lapses, or the pressure of testifying in court. However, when contradictions are significant—affecting key facts like the crime’s occurrence, the accused’s identity, or how the offence took place—they cannot be ignored and may undermine the witness’s credibility.
(b) Hostile Witness:
i. In Khujji vs. State of M.P. (1991), the Supreme Court decided that the testimony of a hostile witness should not be completely dismissed. If a prosecution witness changes or contradicts parts of their earlier statements during cross-examination, the court must examine the evidence closely. The court can use those parts that are believable and consistent with other evidence in the case.
(c) Contradictions Procedure:
i. In Tahsildar Singh vs. State of U.P. (1959), the Supreme Court outlined the way to prove contradictions under Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act. The Court stated that when a witness changes their earlier police statement, the exact part must be shown to the witness during cross-examination. If the witness accepts it, no more proof is needed; if they deny it, the Investigating Officer who took the statement must be called to verify it. The Court also noted that only significant inconsistencies count as contradictions; minor omissions or unclear differences do not.
ii. In Bhagwan Singh vs. State of Punjab (1952), the Supreme Court confirmed that if a witness acknowledges making an earlier inconsistent statement, no further proof is required. However, if the witness denies the admission, the statement must be proven through the person who recorded it, usually the investigating officer. Therefore, the rule is straightforward: admission settles the issue, while denial needs independent proof.
Bottom Line
Witness testimony can differ due to memory lapses or normal human mistakes. These small differences are not important and do not automatically damage credibility. However, significant contradictions, which involve key issues like the crime itself, the identity of the accused, or the nature of the offense, can make a witness unreliable. The court must identify genuine human errors from contradictions that go to the heart of the case.
Conclusion
Mistakes in testimony are forgivable as long as they do not affect the main issues. Minor inconsistencies, usually resulting from the limits of human memory, are legally unimportant. Only major contradictions that impact the core of the case can weaken a witness’s credibility and influence the result. The court’s job is to separate harmless variations from serious contradictions to ensure that justice is based on trustworthy evidence.
