Parveen Vijan v. State Of Punjab
!"#$#
% &'(# ) () (( ' ****
)*"
+!, - ./ # !
#$ %%
&
'
)
(*
+$ $, -$ .&/00( (* -1 $# -$-#2 &
* &
0(
(3 1*
-,43%53 2&
+$#65 3 &
#-,3% 738 $1 -, $, -$ -
-,49+$#69#-,3%(
%
&0( -!
&
& (
2 &
& * (
&
22
&
2 2
*
*&
* : ; (
&
2
*
- 2 - +!
=
(
2
'
&62
( &
&
*
(
"
2 (
& *
2
(
#!
=
(
(
>!
* ?< &; (
2
&*
(
( 8 ;6 $6/=6>,+# *
*
@
*
& 2
(
&
:
)
&
*
2
*
*
2 2
&
& &
:+ (
*
=2
(
&
* 2
:+ ( )
&( (*
&
2
2
2&
1!
& <*
*
'
(
( (
* &
- 3 -
A (
&
(
B
2
&
&
(
*
2 C
2
2
*&
&2
* ,!
* %
!"
* &
*
* 3 2
2
(
*
<
&
"
(* 6 "81. It is settled legal proposition that: (Khujji case, SCC p. 635, para 6) '6. ... the evidence of a prosecution witness cannot be rejected in toto merely because the prosecution chose to treat him as hostile and cross-examined him. The evidence of such witnesses cannot be treated as effaced or washed off the record altogether but the same can be accepted to the extent their version is found to be dependable on a careful scrutiny thereof.'
82.
In State of U.P. v. Ramesh Prasad Misra, (1996) 10 SCC 360] this Court held that (at SCC p. 363, para 7) evidence of a hostile witness would not be totally rejected if spoken in favour of the prosecution or the accused but required to be subjected to
- 4 - close scrutiny and that portion of the evidence which is consistent with the case of the prosecution or defence can be relied upon... 83.
Thus, the law can be summarised to the effect that the evidence of a hostile witness cannot be discarded as a whole, and relevant parts thereof which are admissible in law, can be used by the prosecution or the defence.
84.
In the instant case, some of the material witnesses i.e. B. Kamal (PW 86) and R. Maruthu (PW 51) turned hostile. Their evidence has been taken into consideration by the courts below strictly in accordance with law. Some omissions, improvements in the evidence of the PWs have been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants, but we find them to be very trivial in nature.
85.
It is settled proposition of law that even if there are some omissions, contradictions and discrepancies, the entire evidence cannot be disregarded. After exercising care and caution and sifting through the evidence to separate truth from untruth, exaggeration and improvements, the court comes to a conclusion as to whether the residuary evidence is sufficient to convict the accused. Thus, an undue importance should not be attached to omissions, contradictions and discrepancies which do not go to the heart of the matter and shake the basic version of the prosecution's witness. As the mental abilities of a human being cannot be expected to be attuned to absorb all the details of the incident, minor discrepancies are bound to occur in the statements of witnesses..." .!
2
) (
&
*( *
&
*& <* 6 6
- 5 -
(
&
* *
3
2
*
2 * *&
*
&
2
*& ( &
<* 6 6
=2
) <* 2
( (
&&
4!
/ * - $> -$-#
)*"
+!, - .
, -
:
'
(9D E98 - :
D E98