It is not merely a matter of the provisions of law as contained in sections 145 and 157 of the Evidence Act or the proviso to subsection (1) of section 162 of the CrPC; the question posed is of a larger magnitude than the mere formalities of declaring a witness hostile. A young girl, hardly 18 years of age, was forcibly dragged into a jungle while she was waiting on the roadside for her younger brother, who had gone to answer nature's call. This situation does not simply reflect resiling from previous statements; it reflects on social values. Declaring a witness hostile is not uncommon in a criminal trial, but in a case such as the one at hand, those who failed to rush to rescue the victim of sexual assault but arrived at the scene soon after the incident have turned hostile in order to depose only minimal facts.

The reason is not hard to seek: the defense's stand taken by the accused is that they have been falsely implicated as they belong to an active political group or party. No union or party can afford to tolerate such a monstrous assault. Those witnesses who have turned hostile should also realize that a rapist, who violates the personal integrity of a girl and leaves indelible marks on her soul, cannot escape punishment even with the negative support provided by such hostile witnesses.

Interference in Expert Domain
Reserving an area lies under expert domain; scrutiny by the court is not permissible. In the draft development plan, and even earlier, the entire land of 35 acres was earmarked for the purpose of a garden and park. This allocation has been continuously maintained. The extent of land earmarked was based on expert opinion. The process of dereservation was not initiated based on any report from the planning authority or the town planning officer. Instead, it was initiated on an application made by a subsequent purchaser, which, according to the court, is not in conformity with the provisions of the law.

Kinds of Discrepancies
There would hardly be any witness whose evidence does not contain some amount of omissions, exaggerations, or embellishments. There are two kinds of discrepancies: normal discrepancies and material discrepancies. Normal discrepancies are those that arise from typical errors of observation or memory due to the passage of time, as well as mental states such as shock and horror at the time of the occurrence. These discrepancies are always present, no matter how honest and truthful a witness may be.

Material discrepancies, on the other hand, are those that are not normal and are not expected from a typical person. Courts must categorize discrepancies appropriately. While normal discrepancies do not undermine the credibility of a party’s case, material discrepancies do.

Written By: S Kundu & Associates
Email: [email protected], Ph No: +9051244073