Carlisle Collins
30 June 2014 at 02:35
This question relates to Hon. Supreme Court of India in Tahsildar Singh and Another vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh on 5 May, 1959 [Equivalent citations: 1959 AIR 1012, 1959 SCR Supl. (2) 875].
The Supreme Court issued and clarified guidelines on factors that color witness statements as “omission”, “contradiction” “improvisation” – which opened my floodgate to confusion!!
Can someone simplify the ruling with examples? For instance, if a (purported) victim’s written statement (CrPC 162) to the police included a material fact: e.g., that he had sustained a cigarette burn on the wrist from the alleged perpetrator. But, during forensic (medical) examination, the physician finds no sign of injury; neither does the alleged victim make any mention of this “burn incident” to the Examiner; nevertheless, more than a month later in his statement to the magistrate (CrPC 164), he points out a scar on his wrist which the magistrate makes note of (and makes an unqualified medical opinion linking the scar to a “burn mark”).
What are the necessary elements that transform an omission into a material “contradiction”? What legal factors could color the purported victim’s story as “innovation”? Can someone explain in general terms the legal distinction (not just the dictionary definition) between Omission, Contradiction, and Improvisation?
Thanks for your patience, effort, and indulgence.
Occular and testimonial evidence:
This question relates to Hon. Supreme Court of India in Tahsildar Singh and Another vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh on 5 May, 1959 [Equivalent citations: 1959 AIR 1012, 1959 SCR Supl. (2) 875].
The Supreme Court issued and clarified guidelines on factors that color witness statements as “omission”, “contradiction” “improvisation” – which opened my floodgate to confusion!!
Can someone simplify the ruling with examples? For instance, if a (purported) victim’s written statement (CrPC 162) to the police included a material fact: e.g., that he had sustained a cigarette burn on the wrist from the alleged perpetrator. But, during forensic (medical) examination, the physician finds no sign of injury; neither does the alleged victim make any mention of this “burn incident” to the Examiner; nevertheless, more than a month later in his statement to the magistrate (CrPC 164), he points out a scar on his wrist which the magistrate makes note of (and makes an unqualified medical opinion linking the scar to a “burn mark”).
What are the necessary elements that transform an omission into a material “contradiction”? What legal factors could color the purported victim’s story as “innovation”? Can someone explain in general terms the legal distinction (not just the dictionary definition) between Omission, Contradiction, and Improvisation?
Thanks for your patience, effort, and indulgence.