Holding

Only material contradictions that affect the core of the incident can defeat the credibility of an eyewitness; trivial inconsistencies and post‑event conduct do not warrant discarding the evidence.

Summary

The appellant, Babasaheb Apparao Patil, was convicted along with three others for murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The prosecution's case rested primarily on the testimony of two eye‑witnesses, PW‑10 and PW‑11, whose statements contained minor contradictions and an alleged omission regarding the exact point of gunshot impact. The appellant contended that these inconsistencies and the post‑event conduct of PW‑11 (going to his uncle's house instead of reporting to police) rendered the witnesses unreliable. The Supreme Court held that trivial discrepancies that are not material to the core incident do not defeat the credibility of a witness, and that a witness's post‑event behaviour varies and is not per se indicative of unreliability. Corroborating medical evidence further supported the eyewitness accounts. Consequently, the Court upheld the convictions and dismissed the appeal.

Issues considered

Whether minor contradictions in eyewitness testimony amount to material discrepancies that should lead to the exclusion of the evidence.
Whether the post‑event conduct of a witness, specifically going to an uncle's house instead of reporting to police, undermines the credibility of the testimony.
Whether a conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC can be sustained on the basis of such eyewitness evidence.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 302, s. 34

Subjects

murderSection 302 IPCSection 34 IPCeyewitness testimonyevidence credibilitycontradictionspost‑event conductcriminal law

Judgment

[2008] 16 S.C.R. 769

.. -t BABASAHEB APPARAO PATIL A
v.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
(Criminal Appeal No. 1264 of 2005)
NOVEMBER 28, 2008
B
I [D.K. JAIN AND V.S. SIRPURKAR, JJ.)
'"
t Penal Code, 1860:

s.302 r.w. s.34- Conviction under, by trial Court- High c
Court ignoring minor contradictions in testimony of witnesses
and affirming conviction - Justification of- Held: Courts below
.{ justified in not rejecting evidence of witness merely on account
of some contradictions - The contradictions were not directly
related to the incident - Omissions of not mentioning exact D
portion of the body of deceased where shot was fired not
significant as there was no omission as regards the fire by
'~
I accused on the deceased - Evidence of two eye witnesses
corroborated by medical evidence - Conduct of witness in
"'"'
going to the house of his uncle instead of reporting incident
E
to police not unnatural, and would not impair creditworthiness
of his evidence.

Evidence:

Discrepancies/contradictions in the testimony of witness F
... - Effect on prosecution case - Held: Not fatal unless
--(
contradictions are material - Only when discrepancies in
evidence are materially incompatible with the credibility of
witness, same should be discarded.

Conduct of witness - Post event conduct - Held: Varies G
_... from person to person - Different persons would react
-' differently on seeing any serious crime.

According to prosecution, father of accused 2 was
769 H
770 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 16 $.C.R.

A leader of one party and the deceased was leader of + ..
another party. Accused 1 and 3 were cousins of accused
2 and the accused 4 was known to them. There was
grudge between the two rival partie~. On the fateful day,
·deceased alongwith pw. 10, the Sarpanch ofvillage, PW-
B 26 and PW-11, the driver of the jeep was travelling in a
jeep. On the way deceased stopped the jeep. He got
down and started talking to wife of PW-26. Another jeep t
>
came there. All the four accused got down from the jeep. 'f
Accused 1 was armed with a pistol. Accused 2 was
c holding dagger. Accused 3 grabbed the deceased from
behind and accused 2 gave a da,gger blow on his
stomach. When the deceased fell down accused 1 fired
a bullet shofat hi's chest. Ori seeing the assault, PW-10
ran away out of fear. PW-11, the driver of the jeep also fled
from the scene and went to the house of his uncle and
D
narrated the entire incident to him. The police officer
received a phone call from an unknown· person about the ,
murder of deceased. ... )
)If
The Trial Court convicted all the four accused under
E s.302 IPC read with s.34. The conviction of accused 1-
appellant and accused 2 was confirmed by the High
Court. Hence the instant appeal.

Dismissing .the appeal, the Court
F HELD: 1.1. Some discrepancies in the ocular account ,
of.a witraess, unless those are vital, cannot per se affect )...

.the credibility of the evidence of the witness. Unless the
contradictions are material, the same cannot be used to
jettison the evidence in its entirety.Tri'lial discrepancies
G ought not to obliterate an otherwise. acceptable evidence.
Merely because there is inconsistency in evidence, it is .._ I

not sufficient to impair the credibility of the witness. U is ~.

only when discrepancies in the evidence of a witness are
so incompatible with the credibility of his version that the
H
BABASAHEB APPARAO PATIL v. STATE OF
MAHARASHTRA
771 -
.. t court would be justified in discarding his evidence. [Para A
12] [777 -B-D]

1.2. Both the courts below found that the evidence
of eye-witnesses, PW-10 and PW-11 was creditworthy
and held that the minor contradictions in their testimony B
were not sufficient to affect the credibility of their
... evidence. In the light of the evidence of P.W-10 and PW-
11, High Court was right in holding that the contradictions
t
were not directly relating to the incident and could not be
said to be material contradictions affecting the credibility
of the evidence of both the eye witnesses. Similarly, the
c
so-called omission of not mentioning the exact portion
of the body of the deceased where the shot was fired
cannot be said to be a significant omission because there
was no omission as regards the firing by the appellant
on the deceased. In his testimony, PW-10 gave graphic D
details of the occurrence. Similarly, PW-11, the driver of
the jeep, in his evidence, narrated the incident which
·' corroborated with the version of PW-10. The evidence of
"f
these two witnesses stood corroborated by the medical
evidence, which clearly showed that several blows were E
given to the deceased by jamiya (dagger) and a fire arm
injury was also found over the abdomen of the deceased.
The conduct of PW-11 in going to the house of his uncle
instead of reporting the incident to the police was not
unnatural, impairing the creditworthiness of his evidence. F
,,. The post-event conduct of a witness varies from person
to person. It cannot be a cast iron reaction to be followed
as a model by every one witnessing such event. Different
persons would react differently on seeing any serious
crime and their behaviour and conduct would, therefore, G

... ~
be different. Therefore, having witnessed a dastardly
murder, it was not unnatural for the said witness to go to
his uncle. The courts be~ow were justified in not rejecting
his evidence merely on that score. [Paras 10, 11and15]
[776-D; 778-F-H; 779-A·D] H
772 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 16 S.C.R.
~
!Iii
I
.,
I'
A State of U.P. v. M.K. Anthony (1985) 1 SCC 505; + ..
Appabhai & Anr. v. State of Gujarat (1988) Supp. SCC 241
and Rammi @ Rameshwar v. State of M.P. (1999) 8 SCC
649; relied on.
~
I

Case Law Reference:
B I
(1985) 1 sec 505 relied on Para 13 J
, '"'-~---

(1988) supp. sec 241 relied on Para 14
1-
.'
(1999) a sec 649 relied/on Para 15 \
I
c
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 1264 of 2005.
r•
I
I'

From the Judgment and final Order dated 26-27.8.2004 ~
of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Criminal Appeal

~
D No. 686 of 1988 ..

_ Ashok K. Srivastava, B.P. Suryawanshi, Sushil Karanjkar
and Venkateswara Rao Anumolu for the Appellant. ~ .
¥
Anjani Kumar Mishra and Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure for
E
the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by r,
I
D.K. JAIN, J. 1. This appeal arises out of the judgment I

F. ren~ered by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, in Criminal
Appeal No. 686 of 1988, confirming the conviction of the c
,.,,_
appellant for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 ~
of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC'). '

..
2. As many as f9ur accused came to be tried by the Addi.
G Sessions Judge, Solapur in Sessions Case No. 198 of 1987.
t
These persons were Babasaheb Apparao Patil - Accused No. '
1, Tanaji Manikrao Patil - Accused No. 2, Appasha Dharmarao ~
Patil·- Accused No. 3 ·and Prakash Limbanna Koli - Accused
No. 4. The Trial Court convicted all the accused for the said
H
·,
~
BABASAHEB APPARAO PATIL v. STATE OF 773
MAHARASHTRA [D.K. JAIN, J.]

"' + offence and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment A
for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each, with default
stipulation. All the convicts preferred an appeal to the High
Court. Although accused No. 2 and 4 expired during the
pendency of the appeal, yet the High Court dealt with their
appeals as well. The High Court confirmed the conviction of the B
appellant herein and accused No. 2 but acquitted the remaining
two accused, giving them the benefit of doubt.
-" 3. According to the prosecution in village Boramani,
District Solapur, there are two rival parties. Manikrao Patil was
the leader of one party and the deceased - Baburao Vibhute
c
was the leader of the other party. Tanaji Manikrao Patil -
Accust:3d No. 2 is the son of Manikrao Patil. Babasaheb
Apparao Patil-Accused No. 1 and Appasha Dharmarao Patil
- Accused No. 3 are cousin brothers of Tanaji. Prakash
Limbanna Kali-Accused No. 4 is not related to other three D
accused but was known to them. On 7th June, 1989, one
,>
,, Abhimanyu Rama Bhagare had assaulted the said Manikrao
Patil, father of Accused No. 2 by using a Sattur. Abhimanyu was
a good friend of the deceased Baburao 'vibhute. Manikrao
suspected that assault on him by Abhimanyu had been
instigated by the deceased Baburao and therefore, he held a
E ..
grudge against him.

4. On 19th June, 1986, the deceased - Baburao Vibhute,

- ~
Sid ram Birajdar (PW-10) Sarpanch of village Boramani,
Prakash Rajguri (PW-11 ), driver of the deceased and one
Suresh Rokade left for Solapur by jeep because the deceased
F

·:_~~
had some work there. On completion of the work, at around
3.00 p.m. they started the return journey. On their way, they
stopped at hotel Khansaheb to take some snacks. But since
G
vegetarian snacks were not available, they procured beer from
..... 1
outside and had it in the hotel. At the hotel, Prakash (PW-11)
saw Shivaji Rajguru (PW-26). who was in the service of the
deceased and had owed some money to him. He, accordingly
informed the deceased, who demanded money from Shivaji but
H
774 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 16 $.C.R.

A on his failure to oblige him, he belaboured him and made him + ..
sit in the jeep to take him to his village. When the jeep came
near the village of Shivaj\, .his wife (PW-19) stopped it. The
deceased got down from ttie jeep and was talking with the wife
of Shivaji. While the conversation was going on, anotherjeep
B came from the side of Solapur. All the four accused got down
from the jeep. Accused No. 1 was armed with a pistol; Accused
No. 2 got down wielding an instrument like jamiya (dagger);
Accused No. 3 came to the rear side of the jeep of the 'f r
deceased and grabbed him from behind; Accused A-2 gave
c dagger blow on his stomach. When the deceased fell down
a
on the ground, Accused No. 1 fired a bullet shot at his chest.
On seeing the assault, Sidram {PW-10) ran away out of fear.
/>J. a nearby petrol pump, he boarded a truck and reached
Hyderabad. Prakash (PW-11) the driver of the jeep, also fled
.o from the scene and on reaching Solapur, he wentto the house
of his· uncle (PW;.18) and narrated the entire incident to.him.
· 1Ud v-:1~u~:JP
5. On 19th June, 1986 itself, at about9.10 p.m., a pnone
"-
call was received by· CPI Bhaskar Patil (PW-28) from an ~,

unknown person informing him about the murder of Baburao
E Vibhute. The said informant is stated to have disclosed that the
mur~er had been committed, by Babasaheb Patil - Accused No.
1 and Tanaji Patil - Accused No. 2. PW-28, after making the
entry in the station diary regarding the telephonic message,
conveyed the information to PSI Annasaheb Patil (PW-33),
F attached to the Taluka police station within whose jurisdiction
the murder had been committed. On receiving the information, ..,.._
~

_.,J,~'*\
the police sprung into action. At the place of occurrence,
l~~ Panchnama of the scene of occurrence was prepared, the jeep
and some articles alongwith the dead body were seized. The
G body of Baburao was sent for post mortem. At the civil hospital,
Dr. Kanki (PW-20) performed the post mortem and found a~
many as 15 injuries.·on the person of the deceased. The injuries ....._
,._
included a fire arm injury over abdomen near left postal margin,
four deep incised wounds over abdomen, four stab wounds over
H chest, one incised wound over left side at lumber region and

...
BABASAHEB APPARAO PATIL v. STATE OF 775
MAHARASHTRA [D.K. JAIN, J.]
.. + exit wounds of pellets. Lungs, kidneys, liver, spleen were also A
injured. Doctor opined that these injuries were sufficient to
cause death and the death was caused on account of shock
and haemorrhage and due to injuries sustained by the
deceased over abdomen, chest and to visceral organs. On
completion of investigations, which included recording of B
confessional statements of Accused No. 2 and Accused No.
4, who also produced the weapons of offence (2 daggers and
one country made pistol), chargesheet was filed against all the
accused.

6. The accused abjured their guilt and accordingly, the trial
c
was held. The prosecution examined as many as 33 witnesses
to support its case. No evidence was produced in defence.
Upon consideration of the evidence, as noted above, the trial
court convicted all the four accused for offence punishable under
Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC. Appellant's D
(Accused No. 1) conviction having been confirmed by the High
Court, he has come up before us in this appeal. The other
'f convict - Accused No. 2 expired during the pendency of his
appeal in the High Court.
E
7. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the
trial court as also the High Court committed serious error in
relying on the wholly unreliable testimony of PW-1 O and PW-
11, examined by the prosecution as eye-witnesses, inasmuch
as there are contradictions and discrepancies in their evidence. F
It was argued that the story of PW-10 going to Hyderabad is
inherently improbable and was a make up to cover the delay
of three days in recording of his sta~ement by police on 23rd
June, 1986. It was also submitted that it was very improbable
that Prakash (PW-11), an employee of the deceased, stated G.
to have seen the entire incident did not disclose the name of
the accused to his uncle Kisan lngale (PW-18) when he met
-t
him immediately thereafter and furthermore instead of reporting
the occurrence to the police he went to his uncle's house and
narrated the incident to him. It was pleaded that all the accused
H
776 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 16 S.C.R.

A had been falsely implicated on account of rivalry between the + ,I• i
two factions in the village.

8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, on
the other hand, supported the judgment of the High Court and
submitted that the evidence of the two eyewitnesses, coupled
8
with the medical evidence and the recovery of weapons of
offence clea·rly prove the case against the appellant. ...

9. Having carefully gone through the judgments of the 'f
courts below, we feel that in the light of the evidence on record,
c the view taken by the High Court is correct.

10. As- noted earlier, the mainstay of the prosecution is the
testimony of Sid ram (PW-10) and Prakash (PW-11) who
claimed to be eye witnesses of the occurrence. Both the courts
D below have found their evidence creditworthy and have held that
the minor contradictions in their testimony were not sufficient
to affect the credibility of their evidence. The discrepancies in
the evidence of PW-10 highlighted before lhe High Court on "'-
behalf of the appellants were: (i) his non-mentioning of non- )f-

availability of vegetarian food in the hotel and drinking of beer
E
as recorded in his statement by police (ii) belabouring of Shivaji
by Baburao after returning to the hotel. Similarly, the alleged
omissions. on which emphasis was laid were : (i) non-
mentioning of the deceased falling on his back after receiving
the first jamiya blow and (ii) the firing of bullets at the chest of
F the deceased. As regards PW-11, the alleged contradictions
were again with regard to his going to the market to purchase \j.-
beer and the deceased, Sidram and Suresh having beer at the
hotel. The stated omission was again abo,ut the bullet being
fired at the chest of the deceased.
G
11. As already noted, the High Court has come to the
conclusion, and in our opinion, rightly, that the contradictions
t
brought on record pertaining to the bringing and drinking of
beer are not directly related to the incident and cannot be said
H to be material contradictions. Similarly, the alleged omission
BABASAHEB APPARAO PATIL v. STATE OF 777
MAHARASHTRA [D.K. JAIN, J.]
I. + relating to the firing being on the chest of the deceased has A
also been held to be not a material omission because there is
no omission in the statement as regards the firing by the
appellant on the deceased.

12. It is to be borne in mind that some discrepancies in B
the ocular account of a witness, unless these are vital, cannot
.... per se affect the credibility of the evidence of the witness.
·-'f Unless the contradictions are material, the same cannot be used
to jettison the evidence in its entirety. Trivial discrepancies ought
not to obliterate an otherwise acceptable evidence. Merely
because there is inconsistency in evidence, it is not sufficient
c
to impair the credibility of the witness. It is only w~" n
discrepancies in the evidence of a witness are so incompatible
with the credibility of his version that the court would be justified
in discarding his evidence.
D
1
13. In State of U.P. Vs. M.K. Anthony , this Court indicated
the proper approach which needs to be adopted while
~
~
appreciating the evidence of a witness. It was observed as
under:
E'.
"While appreciating the evidence of a wJ!.ness, the
approach must be whether the evidence of the witness
read as a whole appears to have a ring of truth. Once that
impression is formed, it is undoubtedly necessary for the
court to scrutinise the evidence more particularly keeping
F
in view the deficiencies, drawbacks and infirmities pointed
~ out in the evidence as a whole and evaluate them to find
out whether it is against the general tenor of the evidence
given by the witness and whether the earlier evaluation of
the evidence is shaken as to render it unworthy of belief.
Minor discrepancies on trivial matters not touching the core G

• ., .... of the case, hyper-technical approach by taking sentences
torn out of context here or there from the evidence,
attaching importance to some technical error committed

1. (1985) 1 sec 50·5. H
778 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008} 16 S.C.R.

'A by the investigating officer not going to the root of the +~
matter would not ordinarily permit rejection of the evidence
as a whole. If the court before whom the witness gives
evidence had the opportunity to form the opinion about the
general tenor of evidence given by the witness, the
B appellate court which had not this benefit will have to
attach due weight to the appreciation of evidence by the
'\
trial court and unless there are reasons weighty and
formidable it would not be proper to reject the evidence ":f-
on the ground of minor variations or infirmities in the matter
c of trivial details. Even honest and truthful witnesses may
differ in some details unrelated to the main incident
because power of observation, retention and reproduction
I
differ with individuals."
/
14. In Appabhai & Anr. Vs. State of Gujarat2, this Court
D had again emphasized that while appreciating the evidence,
the court should not attach undue importance to minor
discrepancies. The discrepancies which do not shake the basic ,,,
.....
version of the prosecution case may be discarded. Similarly, :;-
the discrepancies which are due to normal errors of perception
E or observation should not be given importance. The Court by
calling into. aid its vast experience of men and mgtters in
different cases must evaluate the entire material on record as
a whole and should not disbelieve the evidence of a witness
altogether, if it is otherwise trustworthy.
F·
15. Having gone through the evidence of PW-10 and PW-
11, we a~e in complete·agreement with the High Court that the
,._
aforenoted contradictions are not directly relating to the incident
and cannot be said to be material contradictions affecting the
credibility of the evidence of both the eye witnesses viz. PW-
G
10 and PW-11. Similarly, the so-called omission of not
·ft-
mentioning the exact portion of the body of the deceased where .....
t
the shot had been fired cannot be said to be a significant
omission.because there was no omission as regards the firing

H 2. 1988 (Supp) sec 241.
BABASAHEB APPARAO PATIL v. STATE OF 779
MAHARASHTRA [D.K. JAIN, J.]
j. -r by the appellant on the deceased. In his testimony, PW-10 has A
given graphic details of the occurrence. Similarly, PW-11, the
driver of the jeep, in his evidence, has narrated the incidence
which corroborates with the version of PW-10. The evidence
of these two witnesses stands corroborated by the medical
evidence, which clearly shows that several blows were given B
to the deceased by jamiya (dagger) and a fire arm injury was
also found over the abdomen of the deceased. The conduct of
~
PW-11 in going to the house of his uncle instead of reporting
the incident to the police cannot be said to be unnatural,
impairing the creditworthiness of his evidence. The post-event c
conduct of a witness varies from person to person. It cannot
be a cast iron reaction to be followed as a model by every one
J
witnessing such event. Different persons would react differently
on seeing any serious crime and their behaviour and conduct
would, therefore, be different. (See: Rammi@ Rameshwar Vs.
D
State of M.P. 3). Therefore, having witnessed a dastardly murder,
it was not unnatural for the said witness to go to his uncle and,
.> therefore, the courts below were justified in not rejecting his
t evidence merely on that score.
16. Thus, we are unable to ayree with learned counsel for E
' the appellant that the trial court as well as the High Court have
failed to appreciate properly the evidence on record. We are
convinced that the conclusions of the courts below, that the
appellant had committed the offence of murder of Baburao
Vibhute, are supported by acceptable evidence. We do not find F
_.., any legal or factual infirmity in the impugned judgment
warranting interference. The appeal is dismissed accordingly.

D.G. Appeal dismissed.

-'" "
iiiiii'i:..
-f

3. (1999) a sec 649.

I
t