A Court Cannot Deny Just Maintenance Merely Because the Applicant Claimed Less: Orissa High Court Upholds ₹10,000 Monthly Support for Elderly Wife Punjab and Haryana High Court Rejects Land Acquisition Challenge, Cites "Delay and Laches" as Key Factors Demand and Acceptance of Illegal Gratification Proved Beyond Doubt: Kerala High Court Affirms Conviction in Bribery Case Violation of Decree Must Be Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Dismissal of Application Under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC Ensuring Teacher Attendance Through Technology is Not Arbitrary, But Privacy of Female Teachers Must Be Protected: Madhya Pradesh High Court Upholds Circular Once a Mortgage is Permitted, Auction Sale Needs No Further NOC: Punjab & Haryana High Court Delay Defeats Rights: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Petition for Appointment as PCS (Judicial) After 16-Year Delay Minor Signature Differences Due to Age and Health Do Not Void Will if Testamentary Capacity Established: Kerala High Court Criminal Investigation Cannot Be Stalled on Grounds of Political Conspiracy Without Evidence: Karnataka High Court Refused to Quash FIR Against MLA Munirathna Family Courts Must Prioritize Justice Over Technicalities" – Delhi High Court Sets Aside Order Closing Wife’s Right to Defend Divorce Case Fraud Vitiates Everything—Sale of Debuttar Property by Sole Shebait Cannot Stand: Calcutta High Court Reassessment Cannot Be Used to Reopen Settled Issues Without New Material – Bombay High Court Quashes ₹542 Crore Tax Demand on Tata Communications Repeated FIRs Against Multiple Accused Raise Serious Questions on Motive: Allahabad High Court Orders CBI Inquiry Compensatory Aspect of Cheque Bounce Cases Must Be Given Priority Over Punishment: Punjab & Haryana High Court Income Tax | Transfer Pricing Adjustments Must Be Based on Economic Reality, Not Hypothetical Comparisons: Delhi High Court Sanction Under Section 197 CrPC is a Legal Mandate, Not a Mere Technicality: Kerala High Court Quashes Proceedings Against Police Officers A Contract Must Be Read as a Whole – Selective Interpretation Cannot Create Rights: Bombay High Court Preventive Detention Cannot Be a Substitute for Criminal Trial, but Habitual Offenders Cannot Claim Immunity: Delhi High Court Upholds NDPS Detention Self-Defence Cannot Justify Armed Assault—Force Must Be Proportionate to Threat: Punjab & Haryana High Court Public Service Commission Cannot Shift Stance on Qualification Criteria Arbitrarily – Kerala High Court in LDC Recruitment Case Mere Allegations Without Specific Instances of Cruelty Cannot Sustain Conviction Under Section 306 IPC: Himachal Pradesh High Court Conviction Cannot Rest on Suspicion—Proof Beyond Doubt Is the Only Standard: Delhi High Court Acquits Man Accused of Wife’s Murder Bank Cannot Hold Pledged Shares After Settlement of Dues: Bombay High Court Orders PNB to Return ITC Shares to Stockbroker Second Wife Entitled to Maintenance Under Section 125 CrPC If De Facto Separation from First Marriage Proven: Supreme Court Extradition Cannot Be Ordered When Passport is Impounded: Supreme Court Quashes Order Against NRI Husband Justice Must Not Be an Illusion: Supreme Court Directs All Courts to Ensure Execution of Decrees Within Six Months Mere Inconvenience Cannot Override Statutory Jurisdiction in Cheque Bounce Cases: Supreme Court Rejects Transfer Petition Supreme Court Rules: Summoning Orders Under Section 319 CrPC Can Relate Back to Original Application Even After Trial Conclusion

Minor Discrepancies in Witness Statements Do Not Discredit Their Reliability," Rules Punjab and Haryana High Court in Murder Case

05 February 2025 11:17 AM

By: sayum


The court upholds life imprisonment for murder convicts, emphasizing the importance of consistent eyewitness testimony. On May 24, 2024, the Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld the life imprisonment sentences of the accused in a high-profile murder case. The judgment, delivered by a bench underscores the paramount importance of consistent eyewitness testimonies, even when facing contradictory arguments presented by the defense. This decision reaffirms the lower court's findings and sets a significant precedent in handling cases involving contradictory witness statements.

Consistency of Eyewitness Testimony: The court emphasized the critical role of consistent eyewitness testimonies in securing a conviction. "In the present case, the eyewitness accounts have remained unwavering and coherent throughout the trial, providing a solid foundation for the prosecution's case," the bench noted. Despite attempts by the defense to highlight inconsistencies, the court found the witnesses' accounts reliable and credible.

Addressing Contradictions by the Defense: The defense argued that contradictions in the testimonies undermined the prosecution's case. However, the court observed, "Minor discrepancies in witness statements are natural and do not necessarily discredit the overall reliability of their testimony." The judgment pointed out that the core elements of the witnesses' accounts were consistent, which significantly contributed to the affirmation of the conviction.

The judgment delved into the principles governing the evaluation of eyewitness testimony. It reiterated that a conviction can be sustained if the testimonies are found to be trustworthy and corroborated by other evidence. "The consistency observed in the key eyewitness testimonies, coupled with the corroborative material evidence, leaves no room for doubt about the guilt of the accused," the court stated.

Justice remarked, "The coherence in the eyewitness testimonies, despite the defense's attempts to highlight contradictions, underscores the strength of the prosecution's case. Such consistency is crucial in ensuring justice is served."

The Punjab and Haryana High Court's ruling in this case underscores the judiciary's commitment to upholding justice through the reliability of consistent witness testimonies. By affirming the lower court's decision, the judgment sends a strong message about the weight given to coherent eyewitness accounts. This landmark decision is expected to have a significant impact on future cases, reinforcing the legal framework for evaluating witness testimonies in criminal trials.

Date of Decision: May 24, 2024

 

Similar News