Placitum (B) Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S.3 - EVIDENCE - WITNESS
- Appreciation of evidence - Post-occurrence conduct of witnesses - Human
behaviour depends upon facts and circumstances of each given case - There is no
set rule of natural reaction - Evidence of witness cannot be discarded merely
on ground that he did not react in any particular manner in a particular
situation. (Para 6) Reproduced below
6.In view of the
rival submissions it has to be first seen whether prosecution has established
its case. Strictly speaking, the case is not of circumstantial evidence. Human
behaviour varies from person to person. Different people behave and react
differently in different situations. Human behaviour depends upon the facts and
circumstances of each given case. How a person would react and behave in a
particular situation can never be predicted. Every person who witnesses a
serious crime reacts in his own way. Some are stunned, become speechless and
stand rooted to the spot. Some become hysteric and start wailling. Some start
shouting for help. Others run away to keep themselves as far removed from the
spot as possible. Yet others rush to the rescue of the victim, even going to
the extent of counter-attacking the assailants. Some may remain tightlipped overawed
either on account of the antecedents of the assailant or threats given by him.
Each one reacts in his special way even in similar circumstances, leave alone,
the varying nature depending upon variety of circumstances. There is no set
rule of natural reaction. To discard the evidence of a witness on the ground
that he did not react in any particular manner is to appreciate evidence in a
wholly unrealistic and unimaginative way. (See Rana Partap and others v. State
of Haryana, 1983 (3) SCC 327).
AIR 2004 SUPREME
COURT 3690
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Devendra Singh
No comments:
Post a Comment