A DR. SUNIL KUMAR SAMBHUDAYAL GUPTA & Ors. v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

embellishments or improvements on trivial matters A without effecting the core of the prosecution case should not be made a ground to reject the evidence in its entirety. The trial court, after going through the entire evidence. must form an opinion about the credibility of the witnesses and the appellate court in normal course would B not be justified in reviewing the same again without justifiable reasons. Where the omission amount to a contradiction, creating a serious doubt about the truthfulness of a witness and other witness also make material improvements before the court in order to make c the evidence acceptable, it cannot be safe to rely upon such evidence. The discrepancies in the evidence of eye witnesses, if found to be not minor in nature, may be a ground for disbelieving and discrediting their evidence. !n such circumstances, witnesses may not inspire 0 confidence and if their evidence is found to be in conflict and contradiction with other evidence or with the statement already recorded, in such a case it cannot be held that prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. In case, the complainant in the FIR or the witness E in his statement under section 161 Cr.P.C., has not disclosed certain facts but meets the prosecution case first time before the court, such version lacks credence and is liable to be discarded. [Paras 14, 15, 16, 17) [480- C-H; 481-A-B] F State Represented by Inspector of Police v. Saravanan & .Anr. AIR 2009 SC 152; State of Rajasthan v. Rajendra Singh (2009) 11 SCC 106; Mahendra Pratap Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2009) 11 SCC 334; State Represented by Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu v. Sait @ Krishnakumar G (2008) 15 SCC 440; State of Rajasthan v. Smt. Ka!ki & Anr. AIR 1981 SC 1390 - relied on.

1.2. The courts have to lc:iJel the category to which a discrepancy belongs. While normal discrepancies do H 456 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. A not corrode the credibility of a party's case, material discrepancies do so. Mere marginal variations in the statements cannot be dubbed as improvements as the same may be elaborations of the statement made by the witness earlier. The omissions which amount to B contradictions in material particulars i.e. go to the root of the case/materially affect the trial or core of the prosecution's case, render the testimony of the witness [Paras 19, 21] [481-E-F; 482-A liable to be discredited. B] c