Chambers of Ishaan Garg
Ch. No. 217, Western Wing, District & Sessions Court, Tis Hazari, New Delhi, Delhi 110054
+91 8851742417, +91 8800386163
The Supreme Court noted that a crime witness would usually mention all perpetrators in the FIR. Selectively naming some while omitting others is unnatural, weakening the complainant's account.
This omission, though otherwise irrelevant, becomes a relevant fact under Section 11 of the Evidence Act, the Court stated.
Holding so, a bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan upheld the acquittal of an individual in a murder case after noting that the lead complainant (deceased's father) omitted to mention two perpetrators in FIR, who according to him were present at the crime incident accompanying the main accused in the commission of the crime.
The Court observed that the complainant's omission to name two perpetrators in FIR, otherwise not relevant, becomes relevant fact under Section 11 of the Evidence Act.
“If he claims to be an eye-witness to the incident and is said to have witnessed three persons known to him assaulting his son i.e. the deceased then what was the good reason not to name the other two accused (juvenile Accused) in the FIR. This omission assumes significance and is a relevant fact under Section 11 of the Evidence Act.”, the court observed."
Case Details: State of Uttar Pradesh v. Raghuvir Singh
Citation: 2025 (SC) 158
