Coimbatore: Evidence provided by witnesses should be evaluated on the basis of their trustworthiness and not discrepancies, the prosecution in the serial blasts case told the Special Court on Wednesday.

Raja Elango, State Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, T. Balasundaram and T.A. Selvaraj were summing up the prosecution arguments before Judge K. Uthirapathy.

Referring to the dictum of jurisprudence that even 100 guilty could go scot-free but not a single innocent should be punished, Mr. Elango submitted that the latest trend in the highly evolving criminal justice system was, "Society suffers by wrong convictions; equally by wrong acquittals as well."

He urged the court to take into account that "more than 50 persons were killed in an area of 60 sq. km. within two hours besides the injured numbering more than 250. The magnitude and heinousness of the crime is of paramount importance besides taking into account the difficulties and handicap of the prosecuting agency in a criminal case of such nature."

SC rulings

He based his arguments on nine Supreme Court rulings and clarified three issues raised by the defence during the month-long prosecution argument and cross-examination of witnesses. "Irregularity or illegality in adhering to norms by a single officer in the prosecuting agency should not be a ground for throwing out the entire case of the prosecution," he contended.

Defence counsel P. Thirumalairajan said these were general principles for criminal cases laid down by the apex court and wanted the prosecution to explain as to "how and where these principles are applicable in this case". Another defence counsel, S.K. Raghavan, submitted, "The prosecution counsel was seeking a wholesale condonation for the lapses."

"Even the apex court rulings are subject to some qualifications regarding the discrepancies on whether they affect the root of the case," submitted defence counsel R. Gopalan.

Loss of memory

Mr. Elango said, "The court should not consider discrepancies arising out of the differing perceptions or observations of the witnesses; court should also give allowance to loss of memory."

The trustworthiness and credibility of the witness should be evaluated based on the materials relating to the case. "Minor discrepancies, if they are not related to the core of the case, should not be held against the prosecution. Deposition by witnesses could also depend on the political, economic and muscle power of the accused."

"Unless contradictions, inconsistencies, exaggerations and embellishments in the depositions are of a material dimension affecting the root of the case, the same should not be used to jettison the evidences in entirety. Corroboration of evidences with mathematical niceties cannot be expected in such crime cases. The court should sift the chaff from the grain to find out the truth."

To an objection on "interested witnesses" with reference to the depositions by activists of Hindu outfits, Mr. Elango said when the entire occurrence evolved around them and their offices, timed with the arrival of their party leader for electioneering, it was quite natural that they happened to be witnesses.

To the defence contention that the names of the witnesses do not find a place in the confessions of the accused and also in respect of recoveries resulting out of confessions, Mr. Elango relied on Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act.

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail