Khujji v. State of Madhya Pradesh

Facts

• Khujji was convicted of a criminal offence based on eyewitness testimony.
• During trial, certain prosecution witnesses made statements inconsistent with their earlier statements to the police.
• The prosecution proved the prior inconsistent statements under S.145 IEA (now S.139 BSA) to contradict the witnesses.
• The trial court treated the prior inconsistent statements as substantive evidence of the facts stated therein.
• The conviction was based partly on the contents of those earlier statements.

Issue

1. Whether a previous inconsistent statement proved under S.145 IEA to contradict a witness constitutes substantive evidence of the facts stated therein, or whether it can only be used to impeach the witness's credibility.

Held

• A previous inconsistent statement proved to contradict a witness under S.145 IEA is not substantive evidence.
• Its only permissible use is to impeach the credibility of the witness by showing that he has made contradictory statements on different occasions.
• The substantive evidence is the testimony given on oath in court, subject to cross-examination.
• A conviction cannot be based solely on the prior statement if the witness has resiled from it in court.
• The court must distinguish between using the statement to discredit and using it as positive proof.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court reasoned that the scheme of the Evidence Act treats oral testimony given on oath and tested by cross-examination as the primary mode of proof. A prior statement made to the police without oath and without cross-examination does not carry the same guarantees of reliability. Therefore, when proved under S.145, its function is limited to showing the inconsistency and thereby weakening the witness's credibility. To treat it as substantive evidence would undermine the safeguards the law provides for the determination of truth, particularly the requirements of oath and cross-examination.