Contradictions of witnesses and discrepancy in criminal matters

Contradictions and discrepancies in witness testimonies are inevitable in any case. However, not every inconsistency within or among witnesses' statements will automatically undermine the prosecution's case. When evaluating discrepancies, contradictions, or omissions, a court should avoid isolating sentences or phrases; instead, it should examine them within the context of the entire testimony. The court must assess whether these inconsistencies are minor or if they affect the core of the matter.

When determining a witness's credibility, the court should consider all evidence—oral and documentary—rather than focusing selectively on certain parts. It is also recognized that normal discrepancies can arise from errors in observation, lapses in memory over time, or mental states, such as shock or distress, during the event. Consequently, minor contradictions or inconsistencies on trivial points that do not impact the prosecution’s case fundamentally should not lead to a wholesale rejection of the evidence.