Contradiction means the setting of one statement against another and not the setting up of a statement against nothing. As noted in Tahstidar Singh vs. State of U.P. AIR 1959 SC 1012, all omissions are not contradictions.

As the explanation to Section 62 of the Code shows, an omission to state an act or circumstance in the statement referred to in subsection (1) may amount to a contradiction if the same appears to be significant or otherwise relevant, having regard to the context in which the omission occurs. The provision makes it clear that whether any omission amounts to a contradiction in a particular context is a question of fact.

In order to explain this contradiction, both these witnesses disowned their Section 161 statements and testified that they had not made any statement to the police. These statements are, however, falsified by the evidence of PW 4, ASI, the police officer concerned, who deposed that the police statements had been recorded by him as per the dictates of the two witnesses.

The presence of witnesses at the time and place of the incident was proved. These witnesses were closely related to the deceased. The court noticed the need to examine the evidence carefully, placing reliance on judgments which had laid down that there is no law stating that in the absence of any independent witness, the evidence of interested witnesses should be discarded. It can place reliance on the evidence of PW 1 to 3.

The court also noted the fact that no serious motives were suggested to the witnesses to elicit why they were deposing falsely to implicate the accused. In such circumstances, it relied upon the evidence of these witnesses to base a conviction.

The evidence of witnesses has only to be considered with caution and nothing beyond that. In the instant case, the court kept in mind the fact that the evidence of these witnesses was recorded under Section 164, CrPC by the Magistrate, but that by itself does not in any manner discredit the said evidence, more so because of the fact that their presence at the time of the incident cannot be doubted.

Regarding the actual assault, though there are certain minor embellishments, there is still sufficient consistency as to the role played by the appellants. Hence, despite the fact that PWs 1 to 3's evidence was recorded under Section 164 of the Code, the same is acceptable to base a conviction as held by the courts below.