Evidence– Discrepency always occurs even in the evidence of the truthful witnesses–
The learned Counsel has contended that these contradictory statements of these P.Ws. reasonably make these witnesses untrustworthy. But we are unable to accept this argument of the learned Counsel in this present case. Considering the very facts and circumstances of this case we rather, are of the view that it was very much natural on the part of the witnesses to make discrepent statements regarding colour of the wearing clothes and the weapons of the assaillants and that these discrepent or contradictory statements of the P.Ws. are so trifling in nature that these cannot raise any suspecion about the truthfulness of the witness or about the occurrence they narrated. The learned Counsel for the accused-respondents has pointed out some other alleged minor discrepent or contradictory statements also in the evidence of the prosecution withnesses, but we do not find any of these alleged discrepent or contradictory statemetns of the prosecution witnesses fatal at all to raise any suspicion about the truthfulness of these witnesss. Discrepency always occurs even in the evidence of the truthful witnesses. It is also settled that one part of evidence of a witness even if is rejected the other part of the evidence of the same witness may be accepted.... (Nazmun Ara Sultana, J). .....State =VS= Dafader Marfoth Ali Shah & ors, (Criminal), 2018 (1) [4 LM (AD) 430] ....View Full Judgment

That which tends to prove the existence or non existence of some fact. Testimony and production of documents and things relating to the facts into which the court enquires and the methods and rules relating to the establishing of those facts before the court. That which, a court of justice is permitted by law to take into consideration for making clear or ascertaining the truth of the fact or point in issue. ….. [Section 3 of the Evidence Act, 1872]
The established principle of law is that if part of the evidence of certain witnesses is disbelieved, the entire evidence is not liable to be discarded. ….. [Nurul Islam vs. State (1988) 40 DLR 122]
Secondary evidence is not admissible in evidence unless there is proof of execution of the original and its subsequent loss or destruction. – the Contract Act, 1872 (Act IX of 1872), Section 65 ….. [Abdur Razzak vs. Ahila Khatun and others, (HCD) 610]

Assessment of evidence is that the entire evidence–
The cardinal principle of assessment of evidence is that the entire evidence is to be considered as a whole and then a decision is to be arrived. There is no scope to consider one statement made in cross-examination in isolation. (Majority view), (Per Mr. Justice Syed Mahmud Hossain, CJ). ...A.T.M. Azharul Islam =VS= Chief Prosecutor, ICT, Bangladesh, (Criminal), 2020 [9 LM (AD) 593] ....View Full Judgment