Rashomon in Court: Can a Judge Truly Find the Truth?

*Author: Adv. CV Manuvilsan | Date: 20.07.2025*

*Can truth ever be singular in a courtroom? Inspired by Kurosawa’s Rashomon, Adv. CV Manuvilsan examines witness contradictions and judicial perception in Indian criminal trials.*

🧭 Introduction: When Truth Has Versions

In a courtroom, truth is not always a solid rock—it often arrives in shards of conflicting memories, emotional narrations, and careful manipulations. This phenomenon isn’t new, nor is it merely legal.

It’s cinematic. It’s philosophical. It’s called the Rashomon Effect.

🎬 What Is the Rashomon Effect?

Coined from Akira Kurosawa’s legendary 1950 film Rashomon, the term describes a situation where multiple witnesses describe the same event in contradictory ways, each believing their version to be the absolute truth.

In the film, a murder and a rape are recounted differently by:

A bandit

The victim's wife

The ghost of the victim (!), and

A woodcutter who witnessed it

The audience is left with no certainty—only truths in plural.

---

⚖️ When Rashomon Enters the Witness Box

In the criminal justice system, we encounter Rashomon every day.

- Eyewitnesses contradict one another.  

- Accused persons have selective amnesia.  

- Victims offer emotionally altered recollections.  

- Police tell stories that fit procedural convenience.

So what happens when truth becomes relative?

---

🔍 The Judge as a Witness of Witnesses

Here’s a bold idea from Manuvilsan:

> Is the judge not a witness—not of the crime—but of the witnesses themselves?

In every trial, a judge:

Observes who speaks how

Detects hesitation, overconfidence, planted narratives

Filters truth through law, logic, and lived experience

The judge becomes what Bentham called the “logical investigator of truth”, and what Indian jurisprudence hints as a "seer of the unseen.”

---

📜 What the Law Says: Tools to Tame Rashomon

The Indian legal system is not blind to the subjectivity of witnesses. It tries to control or at least interpret the Rashomon effect through:

1. Cross-examination – Sections 137–139, Indian Evidence Act

2. Test Identification Parade (TIP) – Rule of first-hand recall

3. Corroborative Evidence – Truth reinforced by neutral facts

4. Circumstantial Evidence Doctrine – Building chain instead of relying on memory

5. Benefit of Doubt – Recognizing irreconcilable contradictions

---

🧪 Modern Fixes: Science as the New Witness

Judicial systems now rely on tools that don’t forget or lie:

CCTV Footage

DNA Reports

Call Data Records

GPS tracking

Digital Metadata

> But even science must be interpreted—by humans. And so, Rashomon lingers.

---

⚖️ Case Studies from Indian Courts

🔹 Tukaram v. State of Maharashtra (Mathura Rape Case)

Conflicting testimonies on consent led to national outrage and reforms.

🔹 K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra

Truth of motive and timing questioned—multiple versions debated in court and public.

🔹 Selvi v. State of Karnataka

Narco-analysis rejected; voluntary narrative upheld as the true basis for admissibility.

---

🤔 Big Question: Can a Judge Really Know the Truth?

Not in the absolute sense.

But the law doesn't seek metaphysical certainty—it seeks “truth beyond reasonable doubt.”

And that distinction is what keeps the system both human and just.

> The judge does not witness the crime, but bears witness to how the world remembers it.

And from that fragile recall, emerges a verdict—both legal and philosophical.

---

💬 Your Turn

Have you ever seen a trial where every witness told a different version?

Do you believe courts can still arrive at justice when no version is complete?

📩 Share your thoughts. Comment below. Or write to Manuvilsan with your courtroom reflections.

---

✍️ Closing Line by Manuvilsan:

> In a world full of Rashomons, may justice never be silent.

---

📞 Author Contact

Adv. CV Manuvilsan

Senior Partner, LEX LOCI Associates

Email: cvmanuvilsan@gmail.com

Phone: +91 98462 88877

Blog: cvmanuvilsan.blogspot.com