How to appreciate evidence if in criminal case accused has received injuries and if prosecution fails to explain how accused has sustained injury?

 In Indian criminal law, the failure of prosecution to explain injuries sustained by the accused is a significant circumstance that courts must carefully consider while appreciating evidence. The legal position has evolved through various Supreme Court judgments that have established different theories and approaches.

General Principle

Print Page

Whether court can convict accused relying on the evidence of related witness?

18. Let us now consider the law on evidentiary value of

a related witness. Commenting on the aspect, Justice

Vivian Bose in Dalip Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab

 AIR 1953 SC 364 rightly opined that;

“25. We are unable to agree with the

learned Judges of the High Court that

the testimony of the two eye-witnesses

requires corroboration. If the

foundation for such an observation is

based on the fact that the witnesses

are women and that the fate of seven

men hangs on their testimony, we know

of no such rule. If it is grounded on

the reason that they are closely

related to the deceased we are unable

to concur. This is a fallacy common

to many criminal cases and one which

another Bench of this Court

endeavoured to dispel in Rameshwar vs.

The State of Rajasthan. We find,

however, that it unfortunately still

persists, if not in the judgments of

the Courts, at any rate in the

arguments of counsel.”

26. A witness is normally to be

considered independent unless he or she

springs from sources which are likely

to be tainted and that usually means

unless the witness has cause such as

enmity against the accused, to wish to

implicate him falsely. Ordinarily, a

close relative would be the last to

screen the real culprit and falsely

implicate an innocent person…….”

19. It may further be noted that Babu Lal(PW11)is an

unrelated witness. His testimony substantially supports

the evidence of PW3 and PW12 in all material

particulars. In any case, being related to the deceased

does not necessarily mean that they will falsely

implicate innocent persons. In this context, it was

appropriately observed by Justice H.R. Khanna in State

of Uttar Pradesh vs. Samman Dass (1972) 3 SCC 201

“23………………….It is well known that the close

relatives of a murdered person are most

reluctant to spare the real assailant and

falsely involve another person in place of

the assailant……………….”

20. Again in a later decision of this Court in

Khurshid Ahmed vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir

 (2018) 7 SCC 429  one of us, Justice N.V. Ramana

 on the issue of evidence of a

related witness was justified in declaring that:

“31. There is no proposition in law that

relatives are to be treated as untruthful

witnesses. On the contrary, reason has to

be shown when a plea of partiality is

raised to show that the witnesses had

reason to shield actual culprit and falsely

implicate the accused (See Harbans Kaur Vs.

State of Haryana)”

The above precedents make it amply clear that the

testimony of the related witness, if found to be

truthful, can be the basis of conviction and we have

every reason to believe that PW3 and PW12 were

immediately present at the spot and identified the

accused with various deadly weapons in their hands.

21. The learned counsel for the appellant next refers

to the defence version of the injuries being caused

through a fall on the Nullah and the old enmity being

the cause for implicating the accused. On this issue,

we may benefit by adverting to the observation of

Justice Faizan Uddin in Sushil & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.

(1995) Supp 1 SCC 363 where the learned Judge so

 correctly observed:

“8…………….It goes without saying that enmity

is a double-edged weapon which cuts both

ways. It may constitute a motive for the

commission of the crime and at the same time

it may also provide a motive for false

implication. In the present case there is

evidence to establish motive and when the

prosecution adduced positive evidence showing

the direct involvement of the accused in the

crime, motive assumes importance. The

evidence of interested witnesses and those

who are related to the deceased cannot be

thrown out simply for that reason. But if

after applying the rule of caution their

evidence is found to be reliable and

corroborated by independent evidence there is

no reason to discard their evidence but it

has to be accepted as reliable………….”

22. If the witnesses are otherwise trustworthy, past

enmity by itself will not discredit any testimony. In

fact the history of bad blood gives a clear motive for

the crime. Therefore this aspect does not in our

assessment, aid the defence in the present matter.

 [REPORTABLE]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Criminal Appeal No. 316 of 2011

Karulal  Vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

Hrishikesh Roy, J.

Dated: OCTOBER 09, 2020

Print Page

What are parameters for appreciating the evidence of chance witness?

 Learned counsel Shri Ghanekar branded this witness as a

chance witness. He argued that this witness could not account for his presence at the spot of the incident. According to learned counsel Shri Ghanekar, the evidence of chance witness is a weak type of evidence and reliance cannot be placed on it. The Honourable Supreme Court, in the case of Sachchey Lal Tiwari vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2004) 11 Supreme Court Cases 410 has held as under:-

7. Coming to the plea of the accused that PW

2 was a “chance witness” who has not explained

how he happened to be at the alleged place of

occurrence it has to be noted that the said witness

was independent witness. There was not even a

suggestion to the witness that he had any

animosity towards any of the accused. In a

murder trial by describing an independent

witness as “chance witness” it cannot be implied

thereby that his evidence is suspicious and his

presence at the scene doubtful. Murders are not

committed with previous notice to witnesses –

soliciting their presence. If murder is committed

in a dwelling house, the inmates of the house are

natural witnesses. If murder is committed in a

street, only passers-by will be witnesses. Their

evidence cannot be brushed aside or viewed with

suspicion on the ground that they are mere

“chance witnesses”. The expression “chance

witness” is borrowed from countries where every

man’s home is considered his castle and everyone

must have an explanation for his presence

elsewhere or in another man’s castle. It is quite

unsuitable an expression in a country where

people are less formal and more casual, at any

rate in the matter of explaining their presence.

The courts below have scanned the evidence of

PW 2 in great detail and found it to be reliable.

We find no reason to differ.

Even if it is accepted for the sake of argument that this

witness is a chance witness, still the evidence of chance witness cannot be discarded simply he being a chance witness. If his testimony is otherwise trustworthy, the Court can place reliance on it. This witness has assigned reason for his presence at the spot of the incident. He was plying auto rickshaw and owing to a mechanical defect, he had brought his auto rickshaw to Ladke garage and had parked it infront of the said garage. Therefore, this witness has explained his presence at the spot of the incident. His testimony is trustworthy. Nothing adverse to the prosecution could be extracted from this witness.{Para 46}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 268 OF 2014

 Shyamsundar Vithal Pawle Vs The State of Maharashtra 

Print Page

Bombay HC: Enmity is a double edged weapon

 It is observed by learned single Judge of this Court that conviction cannot be founded on omnibus statements of witnesses and there must be cogent, consistent evidence about specific acts of accused persons.
 The material evidence of injured witness cannot be lightly brushed aside only because some political animosity was prevailing at the relevant time. Needless to say, the enmity is a double edged weapon and was used by the appellants so as to avenge upon PW Satish on account of earlier act of filing his nomination form so as to contest the municipal election.

Bombay High Court

Premachand S. Bansode And Anr. vs State Of Maharashtra on 23 August, 2006

Equivalent citations: 2007 CriLJ 142

Bench: V Kingaonkar

Print Page