Supreme Court: Whether a Shadow witness can be treated as interested witness if he is acquainted with complainant?

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Sections 7 and 13(2) – Illegal Gratification – Trap Proceedings – Evidentiary Value of Shadow Witness – Credibility of Independent Witnesses – The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of an Excise Constable caught in a trap for demanding and accepting a bribe of ₹500 - held that the testimony of a shadow witness (PW-2) cannot be branded as "interested" merely because they are acquainted with the complainant - To disqualify a witness as interested, the defense must provide specific material demonstrating actual hostility.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 1105 of 2013

Decided On: 13.03.2026

Raj Bahadur Singh Vs. State of Uttarakhand

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Pankaj Mithal and P.B. Varale, JJ.

Author: P.B. Varale, J.

Citation: 2026 INSC 239, MANU/SC/0228/2026.

Print Page

Whether court can convict an accused based on oral evidence if weapon of offence is not recovered?

C.2 Failure to recover the weapon and examine a ballistic expert

17. The deceased had sustained a gun-shot injury with a point of entry and exit. The non-recovery of the weapon of offences would therefore not discredit the case of the prosecution which has relied on the eyewitness accounts of PWs 1, 2 and 3.

18. However, a three-judge Bench of this Court, in Gurucharan Singh v. State of Punjab, (1963) 3 SCR 585, has analysed the precedents of this Court and held that examination of a ballistic expert is not an inflexible rule in every case involving use of a lethal weapon. Speaking through Justice P B Gajendragadkar (as the learned Chief Justice then was), this Court held:
“41. It has, however, been argued that in every case where an accused person is charged with having committed the offence of murder by a lethal weapon, it is the duty of the prosecution to prove by expert evidence that it was likely or at least possible for the injuries to have been caused with the weapon with which, and in the manner in which, they have been alleged to have been caused; and in support of this proposition, reliance has been placed on the decision of this Court in Mohinder Singh v. State [(1950) SCR 821] . In that case, this Court has held that where the prosecution case was that the accused shot the deceased with a gun, but it appeared likely that the injuries on the deceased were inflicted by a rifle and there was no evidence of a duly qualified expert to prove that the injuries were caused by a gun, and the nature of the injuries was also such that the shots must have been fired by more than one person and not by one person only, and there was no evidence to show that another person also shot, and the oral evidence was such which was not disinterested, the failure to examine an expert would be a serious infirmity in the prosecution case. It would be noticed that these observations were made in a case where the prosecution evidence suffered from serious infirmities and in determining the effect of these observations, it would not be fair or reasonable to forget the facts in respect of which they came to be made. These observations do not purport to lay down an inflexible Rule that in every case where an accused person is charged with murder caused by a lethal weapon, the prosecution case can succeed in proving the charge only if an expert is examined. It is possible to imagine cases where the direct evidence is of such an unimpeachable character and the nature of the injuries disclosed by post-mortem notes is so clearly consistent with the direct evidence that the examination of a ballistic expert may not be regarded as essential. Where the direct evidence is not satisfactory or disinterested or where the injuries are alleged to have been caused with a gun and they prima facie appear to have been inflicted by a rifle, undoubtedly the apparent inconsistency can be cured or the oral evidence can be corroborated by leading the evidence of a ballistic expert. In what cases the examination of a ballistic expert is essential for the proof of the prosecution case, must naturally depend upon the circumstances of each case. Therefore, we do not think that Mr Purushottam is right in contending as a general proposition that in every case where a firearm is alleged to have been used by an accused person, in addition to the direct evidence, prosecution must lead the evidence of a ballistic expert, however good the direct evidence may be and though on the record there may be no reason to doubt the said direct evidence.”
(emphasis supplied)
Supreme Court

JUSTICE Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud JUSTICE A S Bopanna JUSTICE Vikram Nath

Gulab Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh

Criminal Appeal No. 81 of 2021

9th December 2021

Citation: 2021 ALL SCR (ONLINE) 744

Print Page

Whether Influence Of Bias In Testimony Of Interested Witnesses can Be Overlooked?

From the study of the aforesaid precedents of this court,
we may note that whoever has been a witness before the court of
law, having a strong interest in result, if allowed to be weighed in
the same scales with those who do not have any interest in the
result, would be to open the doors of the court for perverted truth.
This sound rule which remain the bulwark of this system, and
which determines the value of evidence derived from such sources,
needs to be cautiously and carefully observed and enforced. There
is no dispute about the fact that the interest of the witness must
affect   his   testimony   is   a   universal   truth.   Moreover,   under   the
influence of bias, a man may not be in a position to judge correctly,
even if they earnestly desire to do so. Similarly, he may not be in a
position   to   provide   evidence   in   an   impartial   manner,   when   it
involves his interest. Under such influences, man will, even though
not consciously, suppress some facts, soften or modify others, and
provide favorable color. These are most controlling considerations in
respect to the credibility of human testimony, and should never to
be overlooked in applying the rules of evidence and determining its
weight in the scale of truth under the facts and circumstances of
each case.

REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 408 OF 2014

BHASKARRAO & ORS.  Vs  STATE OF MAHARASHTRA     
Dated: APRIL 26, 2018.

Print Page

How to appreciate evidence of interested witnesses?

Testimony of Interested/Inimical Witnesses

24. On the issue of appreciation of evidence of interested witnesses, Dalip Singh v. State of Punjab MANU/SC/0031/1953 : AIR 1953 SC 364 : 1954 SCR 145, is one of the earliest cases on the point. In that case, it was held as follows:

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. It is true, when feelings run high and there is personal cause for enmity, that there is a tendency to drag in an innocent person against whom a witness has a grudge along with the guilty, but foundation must be laid for such a criticism and the mere fact of relationship far from being a foundation is often a sure guarantee of truth.

25. Similarly, in Piara Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab MANU/SC/0119/1977 : AIR 1977 SC 2274 : (1977) 4 SCC 452, this Court held:

It is well settled that the evidence of interested or inimical witnesses is to be scrutinised with care but cannot be rejected merely on the ground of being a partisan evidence. If on a perusal of the evidence the Court is satisfied that the evidence is creditworthy there is no bar in the Court relying on the said evidence.

26. In Hari Obula Reddy and Ors. v. The State of Andhra Pradesh MANU/SC/0128/1980 : (1981) 3 SCC 675, a three-judge Bench of this Court observed:

.. it is well settled that interested evidence is not necessarily unreliable evidence. Even partisanship by itself is not a valid ground for discrediting or rejecting sworn testimony. Nor can it be laid down as an invariable Rule that interested evidence can never form the basis of conviction unless corroborated to a material extent in material particulars by independent evidence. All that is necessary is that the evidence of interested witnesses should be subjected to careful scrutiny and accepted with caution. If on such scrutiny, the interested testimony is found to be intrinsically reliable or inherently probable, it may, by itself, be sufficient, in the circumstances of the particular case, to base a conviction thereon.

27. Again, in Ramashish Rai v. Jagdish Singh MANU/SC/0976/2004 : (2005) 10 SCC 498, the following observations were made by this Court:

The requirement of law is that the testimony of inimical witnesses has to be considered with caution. If otherwise the witnesses are true and reliable their testimony cannot be thrown out on the threshold by branding them as inimical witnesses. By now, it is well-settled principle of law that enmity is a double-edged sword. It can be a ground for false implication. It also can be a ground for assault. Therefore, a duty is cast upon the court to examine the testimony of inimical witnesses with due caution and diligence.

28. A survey of the judicial pronouncements of this Court on this point leads to the inescapable conclusion that the evidence of a closely related witnesses is required to be carefully scrutinised and appreciated before any conclusion is made to rest upon it, regarding the convict/accused in a given case. Thus, the evidence cannot be disbelieved merely on the ground that the witnesses are related to each other or to the deceased. In case the evidence has a ring of truth to it, is cogent, credible and trustworthy, it can, and certainly should, be relied upon. 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 1482 of 2013

Decided On: 20.10.2016

 Yogesh Singh Vs.  Mahabeer Singh and Ors.

Print Page

How to appreciate evidence of chance witness?

The High Court has attached a lot of weight to the evidence of the
said Madho Singh (PW 9) as he is an independent witness. On
perusal of the record, it appears that the said person already had
deposed for the victim family on a number of previous occasions, that
too against the same accused. This being the fact, it is important to
analyze the jurisprudence on interested witness. It is a settled
principle that the evidence of interested witness needs to be
scrutinized with utmost care. It can only be relied upon if the evidence
has a ring of truth to it, is cogent, credible and trustworthy. Here we
may refer to chance witness also. It is to be seen that although the
evidence of a chance witness is acceptable in India, yet the chance
witness has to reasonably explain the presence at that particular
point more so when his deposition is being assailed as being tainted.
19. A contradicted testimony of an interested witness cannot be usually
treated as conclusive. The said Madho Singh (PW 9) has admitted
that he has been a witness in another case against the accused for
the deceased. Here it is to be seen that the said Madho Singh
(PW 9) has been acting as a pocket witness for the family.
Further, the credibility of this independent witness can be
challenged on the fact that the commotion was only heard by the
said Madho Singh (PW 9) whereas the rest of the members of the
locality did not come for help. As Madho Singh (PW 9) is a chance
witness as well as an interested witness herein, causes suspicion and
does not inspire confidence. This admission by Madho Singh (PW 9)
not only forces us to doubt the veracity of his own deposition but also
has created doubts on the version of Gambhir Singh (PW 7).
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1141 OF 2007
MAHAVIR SINGH 
VERSUS
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 
Citation:(2016) 10 SCC220
Dated:NOVEMBER 09, 2016

Print Page

How to appreciate evidence of expert interested witness for grant of compensation for trees under land acquisition case?

The appellant assails the credibility of the oral evidence of C.W.47 on the ground that he was an interested witness. Though he was admittedly a retired Professor of Agricultural from the Annamalai University, the appellant claims that he was an interested witness, as he himself was one of the claimants.

33. But, we are unable to sustain the above objection. Merely because C.W.47 was also a claimant in a few Original Petitions, his expertise cannot be doubted or belittled. The oral testimony of a person who happens to have an interest in the case and who also is an expert in the field need not always be rejected. As a matter of fact, it is permitted in the Law of Evidence for the parties to a dispute, to examine the experts as witnesses on either side. If the contention of the appellant is accepted, every expert brought by one of the parties to a litigation could be treated as an interested witness. Even in criminal cases, the law is well settled that the evidence of a person cannot be disbelieved merely on the ground that he is related to the deceased. As pointed out by the Supreme Court in Gangabhavani vs. Royapatti Venkat Reddy, such an evidence may require careful scrutiny, but it can certainly be relied upon, if it has a ring of truth in it and is cogent, credible and trustworthy. Therefore, we are unable to sustain the objection of the appellant that the Tribunal ought not to have accepted the evidence of C.W.47.

Madras High Court

The Special Tahsildar vs Thangarasu

Coram:

The Hon'ble Mr.Justice V.Ramasubramanian
and 
The Hon'ble Mr.Justice T.Mathivanan


Appeal Suit Nos. 20 of 2014 to 61 of 2014

Dated: 29.7.2015

Print Page