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