Evidence – Related/Interested witnesses – Reliance upon – When not proper – Appellants, A1 and A2 were convicted u/s.302, IPC and u/s.302 r/w 34, IPC, respectively for the murder of the deceased relying upon the eye-witness accounts of PW-1 and PW-2 (son and wife of the deceased) – Interference with: Held: When the witnesses are related/interested, their testimonies have to be scrutinized with greater care and circumspection – In the instant case, the two key witnesses are the son and wife of the deceased, who are very well-interested witnesses in the case therefore, their testimonies shall have to be treated with great caution and required to be met with a stricter standard of proof in order to rule out any embellishment – Though, the Courts below relied heavily on their testimonies to bring home the guilt of the accused persons, on facts, their presence at the place of crime in itself is highly contentious and was not proven definitely – No other alleged eye-witness supported the prosecution’s case, independent witnesses were declared hostile – The fact that the deceased was a habitual drunkard and a convicted criminal under the Goondas Act makes it highly probable that the deceased had enmities with multiple people who may have assaulted him and caused his death – Not proven beyond doubt that in all human probability, the act must have been done by the accused only – Prosecution did not discharge its burden of establishing the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt – Impugned judgment passed by the High Court, as well as the judgment of the Trial Court, quashed and set aside – Appellants acquitted – Penal Code, 1860 – s.302 r/w 34, 120B. [Paras 22, 23, 30-34]
Evidence – Related/Interested witnesses – Appreciation – Standard of proof, discussed. [Paras 22, 23]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.