Penal Code, 1860:
ss. 148, 302/149 – Prosecution under – Three eye-witnesses – Conviction by Courts below – Appeal to Supreme Court – Held: Prosecution version is cogent and supported by consistent testimony of three eye-witnesses which is further corroborated by medical evidence – The facts that two of the eye-witnesses were related and that some of the witnesses turned hostile, will not affect the prosecution case.
Evidence:
Related witness – Evidentiary value of – Held: Testimony of related witness, if found to be truthful, can be the basis of conviction.
Criminal Trial:
Plea of false implication – On account of previous enmity – Held: Plea not sustainable – If the witnesses are otherwise trustworthy, past enmity by itself will not discredit any testimony.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. 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. The testimony of the related witness, if found to be truthful, can be the basis of conviction and there is 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. [Paras 19 and 20][501-E-F; 502-B-C] Dalip Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab AIR 1953 SC
364 : [1954] SCR 145; State of Uttar Pradesh v. Samman Dass (1972) 3 SCC 201 : [1972] 3 SCR 58; Khurshid Ahmed v. State of Jammu and Kashmir (2018)
7 SCC 429 : [2018] 6 SCR 1121 – relied on.
2. 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 aid the defence in the present matter. [Para 22][502-G] Sushil & Ors. v. State of U.P. (1995) 1 Suppl. SCC 363 : [1994] 5 Suppl. SCR 294 – relied on.
3. There are enough material evidence and trustworthy testimonies which clearly support the case against the accused and the prosecution need not fail on the count that few of the witnesses had not supported the prosecution case and were declared to be hostile. Some witness may not support the prosecution story for their own reasons and in such situation, it is necessary for the Court to determine whether the other available evidence comprehensively proves the charge. In the present case, the prosecution version is cogent and supported by three eyewitnesses who have given a consistent account of the incident. Their testimonies are corroborated by the medical evidence. The Trial Court had elaborately discussed the evidence of both sides and came to a logical conclusion which inspires confidence. Therefore, the hostile witnesses will not affect the conviction of the appellants. The conviction of the appellants was rightly ordered and correctly upheld by the High Court. [Paras 23 and 24][503-G-H; 504-A-B]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. 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.