Penal Code, 1860 – s.302 – Prosecution case that appellant was found strangulating the neck of his grandmother with his hands – P.W-1(son-in-law of deceased), who was sleeping in the adjoining room, upon hearing the screams of the deceased, rushed to her and witnessed the crime being committed – Appellant then took money bag from the possession of the deceased and fled away from the spot – Accused was arrested next day at bus stand, in presence of PWs 11 and 12 – Appellant-accused convicted by the trial Court and conviction affirmed by the High Court – On appeal, held: Conviction by the Courts below suffers from patent error of law – PWs 11 and 12 in their examination-in-chief denied the prosecution story about their presence at the time of arrest and seizure of material objects from the possession of the accused and they turned hostile – Prosecution case rested on evidences of PW 1 and his wife (PW 5) who were closely related to the accused-appellant – The relations between accused-appellant and PWs 1 & 5 were strained over property issues and they were in inimical terms – As the prosecution has relied upon the evidence of interested witnesses, the Court has to be cautious while analyzing such evidence – Other than these witnesses, there were no independent witnesses to support the case of prosecution – Nothing on record to support the version of PWs 1 & 5 – It was on record that when the deceased was brought to the hospital, in the accident register, it was written as ‘history of fall’ – According to prosecution blood came out from the mouth and nose of the deceased, but there appears no seizure of bloodstained clothes of the deceased and chemical analysis – There was inconsistency in evidence by the alleged eyewitnesses as well as investigation agency – Thus, there exists reasonable doubt in instant case as the case of prosecution is un-supported by independent witnesses, THE INSP. OF POLICE
ridden with contradictions, good motive for false prosecution and filled with suspicious circumstances.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The whole basis for the Courts below to convict the accused appears to be the version of the prosecution that the accused was arrested next day at about 11 a.m. at bus stand, in presence of PWs 11 and 12, and brushed aside the plea of alibi presented by the accused with due support by the evidence of DW1. It is worthwhile to note that both of these witnesses (PWs
11 & 12) in their examination-in-chief denied the prosecution story about their presence at the time of arrest and seizure of material objects from the possession of the accused and they turned hostile. This fact casts serious doubts on the veracity of prosecution story about the arrest of the accused. [Para 14] [619C-D]
2. Admittedly, at the time of alleged incidence, PW 5 (wife of PW1) and PW 6 (son of PWs 1 & 5) were not present near the alleged scene of offence. As regards the evidences of independent witnesses (PWs 2, 3 and 4), who were residents of the same street as that of the deceased and who were examined as ocular witnesses, PW 2 (tenant of PW 5) turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. Another shortfall in the prosecution case is that PW1 deposed that he gave oral complaint to police, but a contrary statement was put forth by PW15—I.O. stating that he got a written complaint from PW1. [Para 15] [619-C-D, G]
3.1 From the stated facts, it emerges that the entire prosecution case rests on the evidences of PWs 1 and 5 who are closely related to the accused—appellant. The accused is none other than the son of PW 5’s brother and PW 1 is the husband of PW5 and PW6 is the son of PWs 1 & 5. Clearly, the relations between the accused—appellant and PWs 1 & 5 were strained over property issues and they were in inimical terms. Apparently, there was also a civil suit pending between them for partition of properties. [Para 16] [619-H; 620-A-B]
3.2 It is settled law that there cannot be any hard and fast rule that the evidence of interested witness cannot be taken into consideration and they cannot be termed as witnesses. But, the only burden that would be cast upon the Courts in those cases is that the Courts have to be cautious while evaluating the evidence to exclude the possibility of false implication. Relationship can never be a factor to affect the credibility of the witness as it is always not possible to get an independent witness. [Para 17] [620-E]
3.3 Then, next comes the question ‘what is the difference between a related witness and an interested witness?’. The plea of “interested witness”, “related witness” has been succinctly explained by this Court that “related” is not equivalent to “interested”. The witness may be called “interested” only when he or she derives some benefit from the result of a litigation in the decree in a civil case, or in seeing an accused person punished. In this case at hand PW 1 and 5 were not only related witness, but also ‘interested witness’ as they had pecuniary interest in getting the accused petitioner punished. As the prosecution has relied upon the evidence of interested witnesses, it would be prudent in the facts and circumstances of this case to be cautious while analyzing such evidence. Other than these witnesses, there are no independent witnesses available to support the case of the prosecution. [Para 18] [620-F-H]
4. There is nothing on record to support the version of PWs
1 & 5 that on earlier occasions also and particularly on the date of incident, the accused quarreled with his grandmother demanding money and to settle the house in his favor. Further, it is on record that when the deceased was brought to the hospital, in the Accident Register, it was written as ‘history of fall’. According to the prosecution’s case, blood came out from the mouth and nose of the deceased, but there appears no seizure of bloodstained clothes of the deceased and chemical analysis. Thus, the inconsistent evidence by the alleged eyewitnesses as well as investigation agency would cause dent to the edifice on which the prosecution case is built, and it adversely affects the substratum of the prosecution case. [Para 19] [621-A-C]
5. There exists reasonable doubt in this case as the case of prosecution is un-supported by independent witnesses, ridden with contradictions, good motive for false prosecution and filled with suspicious circumstances. Further, there is not only insufficiency of evidence but also lack of credibility on the THE INSP. OF POLICE
trustworthiness of PWs 1 & 5 which culminated into disproving the prosecution case and alleged guilt of the accused. The prosecution has, therefore, failed to establish the guilt of the accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt by adducing cogent evidence. [Para 22] [622-B-C]
Sarwan Singh v. State of Punjab (1976) 4 SCC 369; State of U.P. v. Kishanpal and Ors. (2008) 16 SCC 73 : [2008] 11 SCR 1048; Latesh v. State of Maharastra 2018 (3) SCC 66 – referred to.
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.