The Allahabad High Court has said that if a witness is a relative of the victim, his testimony cannot be rejected on this basis alone. The court should check the credibility of his statements.
The Division Bench of Justice Vivek Kumar Birla and Justice Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi heard a Criminal Appeal filed by Rakshpal And Another.
The criminal appeal has been preferred assailing the order dated 15.11.1983 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Etah, in Sessions Trial convicting and sentencing the appellants under section 394 IPC read with section 397 IPC to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment and under section 460 IPC to undergo sentence of life imprisonment directing all the sentences to run concurrently.
On the basis of the written report of the complainant, a first information report was lodged against four accused persons namely, Rameshwar, Menhdi, Rakshpal and Jagdish being Case under Sections 302, 302/34 and 397/394 IPC. Accused Rameshwar has been charged under Sections 397 read with Section 394 and 302 IPC while accused Menhdi, Rakshpal (appellant no 1 herein) and Jagdish (appellant no 2, now dead) have been charged under Sections 397 read with Section 394 IPC and 302 read with Section 34 IPC.
The Court noted that,
Similar view has been taken in State of A.P vs S Rayappa and others, (2006) 4 SCC 512 wherein it has been observed that it is now almost a fashion that public is reluctant to appear and depose before the court especially in criminal cases and the cases for that reason itself are dragged for years and years, paragraph 6 whereof is quoted as under:
“…by now, it is a well-established principle of law that testimony of a witness otherwise inspiring confidence cannot be discarded on the ground that he being a relation of the deceased is an interested witness. A close relative who is a very natural witness cannot be termed as an interested witness. The term interest postulates that the person concerned must have some direct interest in seeing the accused person being convicted somehow or the other either because of animosity or some other reasons.”
In Satbir Singh and others vs State of UP, (2009) 13 SCC 790, the Apex Court in paragraph 26 held as under:
“26. It is now a well-settled principle of law that only because the witnesses are not independent ones may not by itself be a ground to discard the prosecution case. If the prosecution case has been supported by the witnesses and no cogent reason has been shown to discredit their statements, a judgment of conviction can certainly be based thereupon …… “
The Court observed that,
We find that there is a clear eyewitness account in the case. The occurrence took place at night and Shivraj Singh and Ramchandra, real brother and father respectively, being immediate family members are natural eyewitnesses of the occurrence. His real brother Johari was shot in the incident. To the same effect, another eyewitness Ram Nath who is a neighbour and has reached the spot with torch upon hearing noise of hue and cry raised by family members and of firing has made the statement. Ram Chandra is an injured witness and has also given eyewitness accounts and his presence is clearly proved on the spot. All the three eyewitnesses have individually and categorically stated that all the accused persons were known to him and a specific statement in respect of presence of surviving accused Rakshpal with country made pistol in his hand has also been made. The formal witness Dr VK Sharma has also provided an injury report and the firearm injury caused to the deceased.
There is no dispute as to how and in what manner the injury was caused although counsel for the appellant during the course of argument sought to dispute the direction of the injury. Suffice to say that in such moments, when under attack it is not unnatural for the persons under attack to take a spontaneous turn. Therefore, this cannot prove fatal to the prosecution case. Source of light (lantern) has been given and its place has also been specified in the site plan. There is a recovery memo of lanterns and torches as well. It is a case of prompt FIR and investigation. Nothing contradictory or materially proving otherwise has come out from the cross examination of the eyewitnesses or of the formal witnesses.
The Court further observed that,
At this stage, we may notice that Harish Chandra Tiwari, Amicus Curiae has also appeared in the appeal of Rameshwar and during course of argument he very fairly admitted that all such arguments that have been raised before this Court were raised before the Co-ordinate Bench in the appeal of Rameshwar but did not find favour with the Co-ordinate Bench. We have also gone through the statement of surviving appellant Rakshpal recorded under Section 313 CrPC. In his defence, in response to the several questions he had stated that he does not know anything about the questions asked whereas in respect of some other questions he has stated that the allegation is false.
In his defence, he has stated that he has been falsely implicated simply because one Suresh has lodged one complaint against inspector Ram Charan, P.S Jatra wherein he was one of the witnesses and therefore, the policeman was having enmity against him and for this reason the policeman has falsely implicated him. This reflects that he has not claimed any enmity against the informant or the deceased or his family members who were also witnesses of the incident.
He has further admitted that even his statement has not been recorded in the alleged complaint. No further detail of such alleged complaint has come on record and therefore, this defence that he has been falsely implicated by the police moreso, when said inspector Ram Charan is not associated with the investigation of the present case is not substantiated. During the course of arguments, Amicus Curiae Tiwari has conceded that the Court has powers to award punishment so awarded in the case with the aid of Section 460 CrPC.
The Court opined that there is no reason to differ with the findings recorded by the Coordinate Bench that there may be some minor and ignorable discrepancy in the prosecution case/ evidence as pointed out by the Amicus Curiae, however, there appears to be no major, legal or actual error in the appreciation of evidence by the trial Court, which may prove fatal to the prosecution case. The judgement has been upheld by the Co-ordinate Bench and conviction of the appellant Rameshwar has been confirmed although because of his period of incarceration he has been granted relief to the sentence undergone.
The Court found that in the case the appellant Rakshpal was granted bail by the Court by the order dated 18.11.1983 and he has been on bail since then.
The appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed by the High Court. The conviction of surviving appellant Rakshpal is confirmed.
Since the surviving appellant Rakshpal is on bail, his bail bonds are cancelled and the sureties are discharged, the Court ordered.
The post Witness testimony can’t be rejected only due to relationship with victim: Allahabad High Court appeared first on India Legal.