A close relative cannot be characterised as an ‘interested’ witness

Ravikiran Shukre | Manikchand Pahade Law College, Aurangabad | 16th February 2020 

Namdeo v. State of Maharashtra (Criminal Appeal no. 914 of 2006)

Facts of the case: 

1. Deceased Ninaji Rupaji Ghonge was a resident of Deodhaba, Taluk Malkapur, District Buldana. He was residing with his son Sopan (PW6). His other sons were staying separately. Deceased Ninaji possessed she goats, sheep and she buffalos. The appellant-accused Namdeo was also residing in a nearby house. Relations between the deceased Ninaji and the accused Namdeo were strained. The reason was the belief entertained by the accused. Namdeo harboured a suspicion that she goats and sheep belonged to him died due to some disease and the deceased Ninaji and his friends were responsible for the death of those animals as deceased Ninaji had played a witch craft. This resulted in accused Namdeo abusing the deceased and administering threat to kill. PW6- Sopan, son of the deceased, however requested village people to settle the dispute between his father and the accused. Accordingly, some responsible persons intervened, called both of them and advised not to quarrel.
2. On October 25, 2000 between 8.00 to 9.00 p.m., a she buffalo of accused Namdeo died. Deceased Ninaji, after taking his meal, was sleeping on the wooden cot in the backyard of his house. On the same night, at about 2.00 to 3.00 a.m., Sopan (complainant) heard shouts of his father calling ‘Bapa re Bapa re’. On hearing the cry, PW6-Sopan and his wife rushed towards the backyard of his house where Ninaji was sleeping and noticed that the accused Namdeo was assaulting him. PW6-Sopan saw the accused administering axe blow on the head of his father Ninaji, in the light of electric bulb. On seeing Sopan, the accused Namdeo fled away from the place taking axe in his hand.
3. FIR was lodged and subsequently charges were framed against Namdeo and trial court of Nagpur held that, it was proved beyond reasonable doubt that it was accused and accused alone who had caused injuries to the deceased which resulted into death of the deceased. The accused therefore, convicted for an offence punishable under section 302 of the IPC and was awarded imprisonment for life. 
4. The appeal filed by the accused before the High Court was dismissed observing that the trial Court had not committed any error and the judgment and order did not deserve interference. The said order is challenged before the Supreme Court.  

Judgment:

1. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the entire case of the prosecution is based on solitary testimony of eye witness Sopan, son of the deceased. He is thus an ‘interested’ witness. In absence of any corroboration, it would not be safe to place implicit reliance on his testimony who could not have seen the assailant in the dark night. It was submitted that even if the case of the prosecution is believed, only a single blow was given by the accused and the case would not be covered under Section 302 IPC but would fall under Section 304, Part II IPC and the order of conviction and sentence requires to be modified.
2. The learned advocate for the State supported the order of conviction and sentence. According to him, both the Courts considered the evidence in its proper perspective and no fault can be found when they held the accused guilty. Regarding nature of offence, it was submitted that an axe blow was administered on the vital part of the body i.e. head which resulted in death of the deceased which was rightly held to be a case of an offence of murder. A prayer was therefore made to dismiss the appeal.
3. Supreme court relied on the judgment pronounced in 1957 in case of Vedivelu Thevar v. State of Madras^[1] where Court has stated that, 
4. As a general rule, a court can and may act on the testimony of a single witness though uncorroborated. One credible witness outweighs the testimony of a number of other witnesses of indifferent character.
5. Unless corroboration is insisted upon by statute, courts should not insist on corroboration except in cases where the nature of the testimony of the single witness itself requires as a rule of prudence, that corroboration should be insisted upon, for example in the case of a child witness, or of a witness whose evidence is that of an accomplice or of an analogous character.
6. Whether corroboration of the testimony of a single witness is or is not necessary, must depend upon facts and circumstances of each case and no general rule can be laid down in a matter like this and much depends upon the judicial discretion of the Judge before whom the case comes.
7. Court also relied on the judgment pronounced in 2005 in case of Harbans Kaur v. State of Haryana^[2] where court has stated that, “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.” Court has come to a conclusion that; a close relative cannot be characterised as an ‘interested’ witness. He is ‘natural’ witness.

Hence, Supreme Court has come to a conclusion that; Considering the nature of weapon used by the accused (axe) and the vital part of the body (head) of the deceased chosen by him, it was clear that the intention of the accused was to cause death of Ninaji. Because injury sustained is sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. The order of conviction and sentence is hereby maintained.

^[1] AIR 1957 SC 614

^[2] (2005) 9 SCC 195