Testimony of related witnesses can be the basis of conviction, if found to be reliable

Testimony of related witnesses can be the basis of conviction, if found to be reliable written by Isha Sawant student of Government Law College

Karulal v. State of Madhya Pradesh

Facts

An appeal was filed before the Supreme Court. By 5 accused, namely- Karulal, Amra, Kachru, Suratram and Bhagirath; against the order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court dated 23^rd June 2009, where the Trial Court’s order convicting them for the offence of murder of Madhavji, was upheld. On the morning of 18^th August 1993, Madhavji- the deceased and his son Bhawarlal (PW3) were present on the field, when PW3 suddenly heard his father cry out loud and saw Karulal, Amra, Kachru, Suratram, Bhagirath and Lala attacking his father with weapons, Shyamkalabai (PW 12)- the daughter of the deceased hearing the commotion along with PW9 and Babulal reached the spot, seeing them the accused persons ran away. PW3 arranged a bullock cart to take his injured father to Narayangarh, on the way they were stopped by some women to prevent them from filing the police report and threatened to kill, however they manage to proceed but Madhavji died on the way.

Bhawarlal and Babulal reached Narayangarh Police Station with the dead body and filed a report against accused u/s- 148, 302 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The women were charged u/s 506 of the IPC, but the charges of obstruction and threats to kill were not proved and so they were acquitted. The prosecution examined 15 witnesses, out of which four did not support the prosecution case. PW2 was the doctor who performed the autopsy of the deceased’s body and stated the death was was due to bleeding from the injuries inflicted by hard, blunt, sharp-edged weapons and the subsequent shock. The Trial Court went through the testimonies of Bhawarlal (PW3), Babulal (PW11) and Shyamkalabai (PW12) and found that the six accused were armed and assemble to attack Madhavji. The court noted that the eye witnesses PW3 and PW12 were the children of the decease and found that PW11 who was not related and his testimony was found to be consistent with other two eyewitnesses, evidence of PW12 was found reliable as her presence at the place of incident was confirmed by PW3 and PW11, they corroborated each other on all material particulars. Ram Singh (DW1) and Mangi Lal (DW2), stated that Madhavji accidentally fell into the nullah and suffered the injuries.

The Trial Court noted that DW2, the village chowkidar did not visit the place of occurrence nor did he report the accident of Madhavji to the Police, which he ought to have in normal course of his duty as the village chowkidar; DW1’s evidence was also found to be untrustworthy as his claim to have accompanied PW3 to the Police Station was found to be false. The court noted that the doctor merely accepted that the injury could have resulted from a fall but never stated that the injury was the result of the accidental fall, the doctor also never suggested that the injuries were not a result of violent attack by the accused persons on the deceased. The court noted that the accused inflicted injuries on vital parts in furtherance of their common objective. The accused pleaded false implication by the deceased’s family due to old enmity, the Trial Court considered it and evaluated evidence of the eyewitness and the post-mortem report and found the plea to be untrue. The Trial Court held that the accused persons intentionally caused fatal injuries to the deceased and were therefore convicted u/s- 302, 148 read with section 149 of the IPC, out the six accused Lala died during the trial. The accused persons then approached the Madhya Pradesh High Court, who found the evidence of the eyewitness to be consistent and noted that it was corroborated by medical evidence. They found no infirmity in the Trial Court’s judgement of convicting the accused and dismissed the appeal filed by the accused person.

Issues:

• Whether the enmity between the parties, led to false implication of the accused persons.
• Whether the accused persons were rightly convicted by the Trial Court

Legal Provisions:

• Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sections 302- Punishment for murder.
• Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sections 148- Rioting, armed with deadly weapon.
• Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sections 149- Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object.

 Appellant’s contention:

 The appellant’s counsel submitted that the evidence of PW3 and PW12 should be discarded as they are the deceased’s children, and that the accused persons were being implicated due to past enmity, and that a few witnesses did not support the prosecution’s version. The counsel also showed that the injuries were caused through the deceased’s accidental fall in the nullah. 

 Observations of the court:

The case was heard before the Supreme Court Bench of N.V. Ramana, Surya Kant and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ. The court went through the law on evidentiary value of related witnesses and referred to the case of the Dalip Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab (1960) whereby it was observed that unless a witness comes from a tainted source or as a cause for enmity against the accused, he will be considered to be independent and that close relatives were less likely to protect the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent person. The Court in the present case noted that Babulal PW11 being unrelated to the deceased, his evidence corroborates evidence given by PW3 and PW12. The court also noted that by reason of being related to the deceased, one will not falsely implicate an innocent person, the court referred to the case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Samman Das (1972) where it was held that close relatives of the deceased would be reluctant to spare the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent person. The court thus noted that, evidence given by related witnesses if found to be truthful can be the basis of conviction and that the court had sufficient reason to believe PW3 and PW12.

The court referred to the observation in Sushil and Ors. V. State of Uttar Pradesh (1995), that enmity can go both ways, it can also be considered a motive for committing a crime and it can also provide motive for false implication. The evidence of related witnesses cannot be discarded for if it is found to be reliable and supported by independent witnesses. The court noted that past enmity will not discredit testimony of witnesses if they are found to be otherwise trustworthy. They held that in the present case the history of bad blood gives clear motive for the crime, and this aspect does not aid the appellants. The court also held that there was sufficient evidence and trustworthy testimonies which clearly support the prosecution’s case against the accused.  be noted that although some witnesses may not support the prosecution’s version, it is then necessary for the court to determine whether other evidence comprehensively proves the charges. The Court noted that the Trial Court had elaborately considered the evidence that came to a logical conclusion, and held that hostile witnesses would not affect the appearance conviction.

Judgement:

 The court held that the high court had rightly upheld the order or the trial court order of converting opinion it was accordingly declared the pin was dismissed.