1. Appeal and writ petition challenging conviction and sentence based on eye-witness testimony. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
1997 Supreme(SC) 1525
1997(10) Supreme 612
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
G.T. Nanavati, B.N. Kirpal, JJ.
Rajinder Singh & Another -Appellants
versus
State of Bihar -Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 78 of 1989
With
Writ Petition No. 543 of 1992
Decided on 25-11-1997
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants, M.K. Chaudhary, Advocate for S.K. Verma, Advocate, D.K. Garg, Advocates.
For the Respondent, G.B. Sathe, Advocate for A.K. Jha, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Merely because eye witnesses happened to be sister and mother of deceased their evidence cannot be discarded in absence of any infirmity.
Headnote:APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION -Appellants convicted on basis of evidence of two eye witnesses-No infirmity in their evidence-Merely because they were the sister and mother of deceased their evidence could not be discarded in absence of any infirmity. (Para 3)
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Challenge to the credibility of eye-witnesses based on their relationship to the deceased. (Para 3 )
3. Evidence of eye-witnesses is credible; relationship to the deceased does not justify discarding testimony in the absence of other infirmities. (Para 3 )
4. Testimony of witnesses related to the deceased cannot be discarded solely on the basis of such relationship. (Para 3 )
5. Miscellaneous petitions, appeal, and writ petition dismissed; appellants directed to surrender to serve remaining sentence. (Para 1 , 3 )
6. Does the relationship between a witness and the deceased automatically disqualify the witness's testimony?
No, the evidence of witnesses cannot be discarded merely because they are related to the deceased, provided there is no other infirmity in their evidence. (Para 3 )
7. Under what circumstances will a court interfere with concurrent findings of lower courts regarding witness credibility?
A court will not interfere with concurrent findings of the trial court and High Court unless a good reason is provided or an infirmity is found in the evidence or its appreciation. (Para 3 )
JUDGMENT
Nanavati, J.-Crl. Misc. Petition 6233/83 and Crl.M.P....... (application for discharging the advocate from the matter) are dismissed.
2. The appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 78/79 are challenging their conviction and the order of sentence passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, East Chambaran, Motihari in S.T. No. 138/69 of 1978/81 and confirmed by the High Court. Writ Petition No. 543/92 is filed by accused Ramayan Singh whose S.L.P. was earlier dismissed by this Court.
3. The appellants have been convicted on the basis of the evidence of 2 eye witnesses P.W. 2 Amila Devi and P.W. 3 Bhagwani Devi. Both these witnesses have been believed by the trial Court and also by the High Court. No good reason is advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant for taking a different view as regards the credibility of these 2 witnesses. We do not find any infirmity in their evidence. Merely because they happened to be sister and mother respectively of the deceased their evidence cannot be discarded. In absence of any infirmity either in the appreciation of their evidence or in the reasons given by the courts below we see no reason to interfere in this appeal and the Writ Petition. Both are, therefore, dismissed. The appellants in criminal appeal are directed to surrender to custody to serve out the remaining sentence.
Appeal dismissed.
*********
