Important point
Testimony of a witness otherwise inspiring confidence cannot be discarded on ground that he being a relation of deceased was an interested witness.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860—Sections 148, 302/149—Accused persons assaulted deceased by axe and other weapons they were armed in village as village was faction ridden—Out of 22 accused sent for trial, trial Court convicted fine of them on basis of evidence of two eye witnesses PW1 and PW2—High Court set aside conviction holding presence of PW1 and PW2 doubtful on the scene of occurrence and that they were interested witnesses, PW1 being brother and PW2 being brother-in-law of deceased and that prosecution failed to examine any independent witness—Appeal—High Court erred in discarding evidence of PW1 on ground that inquest report did not disclose his name as eye witness—Detailed statement of PW1 was recorded in inquest and he stated presence of PW2 also—FIR lodged by PW1 also stated presence of PW2—Delay in FIR reaching Ilaqua Magistrate could have been explained by I.O. if such question was put to him—There was another murder in village on same day—High Court erred in holding that delay of FIR reaching Magistrate created suspicion about presence of PW1 and PW2—Evidence of PW1 and PW2 could not be discarded merely because they were related to deceased when their evidence inspired confidence—Due to double murder in village, people were in terror and non-examination of independent witness in such situation would not be a ground to discard evidence of PW1 and PW2—Impugned order of High Court was liable to be set aside and conviction recorded by trial Court to be restored.
Held : The other reason assigned by the High Court in recording acquittal of the accused is that P.W.1 and P.W.2 were interested witnesses being relations of deceased and no independent witness was examined by the prosecution. 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 interested 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. On the contrary it has now almost become a fashion that the public is reluctant to appear and depose before the Court especially in criminal case because of varied reasons. Criminal cases are kept dragging for years to come and the witnesses are a harassed lot. They are being threatened, intimidated and at the top of all they are subjected to lengthy cross-examination. In such a situation, the only natural witness available to the prosecution would be the relative witness. The relative witness is not necessarily an interested witness. On the other hand, being a close relation to the deceased they will try to prosecute the real culprit by stating the truth. There is no reason as to why a close relative will implicate and depose falsely against somebody and screen the real culprit to escape unpunished. The only requirement is that the testimony of the relative witnesses should be examined cautiously. The High Court has brushed aside the testimony of P.W.1 and P.W.2 on the sole ground that they are interested witnesses being relatives of the deceased. (Paras 6 and 7)

Judgment

H.K. Sema, J.—23 accused in all were put to trial before the Trial Court under Sections 148/302/149 IPC. A-21 died before the Trial commenced. A-1 to A-20, A-22 and A-23 faced the trial. The Trial Court convicted A-2, 3, 6, 12 and 14 under Section 148 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years. The Trial Court also found A-2, 3, 6, 12 and 14 guilty under Section 302 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 2000/- in default three months rigorous imprisonment. Being aggrieved, two appeals were preferred before the High Court. Criminal Appeal No. 1727 of 1997 was preferred by Sathuluri Rayappa A-2, Sathuluri Chalapathi A-3, Sathuluri Dibbaraju A-6 and Garapati Mastan A-12. Criminal Appeal No. 18 of 1998 was separately preferred by Satuluri Milke Raju A-14. By the impugned order the High Court acquitted all of them. Hence these appeals by special leave by the State of Andhra Pradesh.

2. Briefly stated the facts are as follows:

The accused and the material prosecution witnesses were the residents of village Chilakaluripeta. The deceased Pilli Mohan Rao was also the resident of the same village. Eyewitnesses P.W.1 Pilli Subba Rao is the brother of the deceased. The deceased Pilli Mohan Rao is the brother-in-law of another eyewitness P.W.2. The village Malapalli of Chilakaluripeta is a faction-ridden village. One group was led by A-6 who belonged to C.P.M. party and the deceased who also belonged to C.P.M. party led another group. Since 1984 there were several criminal cases against each other among these groups. On 7.4.1992 A-1 and two others stabbed the son of the deceased. After the said incident, the deceased shifted his family from Malapalli to Sanjeeva Colony in Chilakaluripeta to his sister’s house. It is the case of the prosecution that on 24.7.1992 at about 7.00 a.m. all the accused persons passed in front of the house of P.W.1 stating that they had killed Pedda Sambaiah and they would kill the deceased Pilli Mohan Rao. P.W.1 having heard the conversation went to his sister’s house where the deceased and his family were residing. P.W.1 narrated the story to the deceased and asked him to escape. P.W.1 and the deceased then came to Narsaraopet bus stop of Chilakaluripeta. Then they saw all the accused coming towards them armed with deadly weapons. On seeing the accused they started running and the accused chased the deceased. It is the prosecution case that Sathuluri Dibbaraju A-6 axed on the back of the deceased, Sathuluri Rayappa A-2 hit him on the left side of the chest, Sathuluri Milke Raju A-14 also axed on the back of the deceased, Sathuluri Chalapathi A-3 beat on the back side of neck of the deceased and Garapati Mastan A-12 speared on the back of the deceased. All the other accused meanwhile watched to prevent others from coming there. On hearing hue and cry of the deceased the neighbours came out, by that time all the accused ran away. It is further stated that after the incident P.W.1 and P.W.2 went near the body and found the deceased dead. Thereafter, P.W.1 went to the police station and lodged the report with Head Constable P.W.8 at Town Police Station. P.W.9 the C.I. took up the investigation and in course of the investigation, statement of prosecution witnesses were recorded, documents collected and having found that prima facie case was established against the accused, submitted the chargesheet. Later, on appreciation of evidence and documents collected during the course of the investigation and having found the case established against the accused during the trial, the Trial Court convicted the appellants as aforesaid.

3. The High Court doubted the presence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 who are eyewitnesses to the occurrence and discarded their testimony. The High Court, in our view, erroneously discarded the evidence of P.W.2 merely on the ground that in inquest report (Ex.P.2) it does not disclose the name of P.W.2 as an eyewitness. In Ex. P.2 a very detailed statement of P.W.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2006 Supreme(SC) 128

Important pointTestimony of a witness otherwise inspiring confidence cannot be discarded on ground that he being a relation of deceased was an interested witness.

Important point
Testimony of a witness otherwise inspiring confidence cannot be discarded on ground that he being a relation of deceased was an interested witness.