important points
There is no proposition in law that relatives are to be treated as untruthful witnesses.
The instigation must have reference to the thing that was done and not to the thing that was likely to have been done by the person who is instigated.

judgment

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. —

1.Leave granted.

2.Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a Division Bench of Patna High Court. Appeals filed by the appellant and two co-accused were dismissed by a common judgment.

3.Accused Uma Shankar was charged for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the ‘IPC’) for having committed murder of Manji Singh (hereinafter referred to as the ‘deceased’). Accused appellant Kulwant Singh and Awadh Singh were charged in terms of Section 302 read with Section 109 IPC for having abetted the aforesaid murder of the deceased by Uma Shankar. The trial Court found that the accusations have been established against the accused persons, Kulwant and Awadh and accordingly sentenced each for life for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 109 IPC.

4.Before the High Court the basic stand of the appellants was that there was absolutely no motive for the gruesome crime. The first information report (in short the ‘FIR’) has not been proved to have been filed in the manner as claimed. The High Court found the evidence to be cogent and credible and held that no interference was called for.

5.Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

“Manji Singh (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) who was a teacher in a non-affiliated Sanskrit School had suffered expulsion from the Institution. Accused-appellant and two co-accused and the deceased were agnates and they were separate in mess and business from each other and were residing in houses adjacent to each other. As usually happens, there had been paltry dispute between females of the two families and as a fall out, after the said incident it was alleged that while the deceased was feeding cattle near his house, accused Uma Shankar Singh hurled abuses on him, pursuant to which accused appellant Kulwant Singh and accused Awadh Singh came out and exhorted Umashankar Singh to shoot. As for Umashankar Singh it was alleged that shortly thereafter he having brought one barrel gun from his house, pumped bullets in the chest of the deceased who dropped on the ground. Though all efforts were made by the family of the deceased for his survival before he could be admitted to Ara Sadar Hospital, where he was taken by the family members, he was declared dead and with these accusations fardbeyan of Kariman Singh was recorded by Shri S.N. Tiwary, ASI of Ara Town Police Station, following which formal First Information Report was drawn up at the Police Station. Investigation was undertaken. Charges were framed and accused faced trial. As noted above, trial Court convicted the accused which was upheld by the High Court.”

6.In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the relatives of the deceased who are the so called eye witnesses lodged the first information report and conviction cannot be made on the evidence of the relatives. PW-1 was the wife of the deceased. PW-2 and PW-3 who claimed to be eye witnesses were also relatives of the deceased.

7.Learned counsel for the State submitted that merely because the eye witnesses are relatives of the deceased, their evidence should not be discarded and after detailed analysis the trial Court and the High Court have found the prosecutionversion cogent.

8.It is to be noted that PWs 2 and 3 are neighbours of both the accused and the deceased. No foundation was laid to substantiate the allegation that the relatives had any special reason to depose in favour of the prosecution. Since PWs 2 and 3 are neighbours of the accused and the deceased, the question of their being partial to prosecution does not arise. That being so, there is no question to discard the veracity of the prosecution version. The evidence of PWs 2 and 3 was cogent and the courts below have rightly relied upon their evidence.

9.There is no proposition in law that relatives are to be treated as untruthful witnesses. On the contrary, reason has to be sho