IMPORTANT POINT
Relationship is not a factor to affect credibility of a witness.

JUDGMENT

Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J. —

1. Leave granted.

2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant and upholding his conviction for offences punishable under Sections 302, 452 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short ‘the IPC’) and sentence of imprisonment for life, rigorous imprisonment for three years and one year respectively with fine and default stipulations.

3. Appellant faced trial along with one Sukku alias Sikku, who was convicted for offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and the other offences, as in the case of present appellant.

4. Both the accused persons had preferred appeals before the High Court questioning correctness of the judgment recorded by learned 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur, in Sessions Trial No.19 of 1997.

5. In brief the prosecution is that Ganesh Prasad, who is the author of the FIR heard hue and cry of Shakunbai at about 8-9 PM as a result of which he came out from his house and saw appellant Ram Singh carrying knife in his hand was coming out from the house of Laddu alias Baisakhu (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) and was running away. Behind him co-accused Sukku was also running away. Thereafter, this person came to the house of the deceased and asked Shakunbai, who is wife of the deceased, that how the incident had occurred, on which she replied that Sukku caught hold of the hands of the deceased and thereafter appellant Ramsingh dealt several blows of knife on the person of the deceased as a result of which he died. Thereafter, Ganesh Parsad went to lodge the First Information Report and on lodging the FIR, law was set in motion. The investigating agency, in order to investigate the case, arrived at the spot, prepared necessary panchnama, seized the dead body and sent it for post-mortem; seized ordinary and blood stained earth; recorded the statement of the witnesses and arrested the accused persons and at the instance of appellant Ramsingh seized a knife which was used as a weapon in the commission of the offence.

After the investigation was over, a charge-sheet was submitted which, on its turn, committed the case to the Court of Session from where it was received by the trial court for its trial. Since the accused persons abjured their guilt, trial was held. Nine witnesses were examined to further the prosecution version. Of them, Shakunbai (PW-2) was the widow of the deceased and Dhani Ram (PW-3) is his son, who claimed to be eye witnesses. Two witnesses were examined by the accused persons in support of their plea of innocence. The Trial Court found the evidence of the eye witnesses credible and cogent and, therefore, held both the accused persons guilty. It did not find any substance in the plea of the accused persons that the evidence of eye witnesses should be discarded as they are related to the deceased. The stand of innocence and the plea to discard the evidence of PWs 2 and 3 on the ground that they are related to the deceased were reiterated before the High Court. By the impugned judgment, the appeals were dismissed.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the presence of PWs 2 and 3 on the spot of occurrence is highly suspicious and they being relatives of the deceased, have falsely implicated the accused persons for reasons best known to them.

7. Learned counsel for the State supported the judgments of the courts below.

8. We shall first deal with the contention regarding interestedness of the witnesses for furthering prosecution version. Relationship is not a factor to affect credibility of a witness. It is more often than not that a relation would not conceal actual culprit and make allegations against an innocent person. Foundation has to be laid if plea of false implication is made. In such cases, the court has to adopt a careful approach and analyse evidence to find out whether it is cogent and credible.

9. In Dalip