The evidence of relatives of a victim is admissible and can be relied upon by the court, provided that it is subjected to close scrutiny and tested for credibility and cogency.

ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

( 1 ) PETITIONER calls in question legality of his conviction under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, IPC) and sentence of six months rigorous imprisonment as awarded by the learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Kuchinda (in short, 'sdjm') and confirmed in appeal by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sambalpur.

( 2 ) BACKGROUND facts are as follows : on 15-3-1988 in the evening petitioner (here inafter referred to as the 'accused') went to the house of Ram Prasad Khadia (P. W. 1) and de manded money, taken as advance for supply of broom sticks from his mother, Raibani Khadia (P. W. 4 ). She replied that articles had been sup plied already. Accused was enraged at this reply and abused her in filthy language. At this junc ture Sri Bachha Khadia (P. W. 7) arrived and tried' to intervene. The accused dealt a blow with bamboo stick which he was holding, on Sri Bachha's head which resulted in bleeding injury on his left eye. The injury was very serious in nature and virtually led to loss of eye-sight. The assault was witnessed by the informant (P. W. 1), Subarna Khadia (P. W. 2) and Jogendranath Pradhan (P. W. 5 ). One Mangulu Munda, who was accompanying the accused was also alleged to be responsible for the crime. Information was lodged at Madhupali Police Station by P. W. 1, upon which investigation was undertaken. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted. Both accused and Mangulu Munda faced trial for commission of offences punish able under Sections 323, 326, 294 read with Section 34, IPC.

( 3 ) BOTH accused and Mangulu pleaded inno cence and a plea was taken that the injury sustained by the injured was on account of a fall.

( 4 ) ON consideration of evidence on record, learned SDJM held that no case was established against Mangulu, but found the accused-peti tioner guilty of an offence punishable under Section 325, IPC, and convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid. In appeal no relief' was granted to the petitioner.

( 5 ) LEGALITY of Judgment of courts below were assailed by Mr. S. K. Misra on following grounds, which according to him rendered prosecution version suspect. (I) Close relationship of the prosecution wit nesses with the injured; (ii) Discrepancy in evidence about part of body where assault was made; and (iii) Desirability to hold the petitioner guilty after acquittal of co-accused on the same set of evidence. Alternatively, it is submitted that the peti tioner has already undergone custodial sentence for more than two months, and considering the background in which the occurrence took place and the strate of society to which the petitioner belongs there should be reduction in sentence. The learned counsel for State supported the judg ments of conviction and sentence.

( 6 ) THERE can be no sweeping generalisation regarding acceptability of evidence of a witness who is related to a victim. When feelings run high and there is personal cause for enmity there is likelihood to drag in an innocent person, against whom a witness has a grudge along with the guilty. But, foundation must be laid for such a criticism and the mere fact of relationship far from being foundation for falsehood is often a sure guarantee of truth. Each case must be judged on its own merits. The close relatives of a victim are likely to be most reluctant to spare the real assailant and falsely involve another person in place of the assailant. Relationship is not suffi cient to suspect credibility, specially when presence on the spot is corroborated by other witnesses. A witness is normally to be considered independent unless he or she springs from sources which are likely to be tainted. Like any other evidence, a relative's evidence is to be tested in the crucible of credibility and cogency. Desir ability of the testimony being subjected to close and severe scrutiny arises when it is shown that there was likelihood of an attempt to falsely implicate an accused.

( 7 ) CONSIDERED