Interested Or Related Witness Testimony Cannot Be Discarded Mechanically; Must Be Closely Scrutinised: Supreme Court
The Apex Court reiterated that evidence of an interested or related witness is not to be rejected solely on the ground of relationship, holding that such testimony must, however, be subjected to close scrutiny.
Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, Justice Vipul M. Pancholi, Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has held that merely because a witness is interested or related to the victim, their deposition cannot be discarded, though it must be scrutinised closely before being relied upon for conviction.
The Court was hearing criminal appeals filed by accused persons challenging the dismissal of their appeals by the Chhattisgarh High Court, which had affirmed their conviction and sentence for offences including murder and rioting.
The Bench comprising Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi observed that “merely because the witness is an interested or related witness, his/her deposition cannot be discarded. Further, deposition of such witnesses is required to be scrutinized closely.”
Background
The prosecution's case was that the informant, while cooking at home, was told by her granddaughter that some persons were assaulting her son near a pond. She alleged that she reached the spot and saw the accused assaulting her son with sticks and stones, with his hands tied, and that she later found him dead.
An FIR was registered for murder and allied offences, and upon investigation, a charge-sheet was filed. The Trial Court convicted the accused persons of murder with the aid of unlawful assembly provisions and sentenced them to life imprisonment along with other sentences.
The High Court dismissed the accused persons’ appeals and affirmed the conviction, following which the present appeals were filed before the Supreme Court.
Court’s Observation
The Supreme Court first considered the principal contention that the informant-mother was an interested witness and that her version required scrutiny. While reiterating that relationship by itself is not a ground to discard testimony, the Court held that the evidence must inspire confidence after close evaluation.
On examining her deposition, the Court found major contradictions as to what the granddaughter had told her and what the informant claimed to have witnessed upon reaching the spot. The Court also noted that in cross-examination, she admitted that when she arrived, the deceased was already injured and the accused were standing there, and that she was unable to state which accused’s sticks or stones had struck the deceased.
A significant circumstance noted by the Court was the prosecution’s failure to examine the granddaughter who, according to the prosecution, was the person who allegedly informed the informant about the assault. The Court treated this omission as material while assessing whether the informant’s version could safely be relied upon as the sole basis for conviction.
The Court then considered the evidence relating to recovery and the role of independent witnesses. It recorded that key independent witnesses did not support the prosecution's case and turned hostile, including witnesses associated with the inquest and seizure proceedings, and one such witness specifically stated that no memorandum statement was made by the accused in his presence and that nothing was seized from the accused in his presence. In this backdrop, the Court held that the recovery or production of weapons through memorandum statements could not be believed.
The Bench also evaluated the medical evidence. It noted the doctor’s deposition that multiple injuries were found, including incised wounds, and that although the doctor opined the injuries could be caused by the stone and sticks shown, the doctor admitted that the post-mortem report did not specify which wounds were caused by which weapon. The Court further observed that it was difficult to accept that three incised wounds were caused by the single stone seized, especially when the prosecution's version did not attribute repeated blows by the same stone.
In view of these features, material contradictions in the informant’s testimony, non-examination of the granddaughter, lack of dependable corroboration from independent witnesses, and the limitations in the medical and recovery evidence, the Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court judgment affirming the conviction and sentence, and held that the prosecution had failed to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court noted that the appellants had been released on bail and discharged their bail bonds.
Cause Title: Punimati & Anr. v. The State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.; Dayalu & Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1454)
Appearances
Appellants: Advocates Dushyant Parashar, AOR, Manu Parashar, Dinesh Pandey
Respondents: Avdhesh Kumar Singh, Advocate General; Advocates Prerna Dhall, Shivam Ganeshia, Ambuj Swaroop, Kapil Katare, Rajnandani Kumari, Dhananjay Kumar Singh, Prashant Singh, AOR