Can’t Discard Testimony Of Witnesses Merely Because They Are Relatives Of Deceased & Are Interested Witnesses: Supreme Court

The Appeal before the Apex Court challenged the final judgment of the Bombay High Court affirming the judgment of the Trial Court convicting the appellant-accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.

In light of the fact that the deceased and the complainant were closely related to each other inasmuch they were first cousins, the Division Bench comprising Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih asserted, “It is however a settled position of law that merely because the witnesses are relatives of the deceased and as such are interested witnesses, that alone cannot be a ground to discard their testimony. The only requirement is that the testimony of such witnesses has to be scrutinized with greater caution and circumspection.”

AOR Deeplaxmi Subhash Matwankar represented the Appellant while Advocate Rukhmini Bobde represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The deceased and the co-accused were brothers. Their agricultural fields were situated adjacent to each other with a common boundary and a common well. The complainant is the son of the deceased and the appellant is the son of the co-accused. The incident dates back to the year 2009, when the complainant had gone to his field and the appellant hurled abuses at him with respect to the use of common boundary (Bundh) to operate the electric pump on the well.

When the complainant and his parents asked the appellant for an explanation as to why he was obstructing the complainant, the appellant and the co-accused became aggressive. The co-accused armed with an axe and the appellant armed with a stick assaulted the deceased and the complainant.

The complainant and the deceased both sustained injuries and were taken to the Hospital. The deceased succumbed to injuries and a case came to be registered under Sections 323, 326, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The trial court convicted the appellant and co-accused and their appeal before the High Court was dismissed. It was in such circumstances that the appellant-accused approached the Apex Court.

Reasoning

From the perusal of the Post-Mortem Report and the evidence of the Medical Officer, the Bench did not find any reason to interfere with the finding that the death of the deceased was homicidal. The Bench also affirmed the finding of the trial court that it was the appellant along with the co-accused who had caused injuries to the deceased resulting in his death.

From the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, it was clear that the place of the incident was near the house of the accused persons. “The possibility of a quarrel taking place on account of previous enmity between the accused persons and the deceased; and in a sudden fight in the heat of the moment, the appellant along with the co-accused assaulting the deceased cannot be ruled out. It can further be seen that the weapons used are a stick and the blunt side of the axe. These tools are easily available in any agricultural field. It therefore cannot be said that there was any premeditation”, the Bench stated.

Noting that the appellant allegedly used the stick whereas the co-accused used the blunt side of the axe, the Bench observed that if their intention was to kill the deceased, there was no reason as to why the co-accused would not have used the sharp side of the axe. The nature of injury and the evidence of the prosecution witnesses also did not show that the appellant had taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel manner.

Thus, finding that the present case would not fall under the ambit of Section 302 of IPC and the appellant would be entitled to benefit of Exception IV of Section 300 of IPC, the Bench also noticed that the appellant had already undergone the sentence of 6 years 10 months.

Partly allowing the appeal, the Bench converted the conviction under Section 302 IPC to Part I of Section 304 IPC and sentenced the appellant to the period already undergone. “The appellant is directed to be released forthwith if not required in any other case”, it concluded.

Cause Title: Sudam Prabhakar Achat v. The State of Maharashtra (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 378)

Appearance:

Appellants: AOR Deeplaxmi Subhash Matwankar, Advocates Ravindra Chingale, Manpreet Kaur

Respondent: Advocates Rukhmini Bobde, Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, Soumya Priyadarshinee, Amlaan Kumar, Jatin Dhamija, Naveen Kumar Bhardwaj

Click here to read/download Judgment