The Court added that a close relative is a natural witness who would normally be most reluctant to spare the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent one

A division bench of Justice JJ Munir and Justice Vinai Kumar Dwivedi made these observations while dismissing a criminal appeal filed by one Ranjeet Patel and upheld his conviction and life sentence for brutally assaulting his cousin to death with an iron rod (sabbar/rambha).

Briefly put, on May 26, 2015, the Informant-Lal Sahab (PW-1) lodged a written complaint alleging that his cousin, Ranjeet Patel, arrived at their house and began hurling abuse at his brother, Ram Asrey/Deceased, over a monetary dispute.

When his Ram Asrey woke up, Accused-Patel, who carried an iron rod with him, assaulted the informant's brother on the head with the intention to kill him, and as a result, causing him to suffer serious injuries. The victim succumbed to his injuries shortly after.

In March 2019, the Sessions Judge, Jaunpur, convicted Accused-Patel under Section 302 IPC, sentenced him to life imprisonment, and imposed a fine of ₹10,000. Challenging his conviction, the appellant-accused moved the High Court.

Arguments Advanced

The Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellant argued that the conviction was unsustainable in all respects, as all the witnesses were 'interested' because they were family members of the informant, and the trial court failed to consider this important aspect.

It was further pointed out that there were material contradictions in the witnesses' testimony regarding how they described the weapon (an iron rod versus a rambha), and that the incident occurred in the dark hours of dawn, when proper identification of the accused was impossible.

The AGA, for the State, on the other hand, submitted that, if any contradictions exist, they are of a very trivial nature and cannot affect the prosecution's story.

It was asserted that all the witnesses had seen the occurrence with their own eyes and that it was committed by the appellant/accused-Patel.

High Court's Findings on Relatives as Witnesses

Rejecting the contentions advanced by the accused, the Court noted that both sides were closely related family members living in a shared house and courtyard (sehan).

The bench further pointed out that all the prosecution witnesses, though related to the deceased, had witnessed the incident with their own eyes and they had stated true facts in a natural manner without any embellishment, exaggeration or concoction.

Therefore, the bench clarified that simply on the ground that they are family members of the deceased, evidence of these eyewitnesses cannot be rejected.

In this regard, the bench relied upon the Supreme Court judgments in Ashok Kumar Chaudhary v. State of Bihar 2008 and Namdeo v. State of Maharashtra 2007, to note that the relationship per se does not dent the credibility of a witness.

On the contention regarding the lack of light at 3:30 a.m. in May, when the incident took place, the bench referred to the Supreme Court's ruling in Nathuni Yadav v. State of Bihar, 1996.

The Bench noted that during a summer morning, identification in an open courtyard is entirely plausible. It said:

"In the month of May, which is a very hot month of the summer season, at 03:30 hours in the early morning, it is quite possible to identify a person in the open sky, particularly, in front of one's house, say the sehan"

Furthermore, the Bench highlighted that since the appellant was a first cousin of the informant and was well known to the family, the witnesses could easily identify him:

"It is well known that residents of a village can identify locals in dim light or where it is slightly dark...prosecution witnesses...could easily have identified appellant Ranjeet Patel by his speech, language, gait, even in very poor light or when it was slightly dark."

The High Court also rejected the accused's argument regarding the weapon's description.

In this case, while some witnesses called it an iron rod and others termed it a sabbar or rambha (an iron tool used for boring earth), the Court noted that both are essentially hard iron implements.

The Court observed that the post-mortem report prepared by the Doctor (PW-5) showed a deep temporal bone fracture caused by a heavy, blunt object, which completely corroborated the medical use of such an iron weapon.

Against this backdrop, the bench concluded that the findings and reasoning given by the Trial Court were supported by the prosecution's evidence and were based on a sound appreciation of the evidence on record.

Thus, finding no infirmity or perversity in the trial court's judgment, the High Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the life sentence.

Counsel for Appellant(s): Jeet Bahadur Gautam, Mohd Akhtar, Sufiya Bano

Counsel for Respondent(s): Ashutosh Singh, G.A., Sanjay Vikram Singh