No Bar In Law In Examining An Inimical, Interested Or Related Witness By A Party To Support His Case: Jharkhand High Court

The Jharkhand High Court has observed that there is no bar in law in examining an inimical, interested, or related witness by a party to support his case. A witness may be closely related to the victim or inimical to the accused but on that ground, his testimony cannot be treated as tainted, the Court said.The division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Navneet Kumar, observed, “There is no bar in law in examining an inimical, interested or related witness by a party to support his case. A witness may be closely related to the victim or inimical to the accused but on that ground his testimony cannot be treated as tainted. When a crime is committed in the circumstances as described by the witnesses in the present case the family members and co-villagers are the natural and competent witnesses.”The above observation came in a criminal appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure by two individuals, Alok Mahto and Nirakar Mahto, who were convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code for causing the death of Madho Singh Munda.According to the factual matrix of the case, the informant alleged that the appellants came to the house and dragged Madho Singh Munda outside. Furthermore, it was alleged that the accused had their eyes on the informant's properties, which they intended to seize, taking advantage of the fact that the informant had no children. A charge sheet was filed under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, leading to the conviction of the appellants. Aggrieved by the judgement, the appeal was filed.The Court referenced the case of Masalti v. State of U.P. (AIR 1965 SC 202), in which the Supreme Court warned against the automatic dismissal of evidence from interested witnesses solely on the basis that it is partisan, as this could lead to a miscarriage of justice.The Court also cited Sucha Singh v. State of Punjab (2003) 7 SCC 643, where the Supreme Court determined that a witness's relationship to the parties does not inherently affect their credibility. Often, relatives are unlikely to hide the real culprit and wrongfully accuse an innocent person.However, the Court emphasized another rule of caution: when it is demonstrated that the parties are in conflict, the criminal Court must carefully and cautiously scrutinize the testimony of an interested or hostile witness.Taking note of the statements of PW-5 and PW-6, who were the wives of the informant, the Court observed, "The statements of PW-5 and PW-6 are apparently contradictory and cannot be reconciled in such a situation like the present one. Here two projected eyewitnesses have contradicted each other on every material aspect of the case; therefore, it is not possible to conclusively hold that Nirakar Mahto caused the death of Madho Singh Munda.""According to the prosecution witnesses, several villagers witnessed the occurrence but no one came to rescue Madho Singh Munda. This is quite unnatural that in a thickly populated village no one shall try to intervene and rescue the deceased. ... The prosecution case is full of inconsistencies and no reliance can be placed on the testimony of PW-5 and PW-6," the Court addedThe Court further asserted that it is well-settled in law that minor discrepancies in the evidence of a prosecution witness are not given undue emphasis. However, the Court noted that where ocular evidence seriously challenges medical evidence, the prosecution's case must be deemed inconsistent."Therefore, wherever there is a gross contradiction between medical evidence and oral evidence, the ocular evidence may be disbelieved," the Court stated.The Court observed that the opinion of the doctor, indicating that Madho Singh Munda died due to shock and haemorrhage, was quite revealing. According to the Court, a heavy stone blow would have caused a fracture or similar injuries to the head, which, however, was not the finding of the doctor.The Court underscored that it is fundamental in law that the involvement of the accused and the role played by him must be conclusively established during the trial.The Court stated, "as we have noticed hereinabove, from the evidence tendered by PW-5 and PW-6 it is not possible to hold that Nirakar Mahto is the person who caused death of Madho Singh Munda.""In view of the above discussions, this criminal appeal is allowed and the appellant is acquitted of the charge of murder framed against him alongwith other two persons. The appellant, who is on bail, is discharged from the liability of the bail bonds furnished by him," the Court added.Case Title: Nirakar Mahato V. The State of Bihar (now Jharkhand) LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 84Click Here To Download Judgement

No Bar In Law In Examining An Inimical, Interested Or Related Witness By A Party To Support His Case: Jharkhand High Court

Bhavya Singh

Tags