Testimony Of Witness Shouldn't Be Discarded Merely Because Of Relation With Victim : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court (on January 22) observed that being a victim's close relative does not automatically make a witness “interested” or biased. Distinguishing between an interested witness and a relative witness, the Court said:“The term "interested" refers to witnesses who have a personal stake in the outcome, such as a desire for revenge or to falsely implicate the accused due to enmity or personal gain. A "related" witness, on the other hand, is someone who may be naturally present at the scene of the crime, and their testimony should not be dismissed simply because of their relationship to the victim.”Taking a cue from this observation, it opined that the courts must assess the consistency of these witnesses' statements before declaring them untrustworthy.The Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Prasanna B. Varale were deciding on a criminal appeal, preferred by the present accused / appellant against murder conviction. As per the allegations, the accused had animosity with the deceased due to a property dispute. This led to an attack on the deceased and he succumbed to his injuries.Initially, the Trial Court acquitted all the accused of the charges as it found the witness' testimonies unreliable. It also pointed out the discrepancies between the medical evidence and the eyewitness. Though according to the eyewitnesses, the victim was struck multiple times on the head, however, the same was not mentioned in the medical report.Notwithstanding these findings, this verdict was reversed by the High Court. The Court observed that the Trial Court had overly focused on minor inconsistencies and had overlooked the overall credibility. Thus, the appellants approached the Apex Court.At the outset, the Court agreed with the High Court's findings. The Court accepted the High Court's reasoning for not discarding testimonies given by eyewitnesses merely because they were closely related.“The law nowhere states that the evidence of the interested witness should be discarded altogether. The law only warrants that their evidence should be scrutinized with care and caution. It has been held by this Court in the catena of judgments that merely if a witness is a relative, their testimony cannot be discarded on that ground alone.,” the Court said.Reliance was placed on catena of judgments including Dalip Singh v. State of Punjab, 1954 SCR 145. In this case, the Court had observed that a close relative is usually the last person to falsely implicate an innocent person.Adverting to the facts of our present case, the Court said that the eyewitness testimonies were consistent with regard to the victim being attacked by the accused persons. Further, their presence on the spot was also well-established.Regarding inconsistency in statements and the medical report, the Court said that if the eyewitness' version inspires confidence, the same is sufficient for the accused's conviction. Further, medical evidence was used to corroborate eyewitnesses' evidence.“It is a well-established principle of law that minor contradictions or inconsistencies in testimony do not necessarily render it unreliable, as long as the core facts remain intact. The role of the court is to discern the truth by considering the evidence in its totality and not by isolating individual inconsistencies to discredit an entire narrative.,” the Court added.Building on this, the Court opined that these discrepancies cannot render the testimonies unreliable. Further, it also pointed out that, as per the medical evidence, there was a fatal injury to the head. The same was also sufficient to cause death.Before parting, the Court added that the benefit of the doubt must be on cogent grounds. Mere conjectures or hypothetical inconsistencies cannot form the basis for acquittal when the evidence, viewed as a whole, points to the guilt of the accused., the Court added while rendering the Trial Court's judgment as perverse.“The brutal nature of the attack and the coordinated actions of the accused demonstrated clear intent to cause grievous harm, leading to the victim's death. The Trial Court's acquittal of the accused not only undermined the credibility of the justice system but also sent a troubling message about the consequences of such heinous acts.”In view of this, the Court upheld the High Court's judgment and concluded that the evidence produced clearly established the accused's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.Case Name: BABAN SHANKAR DAPHAL & ORS. V. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA., CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1675 OF 2015Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 103Click here to read/ download the judgment

Testimony Of Witness Shouldn't Be Discarded Merely Because Of Relation With Victim : Supreme Court

Gyanvi Khanna

Tags