Need To Separate The Chaff From The Grain Only Where Testimony Is Partly Reliable And Partly Unreliable : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, recently (On November 08), while setting aside a conviction in a murder trial, reiterated the well-established law that there are three types of witnesses-, one those who are wholly reliable, second one is wholly unreliable, and lastly, the one who are neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. The reliance was placed upon the landmark decision of Vedivelu Thevar v. State of Madras, AIR 1957 SC 614.Holding so, the Court also went on to explain that as far as the first two scenarios are concerned, the testimonies of the witnesses can be wholly accepted or discarded. However, only with respect to the third one, where the testimony is partly reliable and partly unreliable, the Court faces difficulty. “The Court is required to separate the chaff from the grain to find out the true genesis of the incident.,” explained the Court. In the present case, the Bench of Justices B.R. Gavai, P.S. Narasimha, Aravind Kumar was dealing with an appeal filed against the order of Madhya Pradesh High Court wherein the High Court confirmed the conviction to accused persons namely Rameshwar(deceased) and Balaram under several provisions of IPC including Section 302 (Punishment for murder). As per the case of prosecution, the present mishap took place when PW.5-Ramkali, PW.6-Mulchand along with their son (Ashok) were travelling on a bullock cart when they were attacked by the accused persons. This resulted in the death of Ashok. Amongst six persons who were tried, the trial court convicted the aforementioned two accused persons. Their conviction was affirmed by the order of the High Court. Advocate R. Chandrachud, appearing for the appellant, categorically argued that on the basis of same evidence, four other accused who were also embroiled in the trial were acquitted. Challenging the alleged motive of previous enmity; it was submitted “that previous enmity is a double-edged weapon, and as such the possibility of false implication cannot be ruled out”. Basis this, the counsel urged for an acquittal of the appellant.On the other hand, Advocate V.V.V. Pattabhiram, Deputy Advocate General for the State of Himachal Pradesh, submitted that by separating the chaff from the grain, the trial court has believed the testimony of PW.5-Ramkali and PW.6- Mulchand on finding that their testimony was corroborated by the medical evidence on record.Upon examining the testimony of PW.5-Ramkali, the Top Court concluded that the same linked the appellant (Balaram) to assaulting her on her leg and it nowhere connected with the deceased (Ashok). On the other hand, as far as evidence of PW.6-Mulchand is concerned, the same attributed the fire injuries to three persons. Based on this only, the trial court, while disbelieving the version of two witnesses, had acquitted one accused person. However, it convicted the other two. The Court, while doubting the distinction drawn by the trial court, found that the trial court has applied a separate standard while not accepting the testimonies of eyewitnesses with regard to one accused however, it convicted the other two accused person on the basis of same evidence.“We find that when the Trial Court has disbelieved the testimony of PW.5-Ramkali and PW.6-Mulchand insofar as accused Uma Charan was concerned, it could not have applied a separate standard while considering the case of the present appellant-Balaram and Rameshwar (since deceased).” In view of these facts and circumstances, the Court held that the testimonies based on which accused persons were convicted were wholly unreliable. In other words, the same can be discarded in toto. “We are of the considered view that the testimony of PW.5-Ramkali and PW.6-Mulchand would come in the category of wholly unreliable witnesses.”Accordingly, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the accused. Case Title: Balaram V. State Of Madhya Pradesh., Criminal Appeal No. 2300 Of 2009Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 980Click Here To Read/Download Judgment

Need To Separate The Chaff From The Grain Only Where Testimony Is Partly Reliable And Partly Unreliable : Supreme Court

Gyanvi Khanna

Tags