Pranav B Prem

The Supreme Court, on January 22,  reaffirmed that the testimony of a witness cannot be rejected solely because they are related to the victim. The bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Prasanna B. Varale observed that being a close relative of the victim does not automatically render a witness "interested" or biased. The Court emphasized that a distinction must be drawn between "interested" witnesses, who have a vested interest or motive in the outcome of the case, and "related" witnesses, who are naturally present at the crime scene.

Judgment Context

The judgment arose from a criminal appeal filed by the accused against their conviction by the Bombay High Court under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The case involved a family feud over a property dispute that escalated into a brutal attack, leading to the death of the deceased. The Trial Court had initially acquitted all the accused, citing inconsistencies in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses and contradictions between their accounts and the medical evidence. However, the High Court reversed this decision, convicting four of the accused while acquitting one for lack of sufficient evidence. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s ruling, dismissing the appeal.

Supreme Court Observations

While addressing the primary contention of the appellants that the prosecution's eyewitnesses were all related to the deceased, the Court observed :“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 relied on precedents, including the landmark case Dalip Singh v. State of Punjab (1954), where it was observed that close relatives are often the last to falsely implicate someone, and their testimony should be judged based on its consistency and coherence.

Key Points from the Judgment:

1. Distinction Between "Interested" and "Related" Witnesses:
   An "interested" witness has a personal stake in the outcome, such as revenge or enmity. In contrast, a "related" witness is someone who is naturally present at the crime scene. Courts must evaluate the credibility of the testimony rather than dismissing it outright due to familial ties. “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.”, held the Supreme Court

2. Evaluation of Testimonies:
   The eyewitness accounts in this case—provided by the deceased’s wife (PW-3), daughter (PW-4), and son (PW-7)—were consistent on critical aspects, such as the identity of the accused and their roles in the attack. The Court held that minor discrepancies, such as variations in descriptions of the number of blows or exact sequence of events, do not undermine the credibility of the testimony as long as the core facts remain intact. “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.

3. Role of Medical Evidence:
   The Trial Court had dismissed the eyewitness testimony, citing inconsistencies with the medical report. However, the Supreme Court agreed with the High Court's finding that the medical evidence corroborated the witnesses' accounts. The fatal injury—a subdural hematoma caused by a head injury—was consistent with the attack described by the witnesses.

4. Benefit of the Doubt:
   The Court highlighted that the benefit of the doubt should only be given on rational and cogent grounds. Hypothetical or minor inconsistencies cannot form the basis for an acquittal when the overall evidence points conclusively to the guilt of the accused. 

Based on the foregoing findings, the Court upheld the High Court's judgment and concluded that the evidence produced clearly established the accused's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Cause Title: BABAN SHANKAR DAPHAL & ORS. V. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA.

Case No: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1675 OF 2015

Date: January-22-2025

Bench: Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Prasanna B. Varale

[Read/Download order]