Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
The Hon’ble Supreme court on 09.10.2020 pronounced the judgment which will play the leading role in matters where the testimony of the related witnesses of the victims if found truthful can become the reason for the conviction of the accused. In Karulal & Ors. Vs State of Madhya Pradesh, the 5 accused filed the appeal challenging the judgment and order passed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court of Indore Bench on 26.06.2009. The Bench approved the conviction of the accused under section 148, 320 read with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code.
The prosecution presented in the case to the court as follows:-
After the investigation the charge sheet was filed under section 148, 302 read with section 149 of the IPC. The trial court acquitted the 4 ladies due to lack of evidence which was charged under section 506 of IPC. On evaluating all the witnesses and their testimony the Trial court held that the accused are guilty under section 148, 302 read with section 149of the IPC. Then the accused filled the petition in the high court which was rejected by the high court.
The High Court rejected the plea and disregarded the connotation of the accused that the eyewitness was not present at the alleged crime, as all the witness reach their hearing the shriek of the Madhavji and saw the accused were armed with lethal weapons and started running away from the crime scene after the assaulting the deceased. The court also finds the consistency with the testimony with the eye-witnesses and the injuries ascribed by the eye-witnesses to the accused, is verified by the medical evidence.
Then the accused filled the petition in the Supreme Court to disregard the evidence of the children of the deceased and submits that the past enmity is the reason behind the false accusation against the accused. While deciding the constitutional bench of Justice N.V. RAMANA, Justice SURYA KANT and Justice HRISHIKESH ROY discussed the precedents "law on the evidentiary value of a related witness" by referring to the:-
In the present case, the son and the daughter are the related witnesses but the third is not the related witness and it is clear from the above-mentioned precedents that if the related witnesses testimony found to be truthful that can be the basis of the conviction of the accused, as the court has every reason to believe the testimony of the related witnesses.
“While addressing the issue of past enmity between the accused and the witness the court discussed the remark made by Justice Faizan Uddin in Sushil & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and noted that ‘If the witnesses are otherwise trustworthy, past enmity by itself will not discredit any testimony. The history of bad blood gives a clear motive for the crime. Therefore this aspect does not in our assessment; aid the defence in the present matter[iv]’.”
The appellant's counsel submitted another issue before the court that few of the witnesses had not supported the prosecution and were declared to be hostile. The apex court held that:-
"There are enough substantial evidence and reliable testimonies which clearly support the case against the accused and the prosecution need not fail on this count alone. In this case, the prosecution interpretation is cogent and assisted by three eyewitnesses who have given a consistent account of the incident. Their testimonies are corroborated by medical evidence. The learned Trial Judge had elaborately discussed the evidence of both sides and came to a logical conclusion which inspires confidence. We are according in the opinion that the hostile witnesses will not affect the conviction of the appellants"
The apex court upheld the judgment and order passed by the High court and dismissed the appeal of the accused.
[i] Dalip Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab, AIR1953 SC 36
[ii]State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Samman Dass, (1972) 3 SCC 201
[iii] Khurshid Ahmed vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir, (2018) 7 SCC 429
[iv] Sushil & Ors. Vs. State of U.P., (1995) Supp 1 SCC 363
86540
103860
630
114
59824