Family Members Are Natural Witnesses, Cannot Be Deemed To Be 'Interested' Parties Due To Relation With Victim: Jharkhand High Court
The Jharkhand High Court has held that family members of a victim are natural witnesses to an incident and cannot be deemed biassed solely because of their close relationship to the victim.
The division bench, comprising Justices Ananda Sen and Gautam Kumar Choudhary, rejected the argument made by the appellants that independent witnesses did not support the prosecution's case, while observing, “It is difficult to agree with the argument advanced on behalf of the convicts that independent witnesses have not supported the prosecution. Members of the family are natural witnesses to the incidence and they cannot be said to be interested only for the reason that they happen to be the close family relatives of the victim.”
The Court referred to the Supreme Court's ruling in Rameshwar vs. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1952 SC 54, affirming, “a witness is normally to be considered independent unless he or she springs from sources which are likely to be tainted and that usually means unless the witness has caused such an enmity to the accused, to wish to implicate him false”
Background
According to the facts of the case, the informant alleged that while he was getting his crops harvested, the accused persons jointly assaulted him. When the informant's son intervened to help, he was also attacked. Following this, a case was registered against the appellants and others under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Charges were subsequently framed under Section 307/149, and the appellants were convicted by the lower court. As a result, the present appeal was filed.
The appellant argued that all the prosecution witnesses were close relatives of the informant, and no independent witnesses were called to support the prosecution's case. Additionally, the appellant pointed out a significant contradiction in the testimony of witnesses concerning the manner in which the assault occurred.
The Court observed that the plea regarding vital contradictions in the prosecution evidence lacked force and substance and was therefore not sustainable in the appeal against conviction.
The Court explained, “There is always a time gap between the actual incidence and when it is reconstructed before the Court on the basis of evidence, which results in peripheral discrepancies in the account of witnesses. Such discrepancies and inconsistencies are normal and depends on the individual human capacity of observation, retention and reproduction. An inconsistency may amount to contradiction when two or more different statements on a topic cannot both be true at the same time and in the same sense so as to render them irreconcilable.”
The Court emphasised that the defence failed to point out any valid contradictions that could raise doubts about the veracity of the prosecution's account. It also reiterated that “the law is settled that testimony of injured witnesses deserves a higher degree of credibility, as their presence at the scene is assured, and they would ordinarily not falsely implicate anyone except the real assailants.”
Regarding the charge under Section 307 of the IPC, the Court stated that an act amounts to an attempt to murder if it is of such a nature that, if uninterrupted, it would likely cause the victim's death.
The Court further clarified, “To constitute the offence, no injury need be caused to the victim. If in the course of the attempt, bodily injury is caused, the accused would be liable to enhanced punishment. To sustain conviction under Section 307 of the IPC, the intention to kill should be clearly proved by the circumstances like persistence and intensity of attack on vital part of the body. This Section clearly contemplates an act which is done with the intention of causing death, but, which fails to bring about the intended consequence on account of the intervention of a cause operating independently of the volition of the agent. Thus, the intention or knowledge of the accused must be such as is necessary to constitute murder”
Based on these considerations, the Court concluded that no offence under Section 307 was made out. However, it convicted the appellant under Sections 148 and 326/149 of the IPC.
With the above direction, the court dismissed the criminal appeal.
Case Title: William Dungdung V. State of Jharkhand
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 151