Victim's Close Relative Not Likely To Foist An Innocent, Can't Be Disregarded Merely By Levelling Them As 'Interested Witnesses': MP High Court

Madhya Pradesh High Court has recently observed that a close relative would be likely to present the actual story of the incident instead of hiding the actual culprit and foisting the crime on an innocent person.

The single judge bench of Justice Prem Narayan Singh was explaining why the testimonies of close relatives shouldn't be disregarded automatically by compartmentalising them as 'interested witnesses'.

“…Virtually, in many of the criminal cases, it is often seen that the offence is witnessed by close relatives of the victim, whose presence on the spot of incident would be natural and the evidence of such witness cannot automatically be discarded by levelling them as interested witness...”, the bench sitting at Indore added.

The counsel for the appellant-accused had earlier argued that the prosecution witnesses are close relatives, and due to their relatedness, their testimonies should not be relied upon. However, the court stated that PW-3 is the daughter of the accused and PW-1 is the wife of the accused and both of them have supported the prosecution case. Hence, their testimonies cannot be thrown out, the court held.

Relying on Laltu Ghosh v. State of West Bengal, AIR 2019 SC 1058, the High Court iterated that 'relatedness' and 'interestedness' of witnesses are different. As laid down in Laltu Ghosh, this effectively means that an 'interested witness' is one who has 'a direct or indirect interest in seeing the accused punished due to prior enmity or other reasons, and thus has a motive to falsely implicate the accused'.

The criminal appeal was filed by the accused against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Indore, convicting him for the offence under Section 326 IPC and sentencing him to 5 years rigorous imprisonment along with Rs 1000 as fine. The complainant and the accused in this case were brothers, and the other witnesses were close relatives. The accused had apparently assaulted his daughter with a knife, and when the complainant-brother tried to stop him, he too was assaulted by the accused.

In the appeal, the accused submitted that the quantum of punishment should be reduced to the sentence already undergone (2 years) along with an enhancement of fine if the court deems it necessary. The appellant also contended that the injuries caused were not dangerous to life and the offence would not have exceeded the ambit of Section 324 IPC.

Out of the 13 witnesses examined by the prosecution, the complainant and his wife merely stated that an unknown person caused the injuries. The court was not averse towards the testimonies of hostile witnesses who did not support the prosecution case with regard to the name of the accused-appellant. Justice Prem Narayan Singh pointed out that the submissions of these witnesses, however, corroborated the injuries inflicted on the daughter of the accused nevertheless. Relying on the full bench decisions in Bhagwan Singh v. State of Haryana [AIR 1976 SC 202] and Radha Mohan Singh alias Lal Saheb and Others v. State of U.P. [2006 (2) SCC 450], the court reminded that the testimonies of hostile witnesses can turn out to be important if they support the prosecution version to some extent.

“….it is evident that the evidence of a person does not become wiped out from the record merely because he has taken U-turn in the Court and resiled from his original statements. As such, the injured…PW-3 find support from the testimony of these hostile witnesses i.e. Rahul Mewati and his wife Jaishree. That apart, the statements of both the witnesses also find support from the medical testimony of doctors…”, the court inferred from the statements of witnesses.

The court also concluded that grievous injuries were caused by using a sharp object like a knife, and the conviction under Section 326 of IPC need not be meddled with. Moreover, there is also ample documentary evidence and reliable testimonies of witnesses to cull out the guilt of the accused, the court inferred while upholding the conviction by the trial court.

On the issue of the sentence, the court observed that the accused could not be released based on the period of incarceration already undergone for the reason that he is the father of the injured PW-3.

“…The appellant is facing the trial since 2022 as well as looking to the prayer of counsel for the appellant coupled with the fact that the appellant is in jail and completed approximately two years of his jail sentence… the sentence of five year may be reduced to three years by enhancing the fine to Rs.10000”, the court held while partly allowing the criminal appeal.

For Petitioner: Advocate Amit Yadav

For Respondent State: Govt. Advocate G. Rawat

Case Name: Nitin Mewate v. State of Madhya Pradesh

Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 1440 of 2024

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 113

Click Here To Read/ Download Judgment