Mechanical Rejection Of Testimony Of Related Witness Would Lead To Failure Of Justice: Allahabad HC [Read Judgment]

The Allahabad High Court, in the case of Abdul Azad vs State Of UP, has held that the testimony of a witness cannot be rejected merely because the witness happens to be a blood relative.

In this case, Abdul Azad, the appellant, preferred an appeal against his conviction under Section 302 of IPC, Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act and sections 25 and 27 of the IPC.

An issue before the court in this case was whether or not the testimonies of his blood relatives can be used as valid testimonies.

A bench comprising Justice Prabhat Chandra Tripathi and Justice Bharat Bhushan noted that a mechanical rejection of testimonies would amount to a failure of justice and that an otherwise trustworthy testimony cannot be rejected, merely because the testator shares a blood relation.

The bench further noted that during the course of the cross-examination, nothing had emerged to shatter or discredit the testimony of the witness.

“31. It is the duty of the court to separate grain from chaff. Where chaff can be separated from grain, it would be open to the court to convict an accused notwithstanding the fact that evidence of some of the witnesses has been found to be deficient. Falsity of a particular material witness or material particular would not ruin it from the beginning to the end. The maxim "falsus in uno falsus in omnibus" has no application in India.”

The court further noted that it is the duty of the court to unravel the truth and that minor discrepancies should not come in the way of shaking the prosecution story.

Further, if majority of the testimony is found deficient, but the remainder is sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused, then the entire testimony cannot be rejected and the grain must be separated from the chaff.

The court opined that the case of the prosecution had been proven beyond all reasonable doubt. However, it also noted that the event occurred in the spur of the moment and the appellant got involved due to a row between the women in the family. The court partly allowed the appeal by observing that it falls within the ambit of Section 304 of the IPC and reduced his sentence.