A Close Relative Who Is A Natural Witness Of Crime Can't Be Recorded As An Interested Witness: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court recently observed that a close relative who is a natural witness, cannot be recorded as an interested witness. With this, the Court upheld the life sentence awarded to a murder convict by District and Sessions Judge, Kanpur Dehat in 1996.

Explaining the term 'interested witness', the bench of Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Om Prakash Tripathi observed that an 'interested witness' must have some direct interest in seeing that the accused person is somehow or the other convicted either because of some animus with the accused for some other reason.

The case in brief

The complainant in the case (Subhash Chandra Mishra), lodged the FIR alleging that his father/Sunder Lal (deceased) was killed by accused Chunna on March 22, 1995.

It was stated in his complaint that the deceased had his flour mill, where, on March 22, 1995, at about 8:00 PM, the deceased, his sons (complainant) and Rakesh (eye witness) were busy grinding flour.

Accused Chunna and Dinesh wanted to get their wheat ground first, breaking the number of other customers. To this, Subhash Chandra (complainant/informant) and his brother, Rakesh asked them to get the wheat ground on their turn. On that, accused Chunna and Dinesh threatened them to see.

On that very night, the deceased, who was sleeping near the bed of the informant and others, raised cries. Hearing his cries, Rakesh/son of deceased (P.W.2) and one Suresh Kumar woke up and observed that Chhunna- the accused was inflicting knife blows on the deceased (who died later on).

On the challenge given by Rakesh P.W.2 and Suresh, the accused fled away. Both Rakesh and Suresh chased him, however, both the accused fled away taking the benefit of the darkness. 

The District and Sessions Judge, Kanpur Dehat, in March 1996, convicted and sentenced the appellant/chhunna to undergo life imprisonment under Section 302 of IPC with a fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default thereof, to undergo one-year rigorous additional imprisonment. Challenging that very order and judgment, the accused moved to the HC.

High Court's observations 

At the outset, the Court noted that P.W.2 Rakesh (son of the deceased) was the only witness, who stated about the manner of occurrence and complicity of accused.

Further, the Court opined that he was not an interested witness and his presence on the spot at the time of occurrence, can not be disputed. The Court was also of the view that it could not be expected that in the mid-night, in the premises of flour mill, presence of independent witness would be there.

"No direct enmity, ill-will or grudge of witness with the accused or any member of his family had been suggested or proved...What grudge Rakesh P.W.2 had with the accused, had not been specified...Therefore, the alleged enmity suggested by the accused has no weight," the Court further noted as it discarded the contention of the accused that there was ill will due to to which he was implicated in the crime by the son of the deceased (Rakesh/PW2).

The Court further took into account the evidence before it and concluded that the evidence of Rakesh P.W.2 found corroboration from the recovery of human blood-stained knife on the pointing out of the accused and human blood was found on plain and blood-stained earth, dhoti, shirt, half sweater, vest and towel of the deceased.

Further, regarding the contention of the accused that P.W.2 is the near relative of the deceased (father-son relation) and due to this reason, his evidence should not be considered reliable, the Court remarked thus:

"It is settled that the testimony of single eye witness can be acted upon if otherwise reliable and corroboration required only when his evidence is open to doubt and suspicious. A close relative who is a natural witness, cannot be recorded as an interested witness. The term 'interested' postulates that the person concerned must have some direct interest in seeing that the accused person is somehow or the other convicted either because some animus with accused for some other reason...In the long cross-examination, nothing in his evidence contrary to the case of the prosecution could come out. In fact, P.W.2 is solitary, sterling eye witness, whose testimony is wholly, reliable and does not need any sort of corroboration...Thus, on the basis of solitary evidence of P.W.2, although, witness is related by blood with the deceased, conviction can be recorded."

Consequently, the Court noted that the prosecution had successfully proved the guilt of accused Chhunna for the offence punishable under Section 302 11 IPC.

"It is a murder made with cool mind in a planned way four hours after altercation on the same day. It is not a case of grave and sudden provocation," the court added as it uphle trial Court's order and judgment.

Dismissing the appeal, the accused appellant Chhunna was directed to serve out the remaining period of his sentence as he is currently on bail.

Case title - Chhunna v. State of U.P [CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 558 of 1996]

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 258

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment