Court Has To Strike Balance Between Testimony Of Injured Witness & Interested Witness : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Monday (March 18) overturned the conviction of the accused while observing that conviction cannot be sustained based on the testimony of the 'injured witness' who happens to be an 'interested witness' in the outcome of the case.

Reversing the findings of the High Court and Trial Court which has convicted the accused, the Bench Comprising Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Sanjay Karol observed that although the evidence of an injured witness is considered to be on a higher pedestal than that of a witness simpliciter yet the courts need to strike a balance between the testimony provided by the injured witness who happens to be also interested in the outcome of the case.

“It is a well-established principle of law, not requiring any underscoring or reiteration, that the evidence of an injured witness is considered to be on a higher pedestal than that of a witness simpliciter.”, the Judgment authored by Justice Sanjay Karol said.

“This Court has to strike a balance between the testimony of the injured witness and that of an interested witness.”, the court clarified.

The gist of the dispute was that the Appellants/accused were convicted of murdering two deceased persons, who came to buy liquor at the Appellant's shop. The Trial Court convicted the Appellants, and the High Court affirmed the same.

The prosecution case was based on the two prosecution witnesses' testimony, who according to the prosecution were injured by the Appellants while attacking the deceased persons. The prosecution stated that the testimonies supplied by the witnesses' is sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused as the evidentiary value of the 'injured witness' is higher than that of other witnesses.

Per contra, it was submitted by the Appellants/Accused that the testimony of the 'injured witness' couldn't be relied upon, as they happened to be an 'interested witness' in the outcome of the case. The appellants stated that the 'injured witness' is related to the deceased persons, and the testimony of the 'injured witness' isn't credible and was made just to settle the score with the Appellants because a criminal case registered by the Appellants is pending against the 'injured witness'.

Doubting the testimony of the 'injured witness', the Supreme Court found that the PW-1 is related to the deceased person and his testimony isn't conclusive to hold the Appellants guilty.

“There is a direct statement by PW-1 that D-1 was his relative, i.e., son of his paternal uncle. D-2 was a relative of the owner of the wine shop, who, according to him, was A-1, but in another instance, he states that A-1 was only a worker.”, the court said.

“It is hard to conceive how the Trial Court concluded that despite being the first cousin of D-1 (Deceased) and himself a person injured in the incident, PW-1 was not an interested witness.”, the court questioned the trial court's decision for not treating PW-1 as an interested witness.

Further, the court noted that the prosecution must have also examined the independent witnesses, citing that if the incident occurred at a crowded place, then how it's possible that there were no independent witnesses available at the crime scene?

“He (PW1) has also deposed that there were about 50 persons at the scene of the crime, then, how has the non-examination of independent witness been countenanced by the prosecution and “approved” by the Courts below, is something that escapes us, or rather confounds us.”, the court said.

Not only this, the court disbelieved the entire investigation carried out by the investigating officer by stating that such a process of investigation is not sought from the IO, whole role is that of the backbone of the entire criminal proceeding in respect of the particular offences he is charged with investigating.

“A perusal of his testimony reveals certain problematic statements. Nowhere has it come on record as to how the investigation reached the bus stand from where A-2 was arrested – who informed the authorities about A-2's movement by bus? Further, he has deposed that he made two visits to the scene of the crime and that he also examined several witnesses. Then how is there a striking lack of independent witnesses to lend credence to the prosecution's version of events? He does not know where D-1 had expired. How? He also did not conduct any scientific investigation at the spot of crime. Such an investigation carried out most casually and callously is sought to be made the basis by the police in seeking the conviction of the accused.”, the court said.

Ultimately, the court allowed the appeal and acquitted the Appellants on account of highlighting several lapses on the part of the prosecution in proving the case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.

“Various lapses such as these cumulatively affect the overall sanctity of the prosecution case, making it fall short of the threshold of beyond reasonable doubt. It is in such circumstances, on analysis of the record, that we are unable to sustain the conviction handed down by the Courts below to A-1 and A-2. The injured witnesses and the Investigation Officer in their testimony together are not inspiring confidence, and in our own estimation the prosecution case stands shaken beyond a point to which no conviction resting thereupon can be said to be just in the eyes of law.”

Counsel For Appellant(s) Mr. S. Arun Prakash, Adv Mr. B. Balaji, AOR Mr. Vipin Kumar Jai, AOR Mrs. Gurinder Jai, Adv. Mr. Vipul Jai, Adv. Ms. Sanjna Dua, Adv.

Counsel For Respondent(s) Dr. Joseph Aristotle S., AOR Ms. Shubhi Bhardwaj, Adv.

Case Title: PERIYASAMY VERSUS THE STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 244

Click Here To Read/Download The Judgment