Testimonies Of Related/Interested Witnesses Have To Be Scrutinized With Greater Care And Circumspection : Supreme Court

When the witnesses are related/interested, their testimonies have to be scrutinized with greater care and circumspection, the Supreme Court observed while acquitting accused in a murder case.

Jabbar Ali and others were convicted by the Trial Court under Section 302 IPC and the Gauhati High Court had dismissed their appeals.

Before the Apex Court, the appellants mainly contended that the prosecution failed to examine any independent witnesses in the present case and that the witnesses were related to each other and that all the witnesses have given contradictory versions as to who gave the fatal blow to deceased.

Reappreciating the evidence on record, the bench noted that the prosecution has examined only related witnesses and not a single independent witness.

"This Court is conscious of the well-settled principle that just because the witnesses are related/interested/partisan witnesses, their testimonies cannot be disregarded, however, it is also true that when the witnesses are related/interested, their testimonies have to be scrutinized with greater care and circumspection. In the case of Gangadhar Behera and Ors. v. State of Orissa (2002) 8 SCC 381, this Court held that the testimony of such related witnesses should be analysed with caution for its credibility.", the court said.

While allowing the appeal, the bench observed:

"In the present case, owing to the substantial and material contradictions in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, the evidence of the prosecution is considered wholly unreliable. Additionally, the prosecution has examined only related witnesses and not a single independent witness. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the evidence does not prove the alleged offences against the accused-appellants."

Case details

Md. Jabbar Ali vs State of Assam | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 856 | CrA 1105 OF 2010 | 17 October 2022 | Justices Ajay Rastogi and BV Nagarathna

Counsel: Adv Raj Kishor Choudhary for appellants, Adv Shuvodeep Roy for the State

Headnotes

Criminal Trial - When the witnesses are related/interested, their testimonies have to be scrutinized with greater care and circumspection. (Para 48)

Criminal Trial - The Courts have to label as to which category a discrepancy can be categorized. The material discrepancies corrode the credibility of the prosecution's case while insignificant discrepancies do not do so. (Para  52)

Constitution of India, 1950 ; Article 136 - Criminal Appeal - Though in cases of concurrent findings of fact, this Court will ordinarily not interfere with the said findings, this Court is empowered to do so if in case it finds inter alia, misreading of the evidence or where the conclusions of the High Court are manifestly perverse. (Para 55)

Click here to Read/Download Judgment