Allahabad HC: Testimony of Related Witnesses Reliable If Credible and Consistent

The Allahabad High Court upheld the life imprisonment of a man for the 1984 murder of his relative, emphasizing that the testimony of related witnesses cannot be discarded solely on the ground of their relationship if their evidence is otherwise credible and consistent. The Court noted that family members are natural witnesses who are unlikely to shield the real culprit to falsely implicate their own kin.

A Division Bench comprising Justice J.J. Munir and Justice Vinai Kumar Dwivedi heard the criminal appeal challenging the conviction of two individuals under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. During the pendency of the appeal, one of the appellants, Ram Charan, passed away, leading to the abatement of the case against him, while the appeal survived for the second appellant, Gayasi.

Consistency Between Ocular and Medical Evidence

The High Court observed that the prosecution's case rested heavily on the ocular testimony of the deceased's mother and uncle. The Court found their accounts to be straightforward and mutually corroborative, despite minor inconsistencies typical of rural, illiterate witnesses. The bench noted that the injuries described in the postmortem report incised wounds from a farsa and a punctured wound from a bhala aligned perfectly with the weapons described by the eye-witnesses.

The Court has the following directions:

"The surviving appellant, Gayasi, is presently on bail. His personal bond stands cancelled, and his sureties are discharged from their liabilities. He is directed to surrender before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hamirpur, within a period of fifteen days to undergo the remaining sentence awarded by the Trial Court vide order dated 10.04.1987. In the event the surviving appellant, Gayasi, fails to surrender before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hamirpur, within the stipulated period of fifteen days, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, shall issue a non-bailable warrant to secure his arrest. Upon arrest, he shall be sent to jail to serve the remaining sentence in accordance with the Trial Court’s order dated 10.04.1987. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hamirpur, is directed to intimate this Court regarding compliance of this order."

Legal Principle on 'Related' vs 'Interested' Witnesses

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "Relationship is not a factor to affect the credibility of a witness. It is more often than not that a relation would not conceal the actual culprit and make allegations against an innocent person. Foundation has to be laid if plea of false implication is made. In such cases, the court has to adopt a careful approach and analyse evidence to find out whether it is cogent and credible."

Addressing the defense's argument regarding the lack of independent witnesses, the Court relied on State of Rajasthan v. Smt. Kalki And Another ( "(1981) 2 Supreme Court Cases 752": 1981 CaseBase(SC) 125), noting that a witness is 'interested' only if they derive benefit from the litigation, which was not the case here. The bench further cited G. Laxmanna And Others v. State of Andhra Pradesh ( "(2002) 8 Supreme Court Cases 333": 2002 CaseBase(SC) 1134) and Sucha Singh And Another v. State of Punjab ( "(2003) 7 Supreme Court Cases 643": 2003 CaseBase(SC) 1764) to reiterate that the mere fact that witnesses belong to the same family does not impair their credibility. Furthermore, the Court referred to Masalti v. State of U.P. ( "AIR 1965 SC 202": 1964 CaseBase(SC) 74) and Harbans Kaur And Another v. State of Haryana ( "(2005) 9 SCC 195": 2005 CaseBase(SC) 889) to emphasize that mechanical rejection of partisan evidence would lead to a failure of justice.

Background:

The dispute arose on July 11, 1984, in the village of Jaitpur Har, Hamirpur. The informant, Bari Bahu, alleged that while her son Ramola was resting after agricultural work, the appellants attacked him with a farsa and a bhala due to ongoing enmity over land and trees. The Trial Court convicted the appellants in 1987, sentencing them to life imprisonment. The High Court, after reviewing the prompt filing of the FIR and the corroborative medical evidence from the Indian Penal Code, 1860 proceedings, found no perversity in the lower court's findings and dismissed the appeal.

Case Details:
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1090 of 1987
Case Title: Gayasi and another v. State
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): A. Rathore, Keshari Nandan Singh
For the Respondent(s): A.G.A.

Source: 2026 CaseBase(ALL) 227