Testimony of Family Members Cannot Be Rejected As Interested Witnesses: Madras HC

Affirming the reliability of eyewitness testimony from close relatives, the Madras High Court upheld the life imprisonment of two men for the brutal murder of a woman, emphasizing that familial ties do not, by themselves, discredit a witness. A division bench comprising Justice N. Anand Venkatesh and Justice K.K. Ramakrishnan dismissed the appeal filed by the husband of the deceased and his brother, finding the evidence of the victim's minor daughter to be natural, cogent, and wholly reliable.

The Court was hearing an appeal against the conviction of A. Ayiram and A. Sudalai Nainar under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and other provisions. The appellants challenged the trial court's order, arguing that the eyewitnesses all close relatives were 'interested witnesses' and 'chance witnesses' whose presence at the crime scene was doubtful.

Court's Rationale on Credibility of Related Witnesses

The Court rejected the defense's contention that the testimony of the deceased's family should be dismissed. In its reasoning, the Court observed: "It is now too well settled that just because the witnesses happened to be the family members of the deceased and they are categorized as interested witnesses that by itself is not a ground to reject their testimony."

The bench relied on the precedent set in Salim Saheb v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Muniyandi @ Muniraj and others v. State to reiterate that the evidence of family members must be scrutinized with care but cannot be discarded simply due to their relationship with the victim. The Court found the account of PW3 (the 12-year-old daughter) particularly clinching, noting there was no reason for her to falsely implicate her own father.

Consistency with Medical Evidence

Corroboration by Post-Mortem Findings

The Court noted that the ocular evidence provided by the sister (PW1) and daughter (PW3) was perfectly in line with the medical findings. The autopsy report, which detailed heavy cut injuries to the head and neck, substantiated the 'indiscriminate attack' described by the witnesses. The Court has the following directions:

"The criminal appeal stands dismissed and the conviction and sentence imposed in SC No.386 of 2019 by the Sessions Judge, (Mahila Court), Tirunelveli stands affirmed."

Background:

The dispute arose from a matrimonial conflict between the deceased, Veyilatchi, and her husband (A2). The prosecution alleged that on March 31, 2019, a quarrel erupted when the deceased questioned A2 about his four-day absence and suspected illicit intimacy with another woman. During the altercation, A1 and A2 chased the deceased and attacked her with sickles, resulting in her death on the spot.

The trial court at Tirunelveli had convicted the appellants under Sections 294(b), 302, 506(II) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002. The High Court, after re-evaluating the evidence under Section 374(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, found that the FIR was lodged promptly and the recovery of weapons based on confessions further strengthened the prosecution's case. Finding no merit in the appellants' arguments, the High Court affirmed the life sentence.

Case Details:
Case No.: Crl. A. (MD)No.133 of 2024
Case Title: A. Ayiram and Another v. The State through The Inspector of Police
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr.Gopalakrishna Lakshmana Raju, Senior Counsel for Mr. P. Aju Tagore
For the Respondent(s): Mr.T. Leninkumar, Counsel for State

Source: 2026 CaseBase(MAD) 288