The division judge bench of the Tripura High Court held that the evidence of relative witnesses cannot be said to be interested witnesses unless it is shown that the said witnesses are interested to see the conviction of the accused.
Brief facts
The factual matrix of the case is that the younger brother of the informant raised an alarm that their neighbour killed his mother and then, he went to his mother's room, where the accused, holding an axe, hit him. The informant managed to save himself by using his hand, and when he approached his mother's home, he heard the sound of the blow being made, but he was able to identify the accused because of the electric light inside the house and the corridor. In order to save himself, he fled away from the spot. Thereafter, the informant went to his house and saw the bleeding dead body of his mother was lying on the bed and informant heard from the people that accused Tashil Debbrma while leaving also attacked their neighbour
The FIR was registered for an offence punishable under section 457/324/302 of IPC. The charges were framed for the offences under section 324/455/302 of IPC and the trial convicted the accused under section 302/324/448 of IPC which resulted in the present appeal.
Contentions of the Appellant
The Appellant contended that the decision passed by the learned trial court deserves to be set aside as it is unjustified, arbitrary, and not tenable in the eyes of the law. It was also contended that the trial court convicted the accused without any evidence as the evidence on record does not constitute the alleged offence. It was also contended that the court below solely relied upon the improved versions of all the P.Ws illegally and convicted and sentenced the appellant. Furthermore, numerous contradictions were found in the evidence of PWs and, therefore, it cannot be said that the accused had the intention to kill the deceased.
Contentions of the Respondent
The Respondent contended that from the evidence of an eye witness, it is clear that the accused committed murder of the deceased by an Axe with an intention to kill her. Furthermore, it was contended that the accused himself admitted during his examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C that he killed the deceased.
The Respondent relied upon the judgment titled Tulshiram Sahadu Suryawanshi and Another v. State of Maharashtra.
Observations of the court
The Court observed that the evidence of PWs corroborated one another's assertion that accused Tashil Debbarma attacked the deceased with an axe. PW-8, 11, 17, and 18 are the deceased's relatives. Their evidence must be carefully examined, and upon close examination, it becomes clear that they are cogent and corroborative, therefore, they can be trusted.
It was furthermore observed that the evidence of the relative witnesses cannot be considered as interested witnesses unless it is demonstrated that they have a stake in the accused person's conviction.
The court further considered statements recorded under Section 313 of Cr. P.C and noted that there is no justification for not believing the accused-appellant's conviction or the consistency of the events that led up to it. Every witness provided testimony in favor of the prosecution's whole case on the accused person's alleged offense.
Based on these considerations, the court affirmed the conviction and sentence as held by the learned Court below against the accused-appellant.
The decision of the court
With the above direction, the court dismissed the appeal.
Case title: Sri Tashil Debbarma Vs The State of Tripura.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice B. Palit and Hon’ble Mr. Justice T. Amarnath Goud
Case No.: Crl. A(J) No. 09 of 2023
Advocate for the Appellant: Ms. R. Purkayastha, Advocate
Advocates for the Respondent: Mr. S. Ghosh, Addl. P.P.
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
