The Supreme Court has reiterated that evidence of witnesses cannot be discarded as unrealiable merely because they were the relatives of the deceased victim.
The bench comprising of Justice MR Shah and Justice BV Nagarathna noted that witnesses cannot be tremned as 'planted' plainly becuase they were all interested witnesses being relatives of the deceased.
The facts concerning the present appeal were that eleven accused were tried together in a murder case out of whom, Trial Court convicted three for the offences under Sections 148 & 302 IPC and acquitted others.
Later, High Court reversed by the conviction of three accused noting that the eye witnesses, who are relatives of the deceased, were planted witnesses.
It also held that the FIR was not registered at the time as claimed by the prosecution, but it was registered many hours after the occurrence and sent to the Magistrate with unexplained delay and this facilitated the police to falsely implicate the accused.
The Court after listening to both the Counsels and examining the material on record, stated the prime facts that the prosecution examined five important and relevant witnesses out of which three were the eyewitnesses and two were the injured eyewitnesses. It added that though, the learned trial Court has disbelieved one of the witness, the High Court has not at all discussed and/or re-appreciated the evidence/deposition of the eyewitness, which as a first appellate Court, the High Court was required to.
It further opined that there are no major/material contradictions in the deposition of the eye-witnesses and injured eye-witnesses.
The Court was in complete disagreement to the High Court finding that witnesses were planted as it was solely based on the fact that were relatives of the deceased.
One another reason given by the High Court is that the FIR was not registered at the time as claimed by the prosecution, but it was registered many hours after the occurrence and sent to the Magistrate with unexplained delay and according to the High Court, this facilitated the police to falsely implicate the accused after PW1 arrived at the police station. However, the FIR was lodged within seven hours. As per the prosecution, it was lodged immediately, the Court contested on the other contention.
"The interpolation of the time of the incident, 0.30 a.m. to 9:30 p.m., could not be explained as the same was not raised before the trial Court. No question on the same was asked to the concerned witnesses. Even otherwise, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the delay of seven hours cannot be said to be fatal to the prosecution case. Even the FIR was sent to the Magistrate within 24 hours, as required under the provisions of the Cr.P.C. PWs1, 3 & 6 are all consistent in their testimony and they have fully supported the case of the prosecution. We see no reason to doubt their presence and their deposition."
The Court further opined that the High Court has unnecessarily given weightage to some minor contradictions and it can't take away the credibility of the sane.
'"The contradictions, if any, are not material contradictions which can affect the case of the prosecution as a whole. PW6 was an injured eye-witness and therefore his presence ought not to have been doubted and being an injured eye-witness, as per the settled proposition of law laid down by this Court in catena of decisions, his deposition has a greater reliability and credibility."
The appeals were thus allowed and impugned orders and judgements have been set aside.
Read Judgement Here:
Share this Document :Picture Source :
