LexASHOK KUMAR CHAUDHARY & ORS. versus STATE OF BIHAR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
(2008) 7 S,C.R. 7.14 " A ASHOK KUMAR CHAUDHARY & ORS. v. - STATE OF BIHAR (Criminal Appeal No. 798 of 2008) B MAY 5, 2008 [C.K. THAKKER AND D.K. JAIN, JJ.] Evidence: Testimony of related witnesses - Evidentiary value of - c Accused assaulting the victims in a busy market - Conviction r by trial court - Upheld by High Court - Plea that no public I witness having been examined, related witnesses being ~ 'interested' , their testimony was liable to be discarded - Held : Merely because a witness happens to be a relative of the D victim of crime, he cannot be characterized as 'interested' witness - Relationship per se does not affect credibility of a witness - Further, non-examination of a public witness by itself would not give rise to an adverse inference against the prosecution - On facts, courts below did not commit any infirmity E in relying on the testimony of prosecution witnesses and convicting the accused on its basis - However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, sentence modified - ' Sentence/sentencing - Penal Code, 1860 - Ss. 307 and 3241 34. F FIR - Delay in lodging - HELD : ' Fardbeyan' having been promptly given to police in the hospital and it having been forwarded to the Police Station the same day and delay in registering the FIR having been satisfactorily explained, prosecution case cannot be thrown out merely on the ground G of delay in lodging the FIR. WORDS AND PHRASES Expression 'interested' witness - Connvtation of. The three appellants (A-1 to A-3) were prosecuted for H 714 ASHOK KUMAR CHAUDHARY & ORS. v. 715 STATE OF BIHAR .. ... ,. commission of offences punishable u/ss 324 /34 and 307/ p. 34 !PC. The prosecution case was that on the day of occurrence, the complainant (PW 5) and PW 4 with two others went to the 'haat' (local market) to make some purchases. At about 6 p.m. they saw A-3 armed with a 'Hasua' and A-1 and A-2 with daggers dragging a person E out of the 'haat' towards the road. The complainant along with his companions rushed to save the victirfl who turned out to be P.W.-2, the son of P.W.4. The appellants also assaulted P.W.4 and other persons, who got badly injured. Motive of the crime was stated to be previous enmity owing c to civil and criminal litigation between some of the members of both the sides. The trial Court convicted A-1 and A-3 u/s 324 IPC and sentenced them to rigorous imprisonment for two months. A-2 was convicted u/s 307 IPC and sentenced to three years R.I. The High Court 0 upheld the conviction and the sentence. -... In the instant appeal filed by the accused, it wafj-,, inter alia, contended for the appellants that the prose41.1tion having failed to examine independent witness~s. the evidence of related witnesses (PWs 4 and 5) anct: th~t o,f E 'highly interested' witness (PW-2) was liab•9i to be ,,, discarded; that there was inordinate delay of fi.,e days in lodging the F.l.R.; and that the evidence of t~e doctors cast doubt on the kind of the weapon used for assult. Partly allowing the appeal, the Court F HELD: 1.1. Merely because a witness happens to be a relative of the victim of the crime, he/she cannot be characterized as an "interested" witness. It is trite that the term "interested" postulates that the person concerned G has some direct or indirect interest in seeing that the accused is somehow or the other convicted either ., because he had some animus with the accused or for some other oblique motive. [para 7) [720-H; 721-A] 1.2 Insofar as the question of credit-worthiness of H 716 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 7 S.C.R. .. - A the evidence of relatives of the victim is concerned, it is • well settled that though the Court has to scrutinize such evidence with greater care and caution, but such evidence c;rnnot be discarded on the sole ground of their interest in the prosecution. The relationship per se does not affect B the credibility of a witness. It will be erroneous to lay down as a rule of universal application that non-examination of a public witness by itself gives rise to an adverse inference against the prosecution or that the testimony of a relative of the victim, which is otherwise credit-worthy, cannot be c relied upon unless corroborated by public witnesses. It is the quality and not the quantity of evidence which matters. [para 7 and 12] [716-E, F, G, H; 723-F] 1.3 In the instant case, out of the nine witnesses examined
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.