RAJU @ BALACHANDRAN & ORS. versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU

Citation: [2012] 11 S.C.R. 109 · Decided: 27-11-2012 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SWATANTER KUMAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2012) 11 S.C.R. 109 
RAJU @ BALACHANDRAN & ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF TAMIL NADU 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1614 of 2009) 
NOVEMBER 27, 2012 
[SWATANTER KUMAR AND MADAN B. LOKUR, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Penal Code, 1860- ss.302, 326 and 341 and s.302 rlw 
s.34 - Homicidal attack on the brother and mother of PW5 
leading to their death - Testimony of PW5 - Conviction of C 
appellants by Courts beiow on that basis - Challenge to -
Held: PW5's description of the events was simple and 
straightforward and the cross-examination did not demolish 
his version of the events - Facts evident from record lead to 
the clear conclusion that PW5 was present at the place of D 
occurrence and was an eye witness to the incident - His 
testimony supported in its essential details by testimony of 
the other witnesses -
Evidence of PW5 credible 
notwithstanding that he was a related and interested witness 
- Conclusion anived at, by the Courts below not shown to be 
E 
perverse nor shown to be deserving reversal - Conviction of 
appellants accordingly upheld. 
Witness - Evidence of related and interested witness 
having enmity with the accused - Appreciation of - Held: A 
F 
court should examine the evidence of such a witness with 
greater care and caution than the evidence of a third party 
disinterested and unrelated witness - Where the related and 
interested witness may have some enmity with the assailant, 
the bar would need to be raised and the evidence of the 
witness would have to be examined by applying a standard 
G 
of discerning scrutiny - However, this is only a rule of 
/ 
prudence and not one of law. 
Witness - Different categories of witnesses - 1) A third 
109 
H 
110 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2012] 11 S.C.R. 
A party disinterested and unrelated witness (such as a bystander 
or passer-by); 2) a third party interested witness (such as a 
trap witness); 3) a related and therefore an interested witness 
(such as the wife of the victim) having an interest in seeing 
that the accused is punished; and 4) a related and therefore 
B an interested witness (such as the wife or brother of the victim) 
having an interest in seeing the accused punished and also 
having some enmity with the accused. 
The brother and. mother of PWS were victims of a 
C homicidal attack. PW5's brother died on the spot while 
his mother was grievously injured and died 
subsequently. The trial Court and the High Court 
believing the testimony of PW-5 held that his brother and 
mother were murdered by the appellants and convicted 
them. Appellant no.1 was convicted under Sections 302, 
D 341 and 326. The other two appellants were convicted 
under Section 302 r/w Section 34 IPC. 
In the instant appeal, two contentions were advanced 
by the appellants .:firstly, that since PW-5 was a related 
E and interested witness, his evidence must be closely 
scrutinized, and if his testimony is put to close scrutiny, 
it will be quite clear that he ought not to be believed and 
secondly, that the prosecution case was doubtful since 
there was no evidence except the unreliable testimony of 
F PW-5. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. For the time being, this Court is 
concerned with four categories of witnesses - a third . 
G party disinterested and unrelated witness (such as a 
bystander or passer-by); a third party interested witness 
(such as a trap witness); a related and therefore an 
interested witness (such as the wife of the victim) having 
an interest in seeing that the accused is punished; a 
H related and therefore an interested witness (such as the 
RAJU @ BALACHANDRAN & ORS. v. STATE OF 
111 
TAMIL NADU 
wife or brother of the victim) having an interest in seeing A 
the accused punished and also having some enmity with 
the accused. But, more than the categorization of a 
witness, the issue really is one of appreciation of the 
evidence of a witness. A court should examine the 
evidence of a related and interested witness having an 
B 
interest in seeing the accused punished and also having 
some enmity with the accused with greater care and 
caution than the evidence of a third party disinterested 
and unrelated witness. This is all that is expected and 
required. [Para 33] [121-B-D] 
c 
1.2. In the present case, PW5 is not only a related 
and interested witness, but also someone who has an 
enmity with the appellants. His evidence, therefore, 
needs to be scrutinized with great care and caution. [Para 
34] [121-E] 
D 
1.3. The evidence of a related or interested witnes

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.