LexRAM SINGH versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
. '
[2008] 14 S.C.R. 358
A
RAM SINGH.
-:{:_
'
v.
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
·(Criminal Appeal No. 1599 of 2008)
B
OCTOBER 13, 2008
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AN.D J.M. PANCHAL, JJ.]
.,?-
~
Criminal trial:
...
Penal Code, 1860; Ss. 302, 452 and 504:·
c
Murder - Trial Court found accused persons guilty of ·
committing offence of murder relying on testimony of relative
eye-witnesses and convicted them - Affirmed by High Court -
Correctness of - Held: Relationship is not a factor to affect·
D credibility of a witness - In the instant case, the ground that
the witness being close relative, thus, partisan witness and
should not be relied upon, has no substance - Presence of
PWs 2 and 3, wife and son of the deceased, at the spot is .
quite natural as occurrence took place inside the house ofthe
E deceased - Moreover, except some minor discrepancies,
nothing substantial has been brought out in the cross-.exami-
nation to discard their evidence - Medical evidence clearly
show~ existence of injuries on the body of the deceased as
indicated by PW2 - Hence, no interference with the impugned
order called for - Evidence - Circumstantial evidence ""'.'" Tes-
F timony of relative witnesses - Reliance upon.
rt"
According to the prosecution, appellant and another
person gave several blows with knife on the person of
the deceased in the presence of his wife (PW2) and son
G (PW3). The deceased succumbed to the injuries. An F.1.R.
was lodged in the Police Station. The Police, after investi-
gating the case, submitted the charge-sheet against the
~-
accused persons. The Trial Court found the evidence of
the eyewitnesses credible and cogent and held both the
H
358
RAM SINGH v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
359
-~·
accused persons guilty of committing the offences pun-
A
ishable under Sections 302, 452 and 504 IPC. Appeal filed
thereagainst by the accused-appellant was dismissed.
Hence the present appeal.
Appellant contended that the presence of PWs 2 and ·
B
3 on the spot of occurrence is highly suspicious and they
-L
being relatives of the deceased, have falsely implicated
the accused persons.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Relationship is not a factor to affect cred- c
ibility of a witness. It is more often than not that a relation
would not conceal actual culprit and make allegations
against an innocent person. Foundation has to be laid if
plea of false implication is made. In such cases, the court
has to adopt a careful approach and analyse evidence to D
find out whether it is cogent and credible. (Para - 8) [363-
B]
Dalip Singh and Ors. v. The State of Punjab AIR (1953)
SC 364; Guli Chand and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan (197 4) 3
E
SCC 698 and Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras AIR (1957)
SC 614 - relied on.
1.2 The ground that the witness being a close rela-
tive and consequently being a partisan witness, should
not be relied upon, has no substance. (Para - 11) [364-A] F
Dalip Singh and Ors. v. The State of Punjab AIR (1953)
SC 364; Masalti and Ors. v. State of UP AIR (1965) SC 202
and State of Rajasthan v. Teja Ram and Ors. AIR (1999) SC
1776 - referred to.
1.3 Merely on surmises the Court should not casti-
G
..;.
gate a prosecution for not examining other persons of
the locality as prosecution witnesses. Prosecution can
be expected to examine only those who have witnessed
the events and not those who have not seen it though
H
360
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008] 14 S.C.R.
A the neighbourhood may be replete with other residents
-f:-.
also. (Para - 13) [365-C]
Sucha Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab (2003) 7 SCC
· 643; Hari Ram v. State of U.P (2004) 8 SCC 146 and Ponnam
B
Chandraiah v. State ofA.P (2008) AIR SCW 5429 - relied
on.
1.4 The presence of PWs 2 and 3 at the spot is quite
/---f-
natural because the occurrence took place inside the
house of the deceased. Additionally; PWs 1 and 7 are im-
c mediate post-occurrence witnesses who have stated that
when they reached the house of the deceased on hear-
ing the cries for. help of PWs 2 and 3, PW-2 told them that
her husband has been assaulted by the present appel-
lant. It is to _be noted that except some minor discrepan-
D cies, nothing substantial has been brought in the cross
examination of PWs 2 and 3 to discard their evidence. PW-
2's evidence is specific and clear to the extent that the
J+
present appellant gave first blow in the abdomen of the
deceased and then near the naval and, thereafExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.