LexSTATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE versus SARAVANAN & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 14 S.C.R. 405 STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE A v. SARAVANAN & ANR. (Criminal Appeal No. 832 of 2002) OCTOBER 14, 2008 B [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDKAM .J_ SHARMA, JJ.] ' Penal Cod, 1860 - s. 304 .(Part II) - Assault by two ac- cused - resulting in death of one and injuries to eye-witnesses c - Eye-witnesses related to the deceased - Conviction by trial court of accused No. 1 ulss. 302, 307, 427 and 448 /PC - Accused No. 2 convicted u/ss. 302134, 307134, 323, 324, 427 and 448 /PC -Acquittal of both the accused of all the charges by High court - On appeal, held: Prosecution proved its case D beyond reasonable doubt that the accused assaulted the eye- ~ witnesses and the deceased- Minor discrepancies in the state- ment of the witnesses and the fact that witnesses were related would not affect prosecution case - However, in view of the fact of the case, it is not a case punishable u/s. 302 - Hence, E conviction of both the accused altered to one uls.304 (Part II). Evidence - Testimony of related witness - Evidentiary value of - Held: Relationship is not a factor to affect credibility of a witness - Jn case of plea of interestedness of such witness, .. the court is required to analyse the credibility of such witness. F "" ~ Respondents-accused were prosecuted for having caused cjeath of one person and for causing injuries to others. Trial Court convicted accused No. 1 u/ss. 302, 307, 427, 448 IPC. Accused No. 2 was convicted u/ss. 302/34, 427, 448, 307/34, 323 and 324 IPC. Conviction was chal- G k' lenged on the grounds interalia that the evidence of eye- witnesses (viz. PWs. 1,2,3,4 and 5 could not be relied upon as they were closely related to the deceased and thus in- terested. High Court allowed the appeal of the accused 405 H 406 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 14 S.C.R. A on the grounds interalia that there was delay in sending 1-~ formal FIR to the Court; that there was no clear evidence B to prove as to who committed the crime; that there were discrepancies and improvements in the statement of wit- nesses. Hence the present appeal. Partly allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. Relationship is not a factor to affect the ..\.- , credibility of a witness, for the mere reason that an eye- witness can be said to be an interested witness, his/her c testimony need not be rejected. Most of the times, eyewit- . nesses happen to be family members or close associates because unless a crime is committed in a public place, strangers are not likely to be present at the time of occur- rence. It is more often than not that a relation would not 0 conceal actual culprit and make allegation against an in- nocent person. Whenever any plea is taken by the ac- cused persons about the interestedness of witnesses, -+-- materials have to be placed in that regard. In such cases, the Court has to adopt a careful approach and analyse evidence to find out whether it is cogent and credible. E [Para 8] [413-8-E] Dalip Singh v. .State of Punjab AIR 1953 SC 364; Masalti v. State of U.P., 1964 (8) SCR 133; State of Rajasthan v. Teja Ram 1999 (3) SCC 507; Amzad Ali v. State of Assam 2003 F (6) sec 270 - relied on. 1 _.... 2. While appreciating the evidence of a witness, mi- ? ~ nor discrepancies on trivial matters without affecting the core of the prosecution case, ought not to prompt the court to reject evidence in its entirety. Further, on the gen- G eral tenor of the evidence given by the witness, the trial court upon appreciation of evidence forms an opinion about the credibility thereof, in the normal circumstances ~. the appellate court would not be justified to review it once again without justifiable reasons. It is the totality of the H situation, which has to be taken note of. Difference in STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE v. 407 SARAVANAN & ANR. -I some minor detail, which does not otherwise affect the A core of the prosecution case, even if present, that itself would not prompt the court to reject the evidence on mi- nor variations and discrepancies. [Para 11] [416-E-G] State of UP v. MK. Anthony 1985 (1) SCC 505 - relied B on. -+ 3. In the instant case all the injured persons have cat- egorically stated not only the manner in which the inci- dent on the day of occurrence took place but also the in- ci.dent which occurred on the previous week. The wit- c nesses have been consistent. The deposition of the wit- nesses, as per record, indica
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.