THUKARAM AND ORS. versus STATE OF KARNATAKA

Citation: [2008] 5 S.C.R. 37 · Decided: 13-03-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 5 S.C.R. 37 
•. 
II( 
THUKARAM AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
STATE OF KARNATAKA 
(Criminal. Appeal No. 482 of 2008) 
MARCH 13, 2008 
B 
> 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860 - s.304 (II): 
Conviction under - Based on evidence of related 
witnesses - Justification - Held: Relationship is not a factor to c 
affect credibility of a witness - Foundation has to be laid if 
plea of false implication is made - In such cases, the Court 
has to adopt a careful approach - Evidence - Related witness 
- Appreciation of. 
The conviction of Appellant No.1 by Courts below, D 
under s.304(11), IPC, was challenged before this Court on 
the ground that the same was based on the evidence of 
related witnesses, viz. PWs 1,2 and 5. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
E 
HELD: 1.1. The stand that PWs 1, 2 and 5 were related 
to the deceased is really of no consequence. Relationship 
is not a factor to affect credibility of a witness. It is more 
often than not that a relation would not conceal actual 
culprit and make allegations against an innocent person. 
F 
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 find out whether it is 
cogent and credible. The ground that the witness being a 
close relative and consequently being a partisan witness, G 
should not be relied upon, has no substance. [Paras 7, 8, 
11) [39-D, E; 40-C] 
1.2. In the instant case, in any case PWs. 6 & 10 were 
37 
H 
•,
38 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 5 S.C.R. 
A 
independent witnesses and it has not been shown as to 
~ 
why they would depose falsely against the appellants. The 
~ 
evidence on record clearly establishes that the appellants 
have been rightly held guilty. [Para 15] [41-D, E] 
B 
Dalip Singh and Ors. v. The State of Punjab AIR (1953) 
SC 364; Guli Chand and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan (1974) 3 
SCC 698;Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras AIR (1957) SC 
614;Masa/ti and Ors. v. State of UP AIR (1965) SC 202; State 
of Punjab v. Jagir Singh AIR 1973 SC 2407;Lehna v. State of 
Haryana (2002) 3 SCC 76; Gangadhar Behera and Ors. v. 
c State of Orissa (2002) 8 SCC 381 ;Babula/ Bhagwan Khandare 
and Anr. V. State of Maharashtra (2005) 10 SCC 404 and 
Salim Saheb v. State of M.P (2007) 1 SCC 699 - relied on. 
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
D No. 482 of 2008. 
From the final Jud~iment and Order dated 03.01.2007 of 
the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Criminal Appeal 
No. 428 of 2001. 
E 
Shankar Divate for the Appellants. 
Anitha Shenoy for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DR. ARIJIT PAS,.,'fAT, J. 1. Leave granted. 
F 
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned 
Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court upholding the 
conviction of the appellant for offence punishable under Section 
304(11) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC') and 
sentence of imprisonment for five years was imposed. The 
G appellants preferred an appeal before the Karnataka High Court. 
3 .. As noted above, the learned Single Judge of the High 
Court upheld the conviction, but reduced the sentence. 
'1' 
4. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the 
H appellants submitted that originally there were six accused 
THUKARAM AND ORS. v. STATE OF KARNATAKA 
39 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.] 
J 
persons. A3 was acquitted by the trial court whereas appellant A 
Tukaram was found guilty of offence punishable under Section 
304 (II). However the sentence of seven years as was imposed 
by the trial court was reduced to five years. 
5. It was further submitted that evidence of PWs 1,2 & 5 
B 
. should not have been accepted as they were related to the 
>· 
deceased. 
6. Learned counsel for the respondent-State on the other 
hand submitted that there is no legal bar in accepting the 
evidence of a relative. A relative would normally not protect person c 
who is guilty and would shield the actual assailant. 
7. So far as the appellant is concerned, the trial court and 
the High Court have analysed the evidence in great detail and 
have concluded that the appellant was the author of the crime. 
Stand that PWs. 1,2 & 5 were related to the deceased is really D 
of no consequence. 
8. Relationship is not a factor to affect credibility of a 
witness. It is more often than not that a relation would not conceal 
actual culprit and make allegations against an innocent person. E 
Foundation has to be laid if plea
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.