LexVINAY KUMAR RAI AND ANR. versus THE STATE OF BIHAR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 12 S.C.R. 146 I A VINAY KUMAR RAI AND ANR. '<.. v. THE STATE OF BIHAR (Criminal Appeal No. 371 of 2006) B AUGUST 18, 2008 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860: c ss. 302134 - Murder - Two accused caught hold of de- ceased and on their exhortation, third accused fired at de- ceased resulting in his death- Incident witnessed by witnesses - Conviction of first two accused uls. 302 rlw s. 34, and third accused u/s. 302 and u/s. 27 of the Arms Act by courts below - Justification of - Held: Justified - Witnesses being close D relative or partisan witness, their evidence should not be dis- carded - Evidence of prosecution witnesses and eye-wit- nesses established the occurrence ofincident, thus s. 34 ap- ~. ,,..,........::....__ plicab/e - Also, there was no discrepancy between medical evidence and ocular evidence - Arms Act - s. 27. ------- E· Evidence Act, 1872: s. 3 - Related witness - Testimony, evidentiary value of - Held: Relationship is not a factor to affect credibility of a witness. F Medical evidence vis-a-vis ocular evidence - Discrep- ancy between - Effect on prosecution case. According to the prosecution case, there was enmity between NK and the appellants-A1, A2 and A3. On the fate- G ful day, when NK had gone to his fields, the appellants came their. A1 and A3 caught hold of NK and exhorted A-2 to fire at NK. A 2 fired NK on the temple which later resulted in +- his death. Thereafter, the appellants ran away. On hear- , ing the alarm raised by NK, PW 7-father of NK and his l I H 146 VINAY KUMAR RAI & ANR. v. THE STATE 147 OF BIHAR > nephew-PW 4 reached the scene of occurrence. They A witnessed the entire incident. FIR was lodged. The case was registered u/s. 302/34 IPC and s. 27 of the Arms Act. Investigations were carried out. The witnesses were ex- amined. The trial court convicted A 1 and A 3 u/s. 302 r/w s. 34 IPC, and A 2 u/s. 302 IPC and imposed rigorous im- B prisonment for life. A 2 was also convicted u/s. 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years. Aggrieved, appellants filed appeals on the ground that there was discrepancy between the medical evidence and the oral evidence and the eye-witnesses c were related to the deceased. The High Court upheld the conviction of the appellants. Hence the present appeals. Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1 Merely because the eye-witnesses are D family members, their evidence cannot per se be dis- -t carded. When there is allegation of interestedness, it has ),. to be established. Mere statement that being relatives of \ the deceased they are likely to falsely implicate the ac- cused, cannot be a ground to discard the evidence which E is otherwise cogent and credible. 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. Founda- tion has to be laid if plea of false implication is made. In such cases, court has to adopt a careful approach and F ........ analyse evidence to find out whether it is cogent and cred- ible. [Para 6][152,E-G] 1.2 The over insistence on witnesses having no re- lation with the victims often results in criminal justice go- G ing away. When any incident happens in a dwelling house -+- the most natural witnesses would be the inmates of that house. It is unpragmatic to ignore such natural witnesses and insist on outsider who would not have even seen any • thing. If the Court has discerned from the evidence or even H 148 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 12 S.C.R. A from the investigation records that some other indepen- '"- dent person has witnessed any event connecting the in- cident in question then there is justification for making adverse comments against non-examination of such per- son as prosecution witness. Otherwise, merely on surmises B the Court should not castigate a prosecution for not ex- amining other persons of the locality as prosecution wit- nesses. Prosecution can be expected to examine only '-- those who have witnessed the events and not those who have not seen itthough the neighborhood may be replete C with other residents also.[Para 13] [154,G-H; 155,A-C] 1.3 In the instant case, the ground that the witness being a close relative and consequently being partisan witness, should not be relied upon, cannot be accepted. PWs 4 and 7 stated in th
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.