STATE v. SARAVANAN & Anr.

Judgment

[2008] 14 S.C.R. 405 STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE v. SARAVANAN & ANR. (Criminal Appeal No. 832 of 2002) OCTOBER 14, 2008 A B [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDKAM SHARMA, JJ.] .J_ ' 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 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, conviction of both the accused altered to one uls.304 (Part II). E D .. "" ~ k' 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 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 to prove as to who committed the crime; that there were discrepancies and improvements in the statement of wit- nesses. Hence the present appeal. B 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 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. [Para 8] [413-8-E] 0 E -+-