Supreme Court Upholds Murder Conviction: Says Son of Deceased Can Be Truthful Witness Despite Being ‘Interested’

In a judgment reinforcing the evidentiary value of relatives as witnesses, the Supreme Court of India has held that the testimony of a family member, including the son of the deceased, cannot be discredited merely on the ground that they are “interested” in the outcome of the prosecution. The Court clarified that “interested” and “truthful” are two separate legal concepts, and a relative may have a stake in the case but can still be a reliable and credible witness.

The ruling came in the case of Nitin alias Bittu alias Bintu, who was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for the murder of Gurmeet Kaur in 2008. 

A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Satish Chandra Sharma dismissed his appeal challenging the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dated March 13, 2014, which had upheld his conviction and sentence awarded by the Trial Court.

Background of the Case

The case arose from an FIR registered on August 30, 2008, in connection with the brutal killing of Gurmeet Kaur. During the trial, the Sessions Court acquitted some co-accused but convicted the present appellant based on the testimonies of 14 prosecution witnesses, including two close family members of the deceased. The appellant was found guilty and sentenced accordingly by the Trial Court on October 14, 2009.

This conviction was later affirmed by the High Court, and the matter came before the Supreme Court in appeal.

FIR Delay Not Fatal to Prosecution’s Case

One of the grounds raised by the appellant was the 12-hour delay in the registration of the FIR, which he claimed rendered the prosecution’s case doubtful. However, the Supreme Court firmly rejected this argument.

“Delay of 12 hours in lodging the FIR, in our considered view, cannot be said to be fatal rendering the prosecution case to be doubtful in any manner,” the bench observed.

The Court said the delay was reasonably explained and did not raise any suspicion over the credibility of the prosecution’s version.

Eyewitness Testimony of Son of Deceased Not Tainted

The principal eyewitness in the case was Sukhwinder Singh, the son of the deceased, who testified that he had seen the appellant inflict fatal blows on his mother’s head with a sharp-edged weapon (kulhari). The appellant argued that Singh’s testimony should be treated with suspicion as he was an “interested witness.”

The Supreme Court, however, declined to accept this argument and laid down a clear distinction between interested and truthful witnesses.

“No doubt he is the son of the deceased, but that itself cannot be a ground for rejecting his testimony. Interested and truthful witnesses are two separate things. A relative may be interested in the eventual success of prosecution but still can be truthful,” the Court ruled.

The bench also noted that Singh’s credibility had not been impeached during cross-examination and there was no material on record to suggest his testimony was fabricated or unreliable.

“The witness is wholly reliable. Unrefutably, he has been able to establish the prosecution case of the accused having inflicted injuries on the head of the deceased with a sharp-edged weapon, which was recovered by the police during investigation,” the judgment said.

The Court added that the grievous injuries suffered by the deceased directly led to her death and the sequence of events supported a finding of intentional and deliberate assault.

Testimony Corroborated by Deceased’s Husband

The prosecution’s case was further strengthened by the deposition of PW-3, the husband of the deceased, who also served as the complainant in the case. He fully corroborated the events as described by his son, Sukhwinder Singh.

Notably, the Court found no evidence of enmity or motive to falsely implicate the appellant. The bench held that this was not a case of sudden provocation or a heat-of-the-moment reaction, and therefore, the conviction under Section 302 IPC was justified.

“There was no animosity inter se the parties. It is not a case of a sudden fight or an act committed in a heat of passion,” the Court stated.

Liberty to Seek Remission

While affirming the conviction, the Court acknowledged the long incarceration undergone by the appellant and left it open for him to apply for remission in accordance with state guidelines.

“We, however, clarify that it shall be open for the appellant, considering the long incarceration, for availing the benefit of remission as framed by the State. We are sure that as and when the appellant would be entitled for the benefits thereunder, the same shall be accorded without any delay,” the bench concluded.

Case Title: Nittu@Bittu@Bintu v. State of Haryana