Read Time: 20 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has said in criminal cases, often credibility of witnesses who are close relatives of the victim are scrutinised, but their testimony cannot automatically be rendered as interested or biased, instead, courts must assess the reliability, consistency, and coherence of their statements rather than labelling them as untrustworthy.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Prasanna B Varale upheld the Bombay High Court's judgment which set aside the acquittal of four persons in a case of murdering their uncle Lalsaheb on September 23, 1987, over their dispute on selling of a neem tree. The high court by its judgment on August 28, 2015, convicted the four persons of the murder charges and awarded them life imprisonment.

Examining the appeals filed by Baban Shankar Daphal and others, the bench said that the high court had correctly rejected the approach adopted by the trial court in discarding the evidence of the eye witnesses, wife of the deceased and others, and held that merely because there were some more independent witnesses also, who had reached the place of incident, the evidence of the relatives could not be disbelieved.

The law nowhere states that the evidence of the interested witness should be discarded altogether. The law only warrants that their evidence should be scrutinised with care and caution. It has been held by this court in the catena of judgments that merely if a witness is a relative, their testimony cannot be discarded on that ground alone, the bench said.

"In criminal cases, the credibility of witnesses, particularly those who are close relatives of the victim, is often scrutinised. However, being a relative does not automatically render a witness "interested" or biased. The term "interested" refers to witnesses who have a personal stake in the outcome, such as a desire for revenge or to falsely implicate the accused due to enmity or personal gain. A "related" witness, on the other hand, is someone who may be naturally present at the scene of the crime, and their testimony should not be dismissed simply because of their relationship to the victim," the bench said.

The bench pointed out in Dalip Singh Vs State of Punjab (1954), the apex court emphasised that a close relative is usually the last person to falsely implicate an innocent person. Therefore, in evaluating the evidence of a related witness, the court should focus on the consistency and credibility of their testimony. This approach ensures that the evidence is not discarded merely due to familial ties, but is instead assessed based on its inherent reliability and consistency with other evidence in the case, it said.

Though the eyewitnesses who have been examined in the present case were closely related to the deceased, namely his wife, daughter and son, their testimonies are consistent with respect to the accused persons being the assailants who inflicted wounds on the deceased, the bench pointed out.

As is revealed from the sequence of events that transpired, one of the family members was subjected to an assault. It was thus quite natural for the other family members to rush on the spot to intervene. The presence of the family members on the spot and thus being eyewitness has been well established. In such circumstances, merely because the eyewitnesses are family members, their testimonies cannot be discarded solely on that ground, the court said.

The bench also stated that it has been consistently laid down by the top court that once there is a version of eyewitness and the same inspires confidence of the court, it will be sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused.

"Hence, a conviction can be based upon the version put forth by the eyewitness and the medical evidence must be considered only for the purpose of corroboration of the ocular evidence," it said.

In the case, the bench said, the high court emphasised that eyewitnesses are often subjected to intense trauma during violent incidents, which can lead to minor lapses in their recollection of specific details.

In this case, the testimony of the eyewitnesses was consistent on the critical facts: the presence of the accused at the scene, their involvement in the attack, and the victim being beaten with sticks. The high court underscored that the core elements of their testimony remained unshaken under cross-examination and were supported by other evidence, the court pointed out.

The court noted that the trial court, however, gave undue weight to minor discrepancies in the eyewitness accounts, such as variations in their descriptions of the sequence of events or the exact number of blows inflicted.

"It is a well-established principle of law that minor contradictions or inconsistencies in testimony do not necessarily render it unreliable, as long as the core facts remain intact. The role of the court is to discern the truth by considering the evidence in its totality and not by isolating individual inconsistencies to discredit an entire narrative. The Trial Court erred by focusing excessively on trivial discrepancies, thereby losing sight of the broader picture and the compelling evidence against the accused," the bench said.

The court opined that the high court appropriately invoked the principle that when direct evidence, such as eyewitness testimony, is credible and reliable, it must be given due weight unless there are compelling reasons to disbelieve it.

In this case, the eyewitnesses were independent and had no motive to falsely implicate the accused. Their testimony was consistent with the overall circumstances of the case and was corroborated by the medical evidence, the court said.

In the present case, there were some variations in the statement of eyewitnesses. The wife of the deceased had failed to mention about the injuries caused to her while she was trying to protect her husband from the attack, instead it was the other witness who had mentioned about the assault made on her. There was also a variance regarding the actual time during which the hand of the deceased was twisted, which resulted in a fracture.

"According to us, these discrepancies are not of such a nature as to render their testimony unbelievable or unreliable. Hence, the High Court has rightly observed that the dents which are caused in the testimonies of these witnesses by the defence do not cause impediment in inspiring the confidence of the court. In order to render any witnesses’ testimony as unreliable, the inconsistencies shall be material ones and of such a nature that they create substantive doubts in the mind of the court towards the story or the chain of events as sought to be established by the prosecution," the bench said.

The court found the high court correctly interpreted the medical evidence, including the post-mortem report, in conjunction with the eyewitness accounts. The trial court’s reliance on the absence of multiple head injuries in the post-mortem report to discard the eyewitness testimony was misplaced. The high court noted that the post-mortem findings did document significant injuries consistent with an assault using sticks, including head injuries and other bodily trauma.

The bench also pointed out that the high court also correctly highlighted that the trial court’s approach was contrary to the well-settled principle that the benefit of the doubt must be based on rational and cogent grounds. Mere conjectures or hypothetical inconsistencies cannot form the basis for acquittal when the evidence, viewed as a whole, points to the guilt of the accused.

"Thus, we find enough compelling reasons to uphold the High Court’s judgment and its finding that the Trial Court’s judgment was perverse," the bench said.

The court further explained a judgment is deemed perverse when it ignores material evidence, misinterprets facts, or arrives at conclusions that do not appear to be reasonable on the basis of the evidence presented.

In the case, the court noted the high court identified several such errors in the trial court’s judgment, including disregarding credible eyewitness testimony without adequate justification; misinterpreting the medical evidence and using it to erroneously contradict eyewitness accounts; placing undue reliance on minor inconsistencies while ignoring the overwhelming evidence of guilt; failing to consider the sequence of events and the conduct of the accused in its entirety.

"The High Court’s approach is consistent with established judicial precedents regarding the evaluation of evidence in criminal cases. This Court has repeatedly held that minor inconsistencies in witness testimony should not overshadow the truth of their statements. Similarly, it has been emphasized that medical evidence should be viewed as an aid to corroborate eyewitness accounts rather than as the sole determinant of facts. The High Court adhered to these principles while assessing the evidence in this case, ensuring that its findings were grounded in sound legal reasoning," the bench said.

The court pointed out the brutal nature of the attack and the coordinated actions of the accused demonstrated clear intent to cause grievous harm, leading to the victim’s death.

"The Trial Court’s acquittal of the accused not only undermined the credibility of the justice system but also sent a troubling message about the consequences of such heinous acts," the bench said.

Dismissing the appeal, the court held the high court’s judgment represented a well-reasoned and legally sound decision that rectified the errors of the trial court and ensured that justice was served.

"The evidence on record, when assessed in its entirety, establishes the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The High Court’s observations regarding the reliability of the eyewitness testimony, the corroborative nature of the medical evidence, and the perverse findings of the Trial Court are compelling and do not warrant any interference," it said.

Case Title: Baban Shankar Daphal & Ors Vs The State of Maharashtra