Testimony Of Witnesses Cannot Be Discarded Merely Because They Are Relatives: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court observed that merely because the witnesses are relatives, it cannot be a ground to discard the testimony of such witnesses. The only requirement is that the testimonies of such witnesses have to be scrutinized with greater caution and circumspection.
The Apex Court noted that the incident occurred on account of a grave and sudden fight in the heat of anger due to the provocation by the deceased and there was no evidence to show that the accused acted in a cruel manner.
The Appeal, before the Apex Court, challenged the judgment of the Division Bench of the Patna High Court whereby the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life was affirmed.
The Division Bench comprising Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K.V. Viswanathan said, “A perusal of the evidence would therefore, reveal that there was no premeditation. The incident occurred on account of a quarrel that erupted between the deceased and the appellant on a trivial issue.The appellant appears to have lost his control and assaulted the deceased with the knife.”
AOR Smarhar Singh appeared for the Appellant while AOR Azmat Hayat Amanullah represented the Respondent.
The husband of the deceased, PW-5-Ranglal Yadav, alleged that on November 9, 2015 the present appellant who was the tenant of PW-5 was annoyed with the removal of the bricks from the door. It was alleged that the appellant started hurling abuses at the deceased and when she objected, he assaulted Yadav’s wife by means of a knife on her chest causing grievous injuries and fled from there. It was further stated in the FIR that the deceased was taken to a Hospital and during the course of treatment she died.
Upon completion of investigation, a charge sheet came to be filed before the ACJM. The appellant was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. Being aggrieved thereby, the appellant preferred an appeal before the High Court which was also dismissed. Hence, the appeal was filed before the Apex Court.
For the appellant, Singh submitted that all the witnesses are interested witnesses, being the relatives of the deceased and apart from the oral testimony of the witnesses, there was no other evidence to implicate the present appellant. It was further submitted that the case would fall either under Part I or Part II of Section 304 of the IPC as there was no premeditation. The incident happened at the spur of a moment in a sudden fight due to the provocation by the deceased.
For the Respondent, Amanullah contended that the testimonies of five eyewitnesses consistently implicated the present appellant and the injury was on the chest which is a vital body part. It was thus submitted that the lower Courts rightly convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC.
On a perusal of the evidence of the witnesses, the Bench observed that the prosecution had proved that it was the present appellant, who was responsible for the death of the deceased. Dealing with the contention of related witnesses, the Bench said, “Merely because the witnesses are relatives, cannot be a ground to discard the testimony of such witnesses. The only requirement is that the testimonies of such witnesses have to be scrutinized with greater caution and circumspection.”
Coming to the facts of the case, the Bench noted that someone had taken out a brick from the pile of bricks. Those pile of bricks belonged to the appellant. Angered by this, the appellant started abusing the wife of Ranglal Yadav (PW-5). The wife of PW-5 objected and warned the appellant not to abuse her. It was further seen from the evidence of Bidya Sagar Yadav (PW-4) that the deceased told the appellant that if he had courage, he may dare to kill her. Thereafter, the appellant assaulted the deceased with the knife.
The Bench further held, “We find that the incident has occurred on account of a grave and sudden fight in the heat of anger due to the provocation by the deceased. A perusal of the evidence would also reveal that it is a case of a single injury. There is no evidence to show that the appellant has acted in a cruel manner or has taken undue advantage of the situation.”
Holding that the appellant would be entitled to have the benefit of exception under Section 300 of the IPC, the Bench partly allowed the appeal and converted his conviction from Section 302 of the IPC to Part-I of Section 304 of the IPC.
Considering that the appellant had already suffered incarceration of about nine years and ten months with remission, the Bench ordered, “The appellant is therefore, sentenced to the period already undergone.”
Cause Title: Hare Ram Yadav v. State of Bihar [Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 936]
Appearance:
Appellants: AOR Smarhar Singh, Advocates Shweta Kumari, Pankaj Prakash, Mohd Asim, Manoj Kumar, Vikas Chopra
Respondent: AOR Azmat Hayat Amanullah, Advocate Rebecca Mishra
