Tag Archives: 上海品茶网BSP

Related Witnesses’ Testimony, If Found Truthful, Can Be The Basis Of Conviction: SC [Read Judgment

first_imgTop StoriesRelated Witnesses’ Testimony, If Found Truthful, Can Be The Basis Of Conviction: SC [Read Judgment LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK9 Oct 2020 8:43 PMShare This – xThe Supreme Court has observed that testimony of the related witness, if found to be truthful, can be the basis of conviction.If the witnesses are otherwise trustworthy, past enmity by itself will not discredit any testimony, the bench comprising Justices NV Ramana, Surya Kant and Hrishikesh Roy observed.The court upheld observed thus while upholding conviction of five persons accused in a…Your free access to Live Law has expiredTo read the article, get a premium account.Your Subscription Supports Independent JournalismSubscription starts from ₹ 599+GST (For 6 Months)View PlansPremium account gives you:Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.Subscribe NowAlready a subscriber?LoginThe Supreme Court has observed that testimony of the related witness, if found to be truthful, can be the basis of conviction.If the witnesses are otherwise trustworthy, past enmity by itself will not discredit any testimony, the bench comprising Justices NV Ramana, Surya Kant and Hrishikesh Roy observed.The court upheld observed thus while upholding conviction of five persons accused in a murder case. The court dismissed the appeal against Madhya Pradesh High Court judgment upholding their conviction under Section 148, 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Karulal, Amra, Kachru, Suratram and Bhagirath were accused of murder of one Madhavji.The bench, while addressing the contentions raised by the accused, briefly discussed the precedents and law on evidentiary value of a related witness by referring to the decisions in Dalip Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab AIR 1953 SC 364, Khurshid Ahmed vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir (2018) 7 SCC 429, State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Samman Dass (1972) 3 SCC 201. The court noted that, being related to the deceased does not necessarily mean that they will falsely implicate innocent persons. The court added that an unrelated witness had deposed supporting the testimony of related witnesses in this case. The bench observed:”The above precedents make it amply clear that the testimony of the related witness, if found to be truthful, can be the basis of conviction and we have every reason to believe that PW3 and PW12 were immediately present at the spot and identified the accused with various deadly weapons in their hands”Addressing the contention on past enemity between accused and witnesses, the bench, referred to the decision in Sushil & Ors. Vs. State of U.P 1995) Supp 1 SCC 363., and observed:”If the witnesses are otherwise trustworthy, past enmity by itself will not discredit any testimony. In fact the history of bad blood gives a clear motive for the crime. Therefore this aspect does not in our assessment, aid the defence in the present matter”Another contention raised in this case was that few of the witnesses had not supported the prosecution case and were declared to be hostile. While dismissing the appeal, the bench observed:”But there are enough material evidence and trustworthy testimonies which clearly support the case against the accused and the prosecution need not fail on this count alone. Some witness may not support the prosecution story for their own reasons and in such situation, it is necessary for the Court to determine whether the other available evidence comprehensively proves the charge. In this case, it is seen that the prosecution version is cogent and supported by three eyewitnesses who have given a consistent account of the incident. Their testimonies are corroborated by the medical evidence. The learned Trial Judge had elaborately discussed the evidence of both sides and came to a logical conclusion which inspires confidence. We are therefore of the view that the hostile witnesses will not affect the conviction of the appellants.”Case name: Karulal vs. State of MPCase no.: Criminal Appeal No. 316 of 2011 Coram: Justices NV Ramana, Surya Kant and Hrishikesh RoyCounsel: Advocates M. T. Mahipal, Deputy AG Ankita ChaudharyClick here to Read/Download JudgmentRead JudgmentSubscribe to LiveLaw, enjoy Ad free version and other unlimited features, just INR 599 Click here to Subscribe. All payment options available.loading….Next Storylast_img read more