Supreme Court of India
DAULATRAM S/O SADRAM TELIversusSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH
- Citation
- 2008 INSC 1063
- Decided
- 19 September 2008
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- ARIJIT PASAYAT
Holding
Evidence of relative eye‑witnesses is admissible and, if found credible, can sustain a conviction; the acquittal of a co‑accused does not invalidate the conviction of another accused.
Summary
The appellant Daulatram was convicted of murder under Section 302 IPC and the SC/ST (Atrocities) Act, while a co-accused was acquitted. The prosecution relied on the testimony of two relatives of the deceased (PW‑3 and PW‑5) as eye‑witnesses. The appellant challenged the conviction on the ground that the relatives were interested witnesses and that the acquittal of the co‑accused should preclude his conviction. The Supreme Court held that the fact that a witness is a family member does not, by itself, render the testimony inadmissible; a party must first establish a specific basis for alleging false implication. The Court found the relatives' evidence to be cogent, credible and reliable, and ruled that the acquittal of a co‑accused does not invalidate the conviction of another accused. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and the conviction upheld.
Issues considered
- The admissibility and weight of testimony of relatives (eye‑witnesses) in a murder trial.
- Whether the acquittal of a co‑accused necessitates the reversal of the conviction of another accused.
- Whether the prosecution must corroborate testimony of interested witnesses.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 302, s. 307, s. 352
Subjects
murdereye‑witness testimonyrelative witnesscredibility of witnessesSC/ST (Atrocities) Actacquittal of co‑accusedIndian Penal Codeevidence law
Judgment
[2008] 13 S.C.R. 734 ...
A DAULATRAM S/O SADRAM TELi
v.
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
(Criminal! Appeal No. 1493 of 2008)
SEPTEMBER 19, 2008
B
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM
SHARMA, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860; Ss. 302 and 307:
c Assault and murder - Conviction - Acquittal of co-ac-
cused - Conviction of accused based on evidence of relative
eye witnesses - Correctness of - Held: Evidence of relative
eye witnesses cannot per se be discarded - Foundation has
to be laid if plea of false implication is made - In the instant
D case, evidence of PW3 and PW5, relative witnesses, found
cogent, credible and reliable - Acquittal of co-accused can-
not be a ground for holding conviction of other accused infirm
- Hence, Courts below rightly convicted the accused on the
basis of evidence of eye witnesses - Testimony of relative
E eye witnesses - Reliance upon - Scheduled Caste and Sched-
uled Tribes (Atrocities) Act, 1989 - S.3(2)(5).
According to the prosecution, on the fateful day, ap-
pellant and another armed with weapons entered into the
field and started abusing the complainant, PW3, and his '(
F father in filthy language and attacked his father with the
weapons. Another accomplice 'D' armed with sickle also
ran after him. On reaching the village, he informed about
the incident to his sister and other relatives and later sue-
cumbed to the injuries. PW3 lodged an FIR. Police inves-
G tigated the matter and submitted a charge-sheet against
the appellant and other two accused persons. Trial Court
found two accused persons guilty of committing the of- '?
fence punishable uls.302 IPC and s.2(v) of the SchedulP-d
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Atrocities) Act, 1289 and
H 734
DAULATRAM S/O SADRAM TELi v. STATE OF 735
CHHATIISGARH
imposed life sentence on them. However, third accused A
'D' was convicted for committing the offence punishable
u/s.352 IPC. The High Court affirmed the,conviction and
sentence against the appellant; however, co-accused was
• • acquitted. Hence the present appeal .
B
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Merely because the eye-witnesses are fam-
ily members their evidence cannot per se be discarded.
(Para - 7) [739-C]
1.2 Relationship is not a factor to affect credibility of c
a witness. It is more often than not that a relation would
not conceal actual culprit and make allegations against
an innocent person. Foundation has to be laid if plea of
false implication is made. In such cases, the court has to
'"' adopt a careful approach and analyse evidence to find D
out whether it is cogent and credible. (Para - 7) [739-D-E]
Dalip Singh and Ors. v. The State of Punjab AIR (1953)
SC 364; Gu/i Chand and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan (1974) 3
SCC 698 and Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras AIR (1957)
SC 614 - referred to. E
1.3 The ground that the witness being a close rela-
tive and consequently being a partisan witness, should
'
,. not be relied upon, has no substance. (Para - 10) [740-D]
F
Dalip Singh and Ors. v. The State of Punjab AIR (1953)
SC 364 - relied on.
1.4 Merely on surmises the Court should not casti-
gate a prosecution for not examining other persons of
the locality as prosecution witnesses. Prosecution can G
be expected to examine only those who have witnessed
the events and not those who have not seen it though
"'.
the neighborhood may be replete with other residents
also. (Para -14) [741-G-H]
H
736 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 13 S.C.R.
A Masa/ti and Ors. v. State of U.P AIR (1965) SC 202; State
of Punjab v. Jagir Singh AIR (1973) SC 2407; Lehna v. State
of Haryana (2002) 3 SCC 76; Gangadhar Behera and Ors. v.
State of Orissa (2002) 8 SCC 381; Babula/ Dhagwan Khandare
and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra (2005) 10 SCC 404; Salim
B Saheb v. State of M.P (2007) 1 SCC 699; Vinay Kumar Rai
and Anr. v. State of Bihar (2008) AIR sew 5541 and State of
Rajasthan v. Teja Ram and Ors. AIR (1999) SC 1776 - re-
ferred to.
2. The evidence of PWs. 3 and 5 is cogent, credible
c and reliable. The fact that co-accused has been acquit-
ted, cannot be a ground for holding that appellants' con-
viction is infirm. (Para -15) [742-B]
Case Law Reference
D AIR (1953) SC 364 Referred to Para - 8
(1974) 3 sec 698 Referred to Para - 9
AIR (1957) SC 614 Referred to Para - 9
AIR (1953) SC 364 Relied on Para - 8
E
AIR (1965) SC 202 Referred to Para - 11
AIR (1973) SC 2407 Referred to Para - 12
(2002) 3 sec 76 Referred to Para - 12 ·(
F (2002) a sec 3s1 Referred to Para - 12
(2005) 1o sec 404 Referred to Para -13
(2007) 1 sec 699 Referred to Para-13
G (2008) AIR sew 5541 Referred to Para - 13
AIR (1999) SC 1776 Referred to Para-14
CRIMINALAPPELLATEJURISDICTIO!'I: CriminalAppeal
No. 1493 of 2008
H From the final Judgment and Order dated 23.7.2007 of
DAULATRAM S/O SADRAM TELi v. STATE OF 737
CHHATTISGARH
the High Court of Chattisgarh at Bilaspur in CRLA No. 803 of A
2001
V. Sudeer for the Appellant.
Atul Jha and Dharmendra Kumar Singh for the Respon-
dent. B
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of the Divi-
sion Bench of the Chattisgarh High Court, dismissi_ng the ap- C
peal filed by the appellant. Challenge in the appeal was to the ., ·
judgment of the learned Special Judge, Raipur, in S.T. No.53/
2000 who found the appellant guilty for the offence punishable
under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'IPC')
~ and Section 3(2}(v) of the Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes D
(Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short the 'Atrocities Act') Life sentence
was imposed in respect of the offence 302 IPC, however, no
separate sentence was imposed for the offence relatable to
Section 3(2}(v) of the Atrocities Act.
3. Prosecution version, in a nutshell, is as follows: E
On 20.8.2000 at about 6. p;m. Bholaram (PW-3) lodged a
report in the Police Station Basna before Station House Officer
D.K. Sharma (PW-9) to the effect that today at about 3 p.m.
t when he along with his father was digging groundnuts in their F
agricultural field, the accused Daulatram and Nepal entered their
agricultural field carrying axe in their hands. Damodar was also
there. Accused Daulatram and Nepal started abusing in the
name of the mother. They attacked his father with axe whereas
accused Damodarwas after him carrying sickle in his hand. He G
ran towards the village. On the way, Sahdev Teli met him. After
reaching the village, he informed his sister Rohnibai and
Parshuram. Thereafter, he along with Parshuram went to the
village Devri and informed his uncle Dhoop Singh.
Receiving this report, Station House Officer, Dinesh H
738 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 13 S.C.R.
A Sharma (PW-9) registered FIR Ex.P/7 for commission of of-
fence under Section 302, 307/34 of the IPC and Section 3(2)(v)
of the SC/ST Act. Intimation Ex. P/8 was also given by Bhola ram.
The Investigating Officer left the scene of occurrence, after giv-
ing notice Ex.P/10 to the Panchas, prepared inquest Ex.P/11
B on the body of the deceased. Site plan Ex.P/9 was prepared.
Based on the memorandum Ex.P/4 given by Daulat Ram, axe
was recovered from him under Ex.P/1. Based on the memo-
randum Ex.P/5 given by Nepal, axe was recovered under Ex.Pl
2. Based on the memorandum Ex.P/6 given by accused
c Damodar, sickle was seized under Ex.P/3. The dead body of
the deceased was sent for post mortem examination under
Ex.P/14 to the Primary Health Centre, Basna, where Dr. H.L.
Jangde (PW-7) conducted postmortem report Ex.P/12. He
opined that cause of death was haemorrhagic shock due to
head injury and it was homicidal in nature.
0
After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was
filed against accused in the court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st
Class, Mahasamund, who in turn committed the case to the
Sessions Judge, Raipur, from where learned Special Judge
E received the case on transfer for trial.
The prosecution in order to establish the charge against
the accused persons examined 13 witm~sses. Statements of
accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in
which they denied material appearing against them in the pros-
F ecution evidence and stated that they are innocent and have
been falsely implicated in the crime. They examined one de-
fence witness, namely, Vikram.
Learned Special Jude after considering materials placed
G by respective parties, convicted and sentenced the accused/
appellants as aforesaid. However, accused Damodarwas con-
victed under Section 352, IPC.
4. The conviction and sentence were r,hallenged before
the High Court by both the present appellant and the accused,
H Nepal. The High Court found the evidence to be credible and
DAULATRAM S/O SADRAM TELi v. STATE OF 739
CHHATTISGARH [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
cogent and dismissed the appeal of appellant, so far as it re- A
lates to Section 302 IPC. However, co-accused Nepal was di-
rected to be acquitted.
5. Primary stand in support of the appeal was that the in-
formant (PW.3) and the PW.5 are the interested witnesses and,
therefore, their evidence should have been discarded. 8
· 6. Learned counsel for the· respondent-State, on the other
hand, supported the judgment of the High Court.
7. Merely because the eye-witnesses are family members
their evidence cannot per se be discarded. Wheri there is alle- C
gation of interestedness, the same has to be established. Mere ·
statement that being relatives of the deceased they are likely to
falsely implicate the accused cannot be a ground to discard the
evidence which. is otherwise cogent and credible. We shall also
deal with the contention regarding interestedness of the wit- D
nesses for furthering prosecution version. Relationship is not a
factor to affect credibility of a witness. It is more often than not
that a relation would not conceal actual culprit and make allega-
tions against an innocent person. Foundation has to be laid if
plea of false implication is made. In such cases, the court has E
to adopt a careful approach and analyse evidence to find out
whether it is cogent and credible. ·
· 8. In Dalip Singh and Ors. v. The State of Punjab (AIR
1953 SC 364) it has been laid down as under:-
F
"A witness is normally to be considered independent unless
he or she springs from sources'which are likely to be
tainted and that usually means unless the witness has
cause, such as ·enmity against the accused, to wish to
implicate him falsely. Ordinarily a close relation would be G
the last to screen the real culprit and falsely implicate an
innocent person. It is true, when feelings run high and there
is personal cause for enmity, that there is a tendency to
drag in an innocent person against whom a witness has
a grudge along with the guilty, but foundation must he laid
H
740 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 13 S.C.R.
A for such a criticism and the mere fact of relationship far
from being a foundation is often a sure guarantee of truth.
However, we are not attempting any sweeping
generalization. Each case must be judged on its own facts.
Our observations are only made to combat what is so
B often put forward in cases before us as a general rule of
prudence. There is no such general rule. Each case must
be limited to and be governed by its own facts."
9. ,The above decision has since been followed in Guli
Chand and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan (1974 (3) SCC 698) in
c which Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras (AIR 1957 SC 614)
was also relied upon.
10. We may also observe that the ground that the witness
being a close relative and consequently being a partisan wit-
ness, should not be relied upon, has no substance. This theory
D
was repelled by this Court as early as in Dalip Singh's case
(supra) in which surprise was expressed over the impression
which prevailed in the minds of the Members of the Bar that
relatives were not independent witnesses. Speaking through
Vivian Bose, J. it was observed:
E
"We are unable to agree with the learned Judges of the
High Court that the testimony of the two eyewitnesses ·
requires corroboration. If the foundation for such an
observation is based on the fact that the witnesses are
F women and that the fate of seven men hangs on their
testimony, we know of no such rule. If it is grounded on the
reason that they are closely related to the deceased we
are unable to concur. This is a fallacy common to many
criminal cases and one which another Bench of this Court
endeavoured to dispel in - 'Rameshwar v. State of
G
Rajasthan' (AIR 1952 SC 54 at p.59). We find, however,
that it unfortunately still persists, if not in the judgments of
1
the Courts, at any rate in the arguments of counsel."
~~
1.1. Again in Masa/ti and Ors. v. State of UP (AIR 1965
H SC 202) this Court observed: (p. 209-210 para 14):
DAULATRAM S/O SADRAM TELi v. STATE OF 741
~
CHHATTISGARH [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
"But it would, we think, be unreasonable to contend that A
evidence given by witnesses should be discarded only on
the ground that it is evidence of partisan or interested
witnesses ....... The mechanical rejection of such evidence
)- on the sole ground that it is partisan would invariably lead
to failure of justice. No hard and fast rule can be laid down B
as to how much evidence should be appreciated. Judicial
,, approach has to be cautious'in dealing with such evidence;
but the plea that such evidence should be rejected because
it is partisan cannot be accepted as correct."
12. To the same effect is the decisions in State of Punjab c
v. Jagir Singh (AIR 1973 SC 2407), Lehna v. State of Haryana
(2002 (3) SCC 76) and Gangadhar Behera and Ors. v. State
of Orissa (2002 (8) SCC 381).
13. The above position was also highlighted in Babula/
D
Bhagwan Khandare and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra (2005(10)
SCC 404], Salim Saheb v. State of M.P (2007(1) SCC 699) and
VinayKumarRai andAnr. v. State ofBihar(2008AIR SCW 5541).
14. The over insistence on witnesses having no relation
with the victims often results in criminal justice going away. When E
any incident happens in a dwelling house the most natural wit-
nesses would be the inmates of that house. It is unpragmatic to
ignore such natural witnesses and insist on outsiders who would
not have even seen any thing. If the Court has discerned from
the evidence or even from the investigation records that some F
other independent person has witnessed any event connecting
the incident in question then there is justification for making
adverse comments against non-examination of such person as
prosecution witness. Otherwise, merely on surmises the Court
should not castigate a prosecution for not examining other per-
G
sons of the locality as prosecution witnesses. Prosecution can
be expected to examine only those who have witnessed the
'(
events and not those who have not seen it though the neighbor-
hood may be replete with other residents also. [See: State of
Rajasthan v. Teja Ram and Ors. (AIR 1999 SC 1776)].
H
742 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 13 S.C.R.
A 15. The evidence of PWs. 3 and 5 is cogent, credible and
reliable. It was submitted that Nepal was acquitted and, there-
fore, the appellant should not have been convicted. The High
Court has found that there was inconsistency in the evidence of
PWs. 3 and 5 so far as Nepal's presence is concerned. In any
B event, the evidence of PWs. 3 and 5 is cogent, credible and
reliable. The fact that co-accused has been acquitted, cannot
be a ground for holding that appellants' conviction is infirm.
16. The impugned judgment does not warrant any interfer-
ence. The appeal is dismissed.
c Appeal dismissed.
S.K.S.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "murder"Sign in to search