A bench comprising Justices B.R. Gavai and K.V. Viswanathan acquitted a man convicted in a 2015 murder case, whose sentence had been upheld by the Madurai bench of the Madras High Court.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Friday (13th Dec) emphasized that a witness’s testimony cannot be dismissed solely because they are an “interested witness,” though it must be approached with heightened caution and scrutiny.
A bench comprising Justices B.R. Gavai and K.V. Viswanathan acquitted a man convicted in a 2015 murder case, whose sentence had been upheld by the Madurai bench of the Madras High Court.
The court noted that the appellant, George, was convicted based solely on the testimony of the deceased’s father. The bench observed that while the high court deemed the testimony unreliable for two co-accused and acquitted them, it paradoxically relied on the same evidence to convict the appellant.
The Supreme Court clarified that convictions can be based on the testimony of a single witness, but in this case, the inconsistency in treating the same evidence rendered the conviction unsound. It further noted that the high court’s approach was based on “conjectures and surmises,” which is impermissible.
READ ALSO: SC Upholds Testimonies of Dowry Death Victims’ Relatives
Section 118 deals with the subject ‘who may testify’. It reads as follows:
“118. All persons shall be competent to testify unless the Court considers that they are prevented from understanding the question put to them, or from giving rational answers to those questions, by tender years, extreme old age, disease, whether of body or mind, or any other cause of the same kind.
Explanation:- A lunatic is not incompetent to testify, unless he is prevented by his lunacy from understanding the questions put to him and giving rational answers to them.”
Who is Interested Witnesses: – a witness who appears to be interested in the success of the case in favour of any party is set to be a interested witness.
Therefore, the relatives of a party may be normally understood as interested witness among others. In a criminal case a police officer has lodged FIR of any incident and he is also directed to investigate the said case, he can also be termed as a interested witness in view of certain decisions of different courts.
The law relating to evaluation of interested witness has undergone drastic changes over the years. It is now well-settled that evidence of an interested witness cannot be discarded solely on the ground that the witness is a interested. The court evaluating the evidence of an interested witness has only to be extra cautions and careful while basin the judgment on the testimony of interested witness.
In the case Rakesh Kumar vs. State of Himachal Pradesh to the extent of questioning whether the revision petition filed before the court was correct and that whether the court has jurisdiction to entertain such a revision petition the court has Court has allowed the revision petition after examining various case laws on the matter in hand
Pointing out the high court’s error in convicting the appellant while granting the benefit of the doubt to the co-accused, the bench set aside the November 2019 verdict, acquitting the appellant of all charges. The court ordered his release unless he was required in another case.
The case originated from an FIR filed in May 2015 in Tamil Nadu’s Thoothukudi district, where the deceased’s father alleged that his son was fatally attacked by the three accused outside a church on the night of May 15-16, 2015.
