The Allahabad High Court recently held that testimonies of witnesses cannot be discarded merely on the ground that the are closely related to the victim [Manvir v State]..The argument that that there were no independent witnesses since all the witnesses were relatives of the victim, was rejected by a bench of Justices Suneet Kumar and Vikram D Chauhan.“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,” the Bench stated. The High Court was hearing an appeal against a conviction order passed by the trial court sentencing the appellant to life imprisonment for the crimes of murder and rape..The appellant was accused of raping and murdering the informant’s 80-year-old mother.The Court noted that a witness has to be normally considered independent unless they sprung from sources which are likely to be tainted. It was the Bench’s opinion that ordinarily a close relative would be the last person to screen a real culprit or falsely implicate an innocent person. It was pointed out that a close relative would naturally be present at the scene of the offence.“The evidence of such a witness cannot automatically be discarded by labelling the witness as interested," the Court opined. In this regard, the fact that the incident took place at the victim’s residence, a place not ordinarily accessible by the public, was taken into account..While pointing out the difference between a related and interested witness, the Bench relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Kartik Malhar v State of Bihar, wherein it was held that a close relative who was a natural witness could not be regarded as an interested witness, since the term “interested” suggested that the witness must have some interest in having the accused convicted..The High Court observed that it found the testimony of the witnesses consistent and reliable and thus, rejected the appellant's contention that the testimony must be disbelieved simply because they were the victim’s close relatives..Further, finding no weight in the appellant’s other contentions, it was concluded that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed..Advocate Abida Syed was the Amicus Curiae in the case while the respondent was represented by the additional government advocate..[Read Judgment]
The Allahabad High Court recently held that testimonies of witnesses cannot be discarded merely on the ground that the are closely related to the victim [Manvir v State]..The argument that that there were no independent witnesses since all the witnesses were relatives of the victim, was rejected by a bench of Justices Suneet Kumar and Vikram D Chauhan.“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,” the Bench stated. The High Court was hearing an appeal against a conviction order passed by the trial court sentencing the appellant to life imprisonment for the crimes of murder and rape..The appellant was accused of raping and murdering the informant’s 80-year-old mother.The Court noted that a witness has to be normally considered independent unless they sprung from sources which are likely to be tainted. It was the Bench’s opinion that ordinarily a close relative would be the last person to screen a real culprit or falsely implicate an innocent person. It was pointed out that a close relative would naturally be present at the scene of the offence.“The evidence of such a witness cannot automatically be discarded by labelling the witness as interested," the Court opined. In this regard, the fact that the incident took place at the victim’s residence, a place not ordinarily accessible by the public, was taken into account..While pointing out the difference between a related and interested witness, the Bench relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Kartik Malhar v State of Bihar, wherein it was held that a close relative who was a natural witness could not be regarded as an interested witness, since the term “interested” suggested that the witness must have some interest in having the accused convicted..The High Court observed that it found the testimony of the witnesses consistent and reliable and thus, rejected the appellant's contention that the testimony must be disbelieved simply because they were the victim’s close relatives..Further, finding no weight in the appellant’s other contentions, it was concluded that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed..Advocate Abida Syed was the Amicus Curiae in the case while the respondent was represented by the additional government advocate..[Read Judgment]
