Victim’s Close Relative Not Likely To Foist An Innocent, Can’t Be Disregarded Merely By Levelling Them As ‘Interested Witnesses’: MP HC

While clearing all the fog persisting over the evidentiary value of the victim’s close relatives, it is interesting to learn that the Indore Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled Nitin Mewate vs State of Madhya Pradesh in Criminal Appeal No. 1440 of 2024 and cited in 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 78 that was heard on 13.04.2024 and then finally pronounced on 28.05.2024 has minced just no words to observe in no uncertain terms that a close relative would be likely to present the actual story of the incident instead of hiding the actual culprit and foisting the crime on an innocent person. It must be mentioned here that the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Prem Narayan Singh in this most commendable judgment makes it absolutely clear as to why the testimonies of close relatives shouldn’t be disregarded automatically by compartmentalizing them as ‘interested witnesses’. We thus see for ourselves that the Bench was definitely most forthright in holding very clearly, cogently and convincingly that, “… Virtually, in many of the criminal cases, it is often seen that the offence is witnesses by close relatives of the victim, whose presence on the spot of incident would be natural and the evidence of such witness cannot automatically be discarded by leveling them as interested witness…” No denying!

At the very outset, it must be stated first and foremost that this progressive, pragmatic, persuasive and pertinent judgment authored by the the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Prem Narayan Singh sets the ball in motion by putting forth in para 1 that, “This criminal appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellant under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the judgment dated 22.12.2023, delivered b y learned 14th Additional Session Judge, Indore in Sessions Court No.577/2022, wherein learned Judge has convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced to undergo 05 year S.I. with fine of Rs.1000/-.”

To put things in perspective, the Bench envisages in para 2 while laying bare the facts of the case that, “As per prosecution case, on 08.04.2022, at about 10PM, the complainant Rahul was walking in front of his house, wife of Rahul told him that his brother and wife of his brother were quarreling with each other. When the complainant entered in the room of accused Nitin, Nitin was assaulting his daughter Preksha with knife and when the complainant tried to intervene, the accused has also assaulted on him with the knife and caused injuries on the head, hands and thigh of the complainant also. The complainant lodged the complainant at police Station Sadar Bazar, Indore the police registered the Kaymi and investigated the matter.”

As it turned out, the Bench enunciates in para 3 that, “The injured Preksha and complainant were sent for medical treatment. During investigation, statements of the witnesses were recorded, spot map was prepared, seizure memos were prepared. After completion of prima facie investigation the offene was registered under Section 307 and 506 of IPC against the accused, charge-sheet was filed before the trial Court and later on, the matter committed to the Court of Sessions on 08.07.202 and the Court has framed charges against the appellant under Section 307 and 506 of IPC, accordingly.”

As we see, the Bench then discloses in para 4 that, “The prosecution has examined total 13 witnesses namely the Priyanka Mewate, (PW-1), Rajesh Gaud (PW-2), Preksha (PW-3), Sarita (PW-4), Golu Khode (PW-5) Rahul Mewate (PW-6), Jayshree Mewate (PW-7), Dr. Sanjay Kucheriya (PW-8), Dr. Ruvendra Bansode (PW-9), Yashwant (PW-10), Dr. Durgesh Parmar (PW-11), Madan Singh Barde (PW-12) and Bharat Lal Medla (PW-13). No witness has been examined in support of the defence by the appellant. The appellant abjured his guilt and he took a plea that he is innocent.”

As things stands, the Bench states in para 5 that, “The appellant was tried and charged under Section 307 and 506 of IPC. The learned Court below, after considering the evidence and material available on record has convicted the appellant under Section 326 of IPC by acquitting him from the charges under Sections 307 and 506 of IPC vide the impugned order.”

Needless to say, the Bench states in para 10 that, “Considering the rival submissions and on perusal of the record, the point for determination of this appeal is as to whether the finding of learned trial court regarding conviction and sentence under section 326 of IPC is correct in the eyes of law and facts or not.”

Do note, the Bench notes in para 15 that, “The statements of both witnesses finds support from medical testimony regarding the injured Preksha (PW-3), is having its importance. The testimonies of Priyanka (PW-1) and Preksha (PW-3) Sarita (PW-4) and Golu Khode (PW-5) Dr. Ruvendra Bansode (PW-9), Dr. Durgesh Parmar (PW-11) have also not been rebutted in their cross-examination.”

Adding more to it, the Bench points out in para 16 that, “On this point, counsel for the appellant contended that the aforesaid witnesses are relatives and due to their relatedness they should not be relied upon. Here, it is worth to mention that Preksha (PW-3) is the daughter of the accused while Priyanka (PW-1) is wife of the accused. However, inspite of that, they are supporting the prosecution case. Hence, their testimonies cannot be discarded.”

While citing a relevant and remarkable case law, the Bench then elucidates in para 17 stating that, “So far as relatedness and interestedness of the witnesses is concerned, the decision laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Laltu Ghosh vs. State of West Bengal AIR 2019 SC 1058 is relevant to be referred here:

“This Court has elucidated the difference between ‘interested’ and ‘related’ witnesses in a plethora of cases, stating that a witness may be called interested only when he or she derives some benefit from the result of a litigation, which in the context of a criminal case would mean that the witness has a direct or indirect interest in seeing the accused punished due to prior enmity or other reasons, and thus has a motive to falsely implicate the accused”.”

Most significantly, the Bench then points out in para 18 what constitutes the cornerstone of this notable judgment propounding that, “As per the human tendency, a close relative would put forth the actual story of incident rather than hide the actual culprit and foist an innocent person. Virtually, in many of the criminal cases, it is often seen that the offence is witnessed by close relatives of the victim, whose presence on the spot of incident would be natural and the evidence of such witness cannot automatically be discarded by leveling them as interested witness.”

It is worth noting that the Bench notes in para 19 that, “Since the injuries caused to injured Preksha (PW-3) are grievous in nature and the same has been caused by heard and sharp object knife, therefore, the conviction under Section 326 of IPC is found immaculate and infallible. Further, it is found that the prosecution case has been well supported by the testimony of injured and other witnesses as well as medical and documentary evidence. The learned trial Court has well considered the material available on record, hence, no infirmity is found in the impugned order of conviction passed by the learned trial Court, accordingly, the same is upheld.”

It cannot be lost on us that the Bench then postulates in para 20 holding that, “Now, coming to the part of sentence, certainly, appellant is father of injured Preksha PW-3, however, only on being father, he could not be released from the incarceration period of already undergone. Since, he is not a pre-convict and is having no criminal record, some leniency can be considered in his favour. The appellant is facing the trial since 2022 as well as looking to the prayer of counsel for the appellant coupled with the fact that the appellant is in jail and completed approximately two years of his jail sentence, this Court finds that it would be appropriate to accept the prayer of the appellant regarding reduction of the sentence sentence and thus, the sentence of five year may be reduced to three years by enhancing the fine to Rs.10000/-.”

As a corollary, the Bench then directs in para 21 holding that, “Accordingly, this criminal appeal is partly allowed and the sentence awarded to the appellant is set aside and the appellant shall undergo the sentence under Sections 326 of IPC for three years R.I. with fine of Rs.10000/-. In case of failure to deposit the fine amount, the appellant shall further undergo 02 month S.I..”

Further, the Bench directs in para 22 that, “The appellant shall be released after completing the aforesaid sentence subject to depositing the fine amount. His bail bonds, if any, shall be discharged accordingly.”

What’s more, the Bench then directs in para 23 that, “The order of learned trial court regarding disposal of the seized property stands confirmed.”

Finally, the Bench then concludes by holding in para 24 that, “A copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance. Certified copy, as per Rules.”

All told, we thus see that the Indore Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court has made it indubitably clear that the victim’s close relative is not likely to foist an innocent. It was also made absolutely clear by the Court that the testimony of victim’s close relatives cannot be disregarded merely by levelling them as ‘interested witnesses’. It thus merits no reiteration that a holistic approach must be adopted by the Court in such cases as we see was done in this leading case also by not blindly disregarding the testimony of victim’s close relatives!

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,

s/o Col (Retd) BPS Sirohi,

A 82, Defence Enclave,

Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera,

Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh.