Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Karulal v. State of M.P. (Criminal appeal no. 316 of 2011) has noted that testimony i.e., disposition of related witness if found truthful, can form the basis of conviction.

The bench comprising Hon'ble justices NV Ramana, Surya Kant, and Hrishikesh Roy observed that if the witnesses are otherwise trustworthy, the past hospitality by itself will not disapprove any testimony. While upholding the conviction of five persons accused in a murder case the court took notice of this. The Hon'ble court dismissed the Appeal against Madhya Pradesh high court judgment and upheld their conviction under section 148, 302 read with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 

Karula, Amra, Kachru, Suratram, and Bhagirath were accused of murdering if one Madhavji. While addressing the arguments raised by the accused discussed in short the precedents and law on the evidentiary value of a related witness by referring to the decisions in Dalip Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Punjab 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.

While Addressing the arguments on past enmity 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.  

In Another argument raised in this case was that few of the witnesses had not supported the prosecution case and were declared to be hostile. The Hon’ble court dismissed the appeal, and thus, 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.

Read Judgment here, [pdf]


This news has been reported by Urvi Yadav