Relationship is not a factor to affect the credibility of a witness

Concurrent findings – reversed by supreme court – the conviction and sentence of the appellant is liable to be set aside – that the medical evidence did not support the version of the prosecution in respect of the appellant (A-3) – point of law discussed- relationship is not a factor to affect credibility of a witness –

Excerpts from judgement: NAGAPPAN Vs. STATE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, T.N. [July 17, 2013]

Both the courts below failed to notice the fact that the medical evidence did not support the version of the prosecution in respect of the appellant (A-3) and in fact contrary to the evidence of PW-1 and PW-3 and, therefore, the conviction and sentence of the appellant is liable to be set aside.

A-1 and A-2 were armed with knives, A-4 was armed with iron rod and A-3 was holding only stick, in the absence of specific assertion by PWs 1 & 3 about the specific role of the appellant (A-3) and no medical evidence from the Doctor in the post mortem certificate, we are of the view that the conviction and the ultimate sentence in respect of the appellant (A-3) cannot be sustained.

Relationship is not a factor to affect credibility of a witness.

Dalip Singh & Ors. vs.State of Punjab, AIR 1953 SC 364,
Guli Chand & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan,(1974) 3 SCC 698,
Vadivelu Thevar vs. The State of Madras, AIR 1957 SC 614,
Masalti & Ors. vs. The State of U.P., AIR 1965 SC 202,
The State of Punjab vs. Jagir Singh & Ors. (1974) 3 SCC 277 = AIR 1973 SC 2407,
Lehna vs. State of Haryana, (2002) 3 SCC 76,
Sucha Singh & Anr. vs. State of Punjab, (2003)7 SCC 643 = 2003(6) JT SC 348,
Israr vs. State of U.P., (2005) 9 SCC 616
S. Sudershan Reddy & Ors. vs. State of A.P., (2006) 10 SCC 163 = AIR 2006SC 2716
Abdul Rashid Abdul Rahiman Patel & Ors. vs. State ofMaharashtra JT 2007 (9) SC 194,
Waman and Others vs. State of Maharashtra(2011) 7 SCC 295,
State of Haryana vs. Shakuntla and Others, (2012) 5 SCC171,
Raju @ Balachandran & Ors. vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 2012 (11) Scale357,
Subal Ghorai & Ors. vs. State of West Bengal, (2013) 4 SCC 607.

HELD:  we are of the view that the conviction and the ultimate sentence in respect of the appellant (A-3) cannot be sustained. We are satisfied that both the courts below failed to take note of the fact that
the medical evidence has not supported the version of the prosecution in respect of the appellant (A-3) and in fact contrary to the evidence of PWs 1 & 3, therefore, the conviction and sentence of the appellant is liable to be set aside. The conclusion of the High Court that the appellant along with others attacked the deceased with intention to cause injuries is without any basis and not supported by acceptable evidence. Therefore, the conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC insofar as the appellant is concerned is liable to be set aside.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *